SectionC3

I believe that we won the toss and "deferred" our choice of ball/wind to the second half. Basically, the way to get the wind in the fourth quarter is to win the toss and take the ball. The team that loses the toss then chooses the "wind" for the first half. The process is basically repeated in the second half, with the team that lost the toss choosing to take the ball or the wind in a particular quarter (I guess they could elect to simply kick, too, but not even we are dumb enough to do that). The long and short of it is, assuming we won the toss yesterday (I couldn't hear, but I thought we did), we should have taken the ball to start the game. Cleveland then would probably have taken the wind in the first quarter, and the ball at the start of the second half (lest it give us an extra possession). We then would have had the wind in the fourth quarter. None of this, of course, makes a difference because the Bills are terrible and the season is effectively over. Hopefully whoever the next coach is won't consistently put the defense on the field to start the game - we seem to like to do that, even though it generally gives away the wind and puts us in danger putting the offense behind before it even steps on the field.

I don't knock whatever it is that you do.

I take offense at your statement. I worked my *ss off to get through law school and spend every day I work in the legal profession wresting with what is the RIGHT thing to do. I work nights, I work early mornings and I work weekends to try and do what's RIGHT, and most attorneys I know do the same thing. There are certainly some bad apples out there, but most attorneys absolutely do not fit the arrogant, over-opinionated mold in which you try to place them. The reality is, they're worried about their clients and trying to do their best so that the person or people they passionately represent don't get the short end of the stick. I can't speak to the average "size" of an attorney's "junk," but, based on your "9 out of 10" statement, you seem to be have some experience in that area. How exactly is it that you are so well informed on that issue? Just like it is with cops, everyone (or many people) complain about attorneys until they need one--i.e., until they get the DWI they need to beat or get reduced, or until they get into the accident that prevents them from working.

Aside from a two-word sentence, I agree with this. Leodis is what he is: a guy born to play football, but not design rockets. He screwed up, but calling for his death . . . wow. People need to chill. It's a game - a meaningful game that inspires a lot of passion, but still just a game.

I agree on the first point - wouldn't Detroit have waiver priority based on last year's record anyway??

I think, but don' quote me on this, that they're burning vacation before the fall book starts (the book may have started already - I've been away from that game for a long time now). Once the ratings period begins, there are no vacations. I was thinking last week that GR is much more listenable in the afternoon without one of Schopp or the Bulldog. I usually will not turn on WGR, but I wanted to hear a sports update and left it on through the break while I took a call on my cell. Schopp alone was not that bad (how's that for faint praise), and I thought the same of the Bulldog yesterday. Honestly, though, both are still tough to listen to. Schopp is an arrogant jerk, and while part of it may be an act, I have bumped into him once or twice and found him to be consdescending (which is funny coming from a guy whose contribution to society is yakking on the radio about diversionary things that are nearly inconsequential in the grand scheme of life). Bulldog, on the other hand, is a real salt of the earth guy, but I have found him tough to listen to on a professional level after someone far more astute than I pointed out all of the "ahhhs" "umms" "ugghs" "yeeeaaahs" in his presentation. Greg Bauch is a funny dude, though, and a good guy.

I was thinking about that the other night. I was watching Channel 2 news at 10, and a story about the Jacobs Family's acquisition of some resorts in Australia preceded the weather report by Kevin O'Connell. I couldn't help but wonder what O'Connell was thinking as he started the weather. The victim in the "hammer" attack was a relative of O'Connell's - I believe his sister. I have never heard anything bad about the Jacobs family that isn't associated with a hammer, but I must say that the recent Chris Jacobs fundraiser for a seat on the Buffalo School Board rubbed me the wrong way. I know there are reasons for holding the fundraiser, but he's about the last guy in town who needs the bucks.

You are the man. I can't believe I'm actually watching the T.O. show, but I am. This show has cast Buffalo in a wonderful light, and is probably the best national advertising we've had in years. Talk about a job well freakin' done - excellent work!!

I heard the same thing - second hand, so I don't know the source, but the second hand info is usually right on the mark.

I doubt that Stallworth's insurer is footing the bill for the settlement. Drunk driver = no coverage. Maybe they kick in a little to avoid having to defend a lawsuit, but I'm pretty confident that Stallworth is paying the bulk of the settlement on his own.

"Contempt for the audience" is the best description I have ever heard of Mike Schopp. Some veteran GR listeners may remember Dickerson's cycle - at first people liked him because he was unique and smart (make no mistake - the man is incredibly intelligent), then they got tired of his negativity, but still listened because he aggravated them, and finally they tired of his act turned him off. Two things stick out in my mind re: the Coach: there was a post-game show, and I believe it followed a Dolphins game, where he got NO PHONE CALLS. Crazy, but true. The real sign of the end for him was the "What's wrong with the Coach show" in probably late 2001 or early 2002. He had a fair number of calls, but the sentiment seemed to be that people were just worn out by his act. Schopp isn't there yet, but his time is coming . . . Contempt for his audience is such an elegant, perfect characterization of his act.

Not in the least.

This is not a slap at Paul Daugherty, but having been connected loosely and not-so-loosely to that business for a couple of decades . . . he's lucky to have received a severance package other than a cardboard box in which to have packed his belongings.

I notice absenteeism more in the summer than during football season. I can make 10:30 at Queen of Heaven in West Seneca, stay for the entire Mass and still be in my seat at the Ralph about 30 minutes before kickoff.

The poorly-written headline on the front page of the BNews may be the reason why this thread was started -

Not really. If you're willing to be the guy to stand in the nest with the 60-foot metal rod over your head in a thunderstorm, I bet they would love to have you.

Agreed. If we were the Patriots and we had something going, I would say don't mess it up with this guy. We haven't made the playoffs in a decade, and there's not a ton of hope for next year, so why not?? We're all a lot more excited (good or bad) about the Bills than we were a few days after the season when we learned Jauron was to be retained. The guy is a prima donna, but he doesn't break the law (or at least get caught for it), and you can't knock the work ethic. Let's try something new, and if it doesn't work, at least we went down swinging.

Totally agree. The guy may be a cancer, but there's no life in this team as it is. The guy is a talented whack job, not a criminal. We haven't made the playoffs in a decade and we live with the constant worry of the team moving. Why not try to bring this guy in to help us compete and (maybe) boost both ticket sales and perhaps even luxury sales through Torontonians interested in seeing a bona fide star.

Anti-trust.

What a classy and profound way of expressing your feelings. How impressive. I can hardly wait for your next astute observation or witty vignette. No matter what side of the aisle one is on, the senior Senator from New York will not allow the NFL to remove the Bills from Buffalo. It will not happen.

Two words: Chuck Schumer. This one's not happening.

Realignment is possible, but from what I understand it will mess up the TV contracts and population has to be "traded" properly. I'm not saying it can't work, but finding a partner in the NFC willing to move to the AFC might be tough (absent expansion). As to the list of teams likely to be moved, I don't doubt that Buffalo is in the mix, but I'm convinced that the NFL won't mess with Chuck Schumer on the issue of moving the Bills.