leh-nerd skin-erd

that was nicely done. funny thing is i always remembered the song as 'jimmy crack corn, and i want some.". i have this strange feeling i combined an old negro spiritual with an advertising slogan from my youth. theres a crazy irony in there somewhere. i still think it's relevant, though, because regardless of whatever anyone else thought, jimmy cared. we. are. jimmy.

The truth. His qb hits a couple passes this past Sunday and we're all jimmy crack corn at 6-3.

In the calm light of day, perspective is required. I was losing my mind during the last part of the game as we watched this one slip away. I thought how silly it was to go 4 straight times to the end zone with three minutes or so left. I won't bother trying to offer an opinion on the overall offensive Game plan and what might have been as I'm not a football coach. In the calm light of day, however, if seems obvious to me that the game plan and play calling were both fine. In fact, if should have resulted in a game we win handily. On the td drive & the bb fumble drive, we actually looked like a top tier offense. Everyone was in sync, the reads were good and the passes sharp and crisp. The play when bb fumbled was exceptional right up to the fumble. It was a potential backbreaker against a good chiefs defense. 7 points off the board. The drive at the end that started at the 25, there appeared to be at least two plays that were relatively easy to make but were simply missed. 7 more points that if execution is decent to good, the whole game changes and Hackett looks like a rock star trusting his JD-Swigging game winning qb to do what he does best-pay with some balls and win the game. This one is on the o, not the play caller, at least how it played out. Again, maybe a whole different approach to the game had us blowing them out, but that's a different discussion.

I get your point, I really do. Complaints about the officiating is a waste of time, interestingly, complaints about complaints about the refs are a good use of time. Regardless, I think you're wrong on the numbskulledness of the decision to try and draw the penalty. You're right that everyone knew they were going to try and draw them offside, but it's fairly common in that situation to try just that. The fact is it might have worked perfectly and Henderson just f'd it up. During the game, I can recall two or three times when bills defenders were calling for false start penalties (or seemed to be). I thought there were a couple snaps where the chiefs moved early, but it wasn't called. Maybe they factored that in the decision and did try and draw them off with subtle movement by the big cat. I think it's a good call and if you're not going for it..why not try? It works from time to time. I was ok with the decision to punt there, plenty of time left, not the best place to lose that particular battle in a tight game where the short yardage the chiefs would need to be in position to kick a field goal. Even with as stout as the defense was playing, why even give them a shot at a field goal? Officiating is inconsistent. Sometimes game to game, sometimes play to play. I've never understood why some people think it's a big deal to complain about it.

The games become unwatchable if you look for equity. I stopped even worrying about it recently and it makes the games almost enjoyable. That said-- officials are part of the game and often impact games. Why should they be off limits? Sometimes it's situational. The opi on chandler sucks. If they call it each time, no problem. But, I think everyone agrees that they don't. Game to game, series to series, crew to crew it varies, and it sucks if you're on the wrong side of it, and truly sucks when it happens at critical times in the game.

At least we have Fred and CJ.

In that case, thtf. *they have to fry. Damn, you're right, even when you try to go shorthand it gets complicated.

Even if they shortened it to include LOL? I know that when they spell it out it's a lot more characters.

The question with mcd's really shouldn't be whether or not it was frivolous or not. I'd not characterize it as frivolous at all. It's an oversimplification to say "coffee is hot, so you're on your own". Reasonable questions can be raised and adjudicated. The lady had serious injuries, wanted her day in court and prevailed. The question I have is whether the decision was just and fair. I'm not interested in reliving the case, reading a write up from the website of an attorney, or watching a self-serving documentary. There are enough facts to support any position you choose. For one, I think it should be fairly obvious that ordering coffee to drink in the car, stopping to add cream and sugar while balancing the styrofoam cup near your lap should be recognized as an inherently risky activity. I'd further think a lady 79 years old would know that, presumably having told her children and grandchildren a thousand times or to be careful that something was hot. The jury ultimately decided that she bore little responsibility for her actions, only 20% or so. That seems not quite right to me. From there--as Kirby said earlier--it sometimes all comes back to the overly simplistic mega corporation scalding poor old granny, so someone has to pay! In this case, granny took on Big Coffee and won. As for mcdonalds screwing the pooch by failing to pony up for her medical bills, again, it's an oversimplification to assume they could close things out in that fashion. In theory, it sounds simple. In reality, payment to a claimant at a minimum raises the question that you agree you are responsible for damages caused, and that's a slippery slope to travel. In the end, litigation often boils down less to who is right and who is wrong, but to who can tell the best story most effectively. A 79 year little old lady with burns is a pretty sympathetic individual, and that sure helped her. Bills/text/class action...I'm just not a fan, and the attorneys/plaintiff don't get my respect. Then again they probably don't care.

Or not. But, we would agree she had a right to bring the action, that mcdonalds had a right to defend themselves--- and that when all was said and done, they should have settled. I think from what I know, I would have been inclined to find the lady substantially responsible for her own injury, mcdonalds to a lesser extent. I can understand why mcdonalds chose to roll the bones, but sometimes you take it on the chin when you do. Bills may have been concerned about that.

The point wasn't if the coffee was too hot and mcd's was responsible, or the lady a dumb ass responsible for balancing hot coffee in her lap, or anywhere in between. The point was simply that settling for "millions" of dollars doesn't mean the bills thought it a justifiable lawsuit. The money is all relative to the players involved. My biggest issue--besides some bottom feeders looking for some cash--is folks who look at this as a push for the bills. It's not just $75 per...it's defense costs, lost time in house, etc. The ripple effect can be significant. Then again, it's a dog eat dog world. Lots of folks want a piece of someone else's tasty pie.

And the problem for some is what constitutes fair game. The legal point is valid...and you're right, they had the right to litigate, the bills had the right to fight or settle. The fact that they chose to settle could mean anything from "holy shxt we're going to lose big" to "this is bs and we think the plaintiff is a d:bag but we gotta cut and run". I'd bet it's the latter. To assume settlements aren't made on cases where the defendant feels they might well prevail is naive. Settlement, like the desire to obtain class status, is a tactical consideration. I often think of the little old lady and the hot coffee spillage. In hindsight, McDonalds likely still felt the suit bogus, but from a strategic perspective obviously should have settled.

In today's nfl, I think the guy tried to do something decent. I think it's generally small-minded morons who want to get ina twitter war with sometime over this. I can see then now--talking about how they lit him up on twitter. I do agree that his wife really had to think before jumping in to defend him here. Water of time and energy and just makes him look bad.

I disagree. You don't have to respect anything about the suit, the decision, the payout, the plaintiff or the attorney involved. It's absolutely acceptable to think poorly of the process, perfectly acceptable to think the plaintiff and the attorney involved are ambulance chasers of the highest order. What strike me as odd is that anyone with access to the Internet and the ability to read would walk away thinking "it's only $75, how could it hurt the Bills?".

Near a decade and a half of playoff futility...you can pretty much say that about all 52 states & Canada too.

i actually enjoyed the jets version of hard knocks, and came away seeing how ryan would appeal to certain players. i also thought some of the players seemed like pretty good guys, regular people if you will. i didn't like that feeling because i prefer to be an angry/bitter bills fan where i hate everyone. i stopped watching hard knocks, thought that damn marvin lewis dragged me in a few times.

Hackett should have reminded Chandler to run the route with an emphasis on catching the 3rd and 17. Or reminded orton to get the snap off timely right after the timeout and not take a grounding call late in the game. There's such a fine line between a good/great play call and wtf. I understand the criticism, I really do. I hop on and off that bandwagon every game. I've agreed with the previous poster more often than not this year. At the end of the game I was just happy my kids saw a fun and exciting win. They haven't seen a ton of those in their lifetime. Let's see what BB can do. I'm thinking he's been inactive for a reason but you can always hope you caught lightning in a bottle.

"Execute" is often thrown around as an all-purpose excuse, but I think you're right in this case. The Orton fumble was just brutal--the type of crazy "what were you thinking?" Play we've seen often over the years. Add to that the hogan and woods fumble(s), and the orton pick---those are execution issues at critical times. Any one individually is understandable, but collectively not on the OC.

Eskimos are from Alaska, which is not really close to Elmira. I watch a fair amount of TV, mostly about Alaska. Alaska:the last frontier, Alaska state troopers, and Dog the Bounty hunter (which is pretty much like a hot Alaska). I've never heard of an Alaskan Eskimo baby named Chas. I'm not saying you're making this up, but unless he was only part Eskimo, I think you made this up.

Bengals self destructing. Sad. Drop by tight end is a killer. I think the officials missed a pass inference call on revis and went with holding instead.

Bengals self destructing. Sad. Drop by tight end is a killer. I think the officials missed a pass inference call on revis and went with holding instead.

The d had to "lobby" for that grounding call? ; the easiest call of the night. Hard to see with the officials lips attached to brady's ass.

High Def has changed the game.

Corruption. The only explanation when one official doesn't throw a flag, another does, high Def shows what we all know and they pick up the flag.

On the other hand, it's really just a message board thing. You kick stuff around, give you're opinion, kill some time talking about the bills. I still don't see anything that inflammatory here. On other subjects there are mean spirited attacks on players, insults, etc. I find all that pathetic. In this case, who doesn't want Sammy to be successful?