SouthernMan

Another hot button issue for me. Thanks for bringing it up. Yes, it should be a Saturday night event. Back in the day (70's & 80's), when kickoff occured sometime before 4pm, we used to gather for great superbowl parties. Sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, the powers that be got the brilliant idea to make it a later, Sunday night game. With the late start and extended halftime extravaganza, the games go on past 10pm EST. C'mon - it's Sunday night. That's the time we traditionally wind down the weekend and get psychologically geared towards Monday morning and anticipation of heading back to the old grind. Unless the home team is involved, a huge portion of fans east of the mississippi aren't bothering to attend or host superbowl parties anymore. The last superbowl party I attended involved the Rams and Titans. Maybe it can be partially attributed to just getting older, but if the game were in the afternoon, or on Saturday night, I'd be there. I'd love to celebrate with other fans, but I don't want to be getting home at 11pm on Sunday night. Hooray for the west coasters who get the game started at 3:40! Y'know - the folks who can barely support any team. L.A. - former home to 3 current NFL teams. Anyway, I'm with you. But, it'll never happen. As previously stated, it all comes down to money, and in this case, the host cities would lose big if everyone checked out on Sunday. On the other hand, maybe a lot of them would check in a day earlier. Who knows? Now, if they could just do something about those stupid halftime shows that are tailored for the viewer who doesn't know what "1st and goal" means.

Maybe. In all honesty, I take the liberterian position of "do whatever you want to do so long as it doesn't cause a murder". I personally don't like it, but I also don't care if people want to smoke it. If it were legal, that'd be fine with me. But on the other hand, it sort of provides a dividing line of who is a mature professional and the ones that want to remain dorm room stoners. Why is it necessary? Is their life so full of stress they need to relax with a big fat spliff? C'mon - these guys are physically working off their stress on the practice field. And unlike many of us, they really shouldn't have any money worries. If it were my team, me preference would be to have a squad of players who have their head on straight and don't feel a need to alter their state of consiousness. I've got a feeling that the need to partake in smoking dope is probably a good indicator of their character and level of maturity. For that reason, I'd rather not have dopers on the team. Besides, it is still illegal.

Looks like a CB. Reminds me (in looks) a little bit of former Bills CB - #29, Derrick Burroughs.

The Bengals version and Bills version are only connected because of their close proximity in history, otherwise there's really no connection. They were two different things. AS pointed out previously, the Bengals employed a "sugar" huddle, though legal, was not within the spirit of the game. It was a sneaky way to keep the defense confused about the offensive personnel. The offense would have too many men in the huddle before the excess players ran to the sidelines, thereby preventing a defensive substitution and hopefully creating mismatches. Yes, Marv (and others) cried foul, and the rules were subsequently changed to make the tactic illegal by NFL rules. The Bills, on the other hand, kept the same personnel on the field. There was no trickery involved. It was built on the premis of creating mis-matches with it's superior skill players at an accelerated pace. It was a fast break offense that evolved after O-coordinator Ted Marchibroda noticed how efficient the Bills offense had been in two-minute drill situations. With Kelly acting as field general, the team seemingly moved the chains at will. This was first detected in the 1990 season, and (IIRC) officially unveiled against the Eagles in the 12th game of the season. Levy always credited it's success to the talents of the personnel rather than the system. Thurman's superior knowledge of the offense was combined with his ability to pick up blitzes, catch passes coming out of the backfield, and of course run. Obviously the TE Keith McKeller (the "K" in K-gun) was a big part of it too. The Bills continued with the tactic as a regular part of the offense in 1991. The Colts and others have run successful no-huddle offenses. Elway was also a master of the two-minuite drill. What seperated Buffalo's offense was their ability to incorporate it on a fairly regular basis, not just as an occasional gimmick or changeup. I may be biased, but I've never seen it executed with the level of efficiency with which the early 1990s Bills worked it.

Sure, no more worry about LA, but what if there's some St.Louis group that wants the Bills to fill the abandoned stadium!

Interesting that Kelly and Marino have houses on the market around the same period. Marino's crib is priced at around 26 times what Kelly's sold for.

When those teams drafted their OT prospects, were they "sure they could sign" them? How much more $$ is Peters getting than guys drafted in the top 10? They command huge money, but often don't have immediate rewards. I don't by the "own system" argument. Didn't the rookies come from a differenbt system at their respective schools? How many types of OTs are there? It's not a QB we're talking about here. Moss had some baggage and was throught to be near the end of his career. Who knew the hook-up with Brady would give him new life? I'm sticking to my belief that Peters is overrated. Not saying he sucks or anything like that, I just don't see him as the top L OT in the league as some have portrayed him. I honestly don't think the dropoff on the left side is going to be that noticeable. It's not as if whoever is playing there will be a human totempole, incapable of blocking anyone. Maybe the Bills have high hopes for some of the younger guys. I'll be keeping an eye on Demetrius Bell, who did everything expected of him in training camp and preseason last year, and didn't look at all out of place, even when matched up against some of the opponent's first team defense. Judging from the projected o-line for 2009, I think the Bills' philosophy is to develop a line with good intelligence, a similar mindset , and the hope of building great chemistry so they can act as a single unit. (see: Bills O-line, late '80s-early 1990s)

Sorry to belabor the Jason Peters topic, but the recent statements regarding the Eagle's offensive line cram course got me thinking again about his actual ability as compared to his perceived prowess on the field. If Jason Peters is so highly regarded as a pro-bowl level offensive tackle, why didn't one of the teams that drafted an OT in the first 8 picks of the 2009 draft, offer up that pick for Peters? Everyone knows that there is no "sure thing" in the NFL draft. Peters was already a proven commodity. Less risk, right?Peters is NFL-ready. The drafted OTs will likely have a learning curve as they become acclimated to the ways of the NFL. Assuming they have the ability and drive, it may take the rookies a year or two (at least) to reach Peter's supposed pro-bowl level of playing. The teams that drafted the high first round OTs will early on be paying huge bucks for the player's potential rather than for on field performance. The player will make rookie mistakes at the expense of the team owner's bank account. With Peters, it's pretty much plug & play - immediate return on the dollar - right? It's not as if Peters has his best days behind him. He's still young, in his prime, and should have several more years of productivity to offer. So why then, did not one of the teams drafting an OT in the first 8 picks offer up that #1 for Peters? Additionally, there was another OT taken at #24. That's 4 OTs taken before the #28 (and later picks) we got for Peters. Is his "greatness" a rumor or an over-exaggeration that has snowballed following repeated praise? Ruben Brown was a guy whose reputation preceded him. Great guy and all, one of my all-time favorites, good player with a few great seasons, but let's face it - there were superior guards left out of the February trip to Hawaii when Ruben became an annual participant in the probowl. Could Peters have been the benefactor of similar reputation enhancement? OK - so Peters was a little rusty coming into the season last year after holding out. Still, if he's so great, why did he suck so bad in pass protection in the early going. He looked like a revolving door in those games. I don't know how many sack/pressures he was presonally responsible for, but I believe it was more than just a couple. I'd give him some slack for the holdout, but his "greatness" should have made up for some of it. Here's what I'm getting at: Maybe he isn't that great afterall. I wonder if the Bills pulled a fast one by dumping him on the Eagles for those draft picks. If he's so outstanding, why didn't one of the teams taking an early round OT offer the pick for the proven probowler? The only conclusion I can draw is that he's not as highly regarded among NFL personnel people as he is in the media. Thoughts?

I was...uh... time traveling. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. I have a Time Tunnel in my basement...yeah, that's it... a Time Tunnel. Oops.

I was at that game also. At the time, I lived in Atlanta (still do). Me and my Bills buddy drove up for the game, stayed the entire week visiting with friends and family, then, the following Sunday left early for Atlanta - BUT, the Bills were playing in Cincinatti in week 2. Cinci is exactly the halfway point between Buffalo and Atlanta. We drove the 6½-7 hours from Buffalo to Cinci, watched the Bills lose (again), got in the wagon after the game, and drove the rest of the way to Atlanta. A long day for sure. How many people (fans) do you know outside of the press that saw Kelly's first 2 games in person? Side note: went to game opener in 2009, as I usually do. Went with childhood friend of about 40 years (also with me at the '86 game and several others). His father was a classmate in art school with Jonathan Winters. The weather forecast for the the 2009 opener called for a perfect day, with rain moving in later in the day. Naturally, we ditched the rain gear. Needless to say, we all got soaked. Where's Tom Jolls when you need him. My friend caught pnemonia. May have contributed to his demise 2 months later. That was his last game ever. Both Winters and his father are still living.

You do realize that he came up in the same draft as Eric Moulds, right? Father time waits for no one. Harrison included.

I was brought up on professional football. College is typically played on Saturdays, and since for me, it's always been kind of a chores-around-the-house or running errands day, I never bothered to sit and watch Saturday games or develop any kind of allegiance. Sunday has always been the day I feel I've earned for myself after all the work is done, and in the Fall, that means Bills football. The thing I've never been able to grasp about college ball is the talent disparity between opponents that taint the season schedule. Princeton against Florida State - why bother? Also, too many teams and too much attrition. The one I know college enthusiasts will disagree with is my contention that it's inferior. The talent level is not even close as compared to the pros. Is Women's basketball as popular as the NBA? Of course not - it's an inferior product. They're participants are not the best of the best. Any big fans of AHL hockey here? Hey, if I had nothing better to do, I might watch a few games, but I'm not one of those sports couch potatoes who can sit and watch any and all sporting events all weekend long. The vast majority of college football players will never play organized football again after the final whistle blows in their last collegiate game. Why would I want to watch a bunch of State Farm sales agent prospects when there's plenty of top skill level action from NFL exposure. I appreciate that there's a loyal following for the college game, but I don't care if there was never another one played.

This is the one that has always been a sore spot for me. On a serious note: When the NFL had a chance to make sweeping changes (for the longtern good of the league) going into the 21st century, they totally blew it, in my opinion. They had a great opportunity to follow college ball's example of regional rivalries, allowing more fan travel, inter-city commerce, full stadiums, etc. I mean, UGA and Florida is a great rivalry because of demographics and proximity. Florida, and say, Iowa, just wouldn't be the same. This SHOULD have been the division set up as far as I was concerned: Buffalo Detroit Pittsburgh Cleveland Atlanta Tampa Bay Jacksonville Miami NYG NYJ New England Philadelphia Washington Baltimore Tennessee Carolina Cincinnati Indianapolis Chicago Green Bay St Louis Kansas City Minnesota Denver Dallas Houston New Orleans Arizona San Diego Oakland San Francisco Seattle

Isn't it enough that our beloved Bills lost 4 in a row? Why set us up for more embarrassment? I can see it now....... It's early February in Buffalo, the superbowl is played in Orchard Park - where they have enough hotel rooms for maybe 5000 people. A blizzard comes off the lake and dumps 40 inches of snow along the lakefront. The 50ish wife of a Houston area CEO has her game ticket in her fur coat, but she may not make it if the rental car won't start. The locals from the southside suggest that she should wait for an NFT bus and "pogey" to the stadium. How many times would they repeat that story on ESPN? We're talking here about a city that's been "planning" a waterfront project for 30 years and can't even manage to build a goddamned bridge to go across the Niagara River.

Blasphemy! As a reader and participant of The Stadium Wall, I believe you're supposed to hate Dierdorf. Actually, I agree with you. For years, I've read TSWers blast the guy. Because of it, I've deliberately looked back at some of the recorded games with him as commentator, and tried, actually tried to find something that would make him so disliked by the readers of this forum. I can't figure it out. He seems very fair, even-handed, and has good insight into the game. There may be some things he says that you don't agree with, but do you expect to be 100% in lockstep with anyone? Why have the sound on if that's your wish? Do your own commentary! It's certainly your right to dislike Dan, or anyone else for that matter, but I'm curious - what has he said that has brought such distain from the "Dierdorf haters". Same thing is true in regard to Mel Kiper. Doesn't get a lot of love from youse guys. Granted, he's not very charismatic and doesn't have that instant likeability factor that TV holds so dear, but he's without question very knowledgeable about college prospects - at least far more than any of the rummys here who criticize him incessently. Keep in mind, even the professionals who work in their respective NFL team personnel departments have on occasion misjudged some talent. It's not an exact science, but I think Kiper has done a great job of reporting the pros and cons of prospects, and providing a viewpoint that can be enlightening and entertaining. But the original question is a good one. Who do you like? Who in the sports commentating world is universally held in high regard? Seems everyone outside of Van Miller has been the victim of TSWs insults.

Lots of good points made by previous posters. Bills were probably the best team in 1990. The next year, 1991, Redskins had a fluke year with so-so QB Mark Rypien playing like a future HOFer. And yes, the Cowboys of '92 &'93 were possibly the best all-around teams ever. They all matured together at just the right time. Great job by Cowboys personnel staff of assemblying a team after trading Herschel Walker to Vikes for multiple draft picks. You can say it was a "gimme" by the Vikes, but the bottom line is the Cowboys made the most of those picks. I don't think your original question has been fully answered..... It seems to be the "in" thing to say that the AFC was weaker, but in reality, it was simply more balanced. There weren't as many crappy teams and the power was more evenly distributed. In the NFC, it was more a case of the haves and have nots. There were a few dominating teams like the 49er's, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys. There were far more celler-dwellers like perennial losers: Lions, Cardinals, Eagles, Packers, Bears, Bucs, Falcons, Rams. The handful of dominant NFC teams had a bunch of NFC punching bags throughout the regular season and sometimes as their gateway to the superbowl. The Bills dominated NFC teams in regular season matchups from 1988 through the early 1990s. The Bills and 49er was the dream matchup that never was. Either the Bills or 49ers were in most of the superbowls during the mid 80's through mide 90s, though sadly, they never faced each other in the big game. As everyone knows, the Giants game, XXV, is the one the Bills let get away. There was only one week between the Champoinship game and the Superbowl. I don't think the Bills players ever came down from the high of dominating the Raiders in the AFC Championship game 7 days earlier, and actually started believing their own press clippings, forgetting they still had to play the game of their lives to win the thing. Had they gone in with more of an underdog mentality (as the Giants did), they may have won it. I'm not superstitious, but sometimes it just feels like Buffalo is cursed. If any city would appreciate a world championship, it would be Buffalo.

Stupid poll. That's like asking, "what's better - a Travis Henry booger or an Antwoine Smith turd"?

Sadly, our US government is following the same model that has NY and California going to hell. Can the rest of us be far behind with Obamanomics supporting every move towards socialism? Soon, we'll all be answering to the federal government instead of the other way around (as it was intended). "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jefferson

A 'tweener in the mold of former Bills 1st rounder Erik Flowers. Great potential - to be another in the long line of Bills 1st round busts. Least see if they can make it two in one year!

I guess I didn't make my point very clear. Y'all are like broken records. My point was this simple: If I'm NFL team x and I'm going to draft an OT with (e.g.) the # 8 overall pick - why not trade for Probowl OT Jason Peters instead of an unknown college kid who's going to command big $$ anyway? If I'm playing the odds, Peters is the sure bet (with the presumption that the "experts" are correct regarding his probowl stature). It was somewhat of a rhetorical question guys. I was making the argument that Peters doesn't live up to his hype. The answer is fairly obvious...... If NFL team X or somebody else thought he was more worthy than their up and coming draft pick, they would have made the trade. Conclusion: Peters is overrated and may not be that difficult to replace.

By "risk" I meant we know he's not going to be bust in the NFL. That's always a possibility with a draftee. Remember can't miss pick Mike Williams? I agree with you about Peters. I'm playing devil's advocate in my statement. The so-called experts are the ones saying he's one of the best OTs in football. Using that criteria, rather than my own lowly opinion, the Bills made a bad deal.

Ok...I'm glad to be rid of the Jason Peters distraction, and I think his value is overrated. The Bills were winning without him last year, he was a revolving door his first few games, and Chambers and Bell seem to have a lot of upside as potential replacements. So I'm not as enamored with Peters the player as many experts. But I'm not the expert. The experts think he's one of the top OTs in the NFL. So how was this a good trade if he can't be replaced equally with the #28 pick? Ok, yeah, they got a 4th rounder too. Big deal. What are the chances that'll turn into an impact player? I don't even want to hear about the longshot 6th rounder from next year's draft. Camp fodder in all liklihood. We trade our first rounders and end up with players like JP Losman or Drew Bledsoe. We trade a probowl OT and get what is barely a first round pick? WTF? Here's where it doesn't make sense to me: If the top OT out of college is taken with a pick, say, in the top 10 or 15 (and they probably will be), isn't Peter's worth greater than the rookie OT taken early in the draft? Peter's is still young and in his prime, won't require any learning curve, and is a known commodity (no risk). So, why wouldn't the team with the coveted OT on it's board approach the Bills and offer their higher than # 28 pick for Peters? I mean, if OT is their top need, wouldn't it be a better bang for the buck to get Peters? Why then is the # 28 pick a good deal for the Bills? I think the Bills blew it. I believe they could have waited until draft day and made a better deal with a team looking to draft for their OT need. It could have been real sweet to have drafted 2 immediate impact players early in the draft. I'll cross my fingers they find one at #28, but it's more likey to be someone in the James Hardy category. Typical.

The Bills won all their ealy games last year without Peters. Chambers played well and hasn't reached his full potential. Demetrius Bell shows great promise, if his early showing last year is any indication. If tradong Peters meant the Bills could finally get a shot at a franchise pass rushing DE to presure opposing QBs and/or DT to plug the middle - yeah, I'd pull the trigger in a heartbeat. Let's hypothetically reverse the situation for a moment...... Assume Jason Peters plays for some other team. Imagine now that the Bills have a stud (or at least above average) DE and DT who help the Bills D keep a spot as a top 10 defense in the league. Knowing you had an adequate left OT (in Chambers or Bell), would you be willing to trade your 2 defensive standouts for Jason Peters? Obviously, there's no guarantee that 2 defensive draft picks will become the defensive anchors or powerhouses, but on the other hand, there's no guarantee Peters won't become a thorn in the Bills' side. I'd take the chance to upgrade the defense. In a year full of promise going into the season, the turmoil he caused last year should be reason enough to consider sending him elsewhere.

Seems only appropriate that Seth would be the "Head" writer - not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's be real nice if these sort of posts included a link. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/articl...336/1007/SPORTS