Casey D

If Buffalo wins Sunday, and the Jets lose, Buffalo will be in the playoffs by 4 PM on Sunday. At that point, if Denver beats the Colts, they will be the 5 seed, Buffalo 6 and going to Indy. On the other hand, if the Colts were to defeat Denver, Buffalo would be the 5 seed and go to SD, and the Colts will get the Jets. So in planning for this week's games--even assuming that the Colts may try and "pick" their playoff opponent--they won't know what to do(win or lose), assuming they want to avoid the Bills as is being speculated. So unless they are glued to the TV sets gaming this out right before they take the field in Denver--which I doubt--then the "tank the game" strategy could well backfire if it is intended to draw a weaker opponent than Buffalo ...CD

Bulger is playing, Philly has lost TO and cannot lose McNabb or Westbrook, so the Rams are 3 point favs. I think you'll see a good game out of the Rams tonight...CD

Give it a rest. The Bills have been aided immeasureably the last few weeks by other teams. This past week, everyone was sure JAX was in, then they get clobbered by Houston. Baltimore was beaten twice the past two weeks, KC destroyed Denver last week. The only ways the Bills could be in better shape--given their own miserable start--was if Denver lost to Tennessee, which has about 4 players left. The Bills put themselves in their current situation, no one else. That said, I like our chances. Of the teams we have been trying to catch, Denver and the Jets are the weakest. Would you like to be pulling for Miami to win at Baltimore this week, or Oakland beating JAX?--I don't think so. Denver is falling apart, I don't care about them beating Tennessee. They lost to Oakland at home(another big help for the Bills by the way), were ripped by KC, and barely beat Miami at home. Indy can beat them with their "B-" game, and if the starters play for part of the game, I think Indy's backups can beat Jake Plummer. Would you prefer Cleveland or SF? As to the Jets, they will be ripped in the media all week in NY after yesterday. I have as good an arm as Pennington, and if the Rams can right the ship tonight against Philadelphia--and I think they will given that the oddsmaker has made them 3 point FAVORITES against a 13-1 team--they just might be the greatest show on turf for one more day against the Jets. Of course, the Bills still have to win. And I suppose it is unfair that the Steelers will play Maddox instead of Roethlisberger? Thought not. Bottom line, the Bills are in an extremely fortunate position for a team that was 0-4 and 3-6. Rather than complain about teams throwing games(oh, and remember how Levy would rest players when their opponent needed a win to make the playoffs--it's part of the game to do what is best for your team, not help others who started 0-4) , enjoy this week because it is way more interesting than anybody would have thought on November 20..... CD

Those stats do not include this year. Bledsoe passed Montana Sunday, to move to 7th on the list all-time...CD

Yes, based on a better record against common opponents...

Absolutely, the O-line is much better, but that does not mean it is good. The interior of the line in particular is inconsistent, which is better than before--consistently bad. But the interior line is not strong enough to beat an 8 man front with any consistency.

Good post...CD

I think people are ignoring the weather conditions in evaluating the offense's play over the past two weeks, as well as the game situation. The wet and cold against Cleveland, and the bitter cold and wind against Cincinnati, was hardly condusive to a great passing game. Moreover, the Bills were well ahead in both games, and the objective of the offense primarily was to kill clock, and not to f#@! up. They did that just fine. When the offense needed to shine, and with better weather conditions--as in the Rams and Miami game--they did. In Miami, the D was not good, it was the offense that primarly saved the day. I think Bledsoe is managing the offense well. He has made some huge plays at critical times, e.g., two flea flickers to Evans, and is playing well in a system that emphasizes defense and special teams. They are not winning because of him, but they are winning because he is playing his role well in a team effort. Not to mention, the team likes him alot, and play hard for him...CD

Baltimore, Jax and Denver would all have to lose both their remaining games for the Bills to get in at 9-7. Jets already have 10 wins, so they would beat us, of course...CD

So in your scenario, Jax would be #5 seed, Buffalo #6, and Jets out. If Buffalo finished 9-7, and everything else in your scenario remained constant, Jets would be #5 seed, and Jax #6.

Ties are broken w/i the division first, and then between divisions. If Buffalo and Jets both finish 10-6, then we finish 2nd in Division and Jets 3rd. The Jets don't get to use their inter-division tiebreaker unless and until we get into the dance first. That's how it works...CD

Correct, if Jets, Baltimore, Jax and Denver all win this week--week 16. Realistically, if Baltimore wins on the road and sweeps Pittsburgh this week, I doubt they will lose at home to Miami in Week 17. As to Jax and Denver, it seems to me week 16 and 17 losses are about equally likely. Jets could drop 2, losing to NE would not be a shock, and the Rams are much better at home, and should have Bulger back for week 17.

The Bills won handily, and we got the two biggest losses we needed from the teams with better records(Balt and Denver). Jax winning made the day not perfect, but it is much easier to take because they were already 7-6. Baltimore or KC winning and we were on life support, particularly Baltimore. Baltimore must lose to Pitt, and that takes care of them(assuming we go 10-6). Jets lose to NE-- go to 10-5. That means we need some luck to get 2 of 3 things we still need, another Jets loss at Rams, and a single loss from Jax and Denver. Denver is fading, I think they find a way to lose somehow. So that leaves hoping Jax to lose to either Houston or Oakland, or the Jets losing to Rams. Jax already has lost to Houston and Tennessee, while beating Indy and at GB, so they are the wild card here(no pun intended). But they are inconsistent enough to make a letdown from yesterday possible, so we have reason to be hopeful...CD

IF we run the table, and the Jets lose to NE, and either St. Louis or Seattle, we would finish 2nd in the East, ahead of the Jets...CD

About Johnson, what you now say you said back in 1998-99 is just not true. You were jihad-like in your crusade for Johnson, and vicious against Flutie. Some of your posts were so vitriolic they were literally incomprehensible. Your suggesting that all you said was give RJ a chance, is equivalent to saying that Hitler had nothing against Jews, he just was not fond of religions other than his own. You were truly a Johnson fanatic in the days of the Johnson-Flutie wars. How correct were you about Rob Johnson? Careful now, we could look it up... CD

ICE is the guy back in 1998-99 who maintained that Rob Johnson was the second coming of Johnny Unitas, and that it was an outrage we were retarding his development by playing Flutie. Now he is saying the same thing with Losman and Bledsoe, in the Johnson and Flutie roles respectively. And just like he was sure about Johnson, he is sure about Losman. So when the Bills win with Bledsoe, it upsets him because it indicates his expert analysis might be wrong. So although he'll say the PC thing--he's happy the Bills won--in fact he wants them to fall apart so he can blame Bledsoe and prove that he is an expert at evaluating QBs. Thus his negativity. Oh, and if the team goes to the playoffs at some point with Bledsoe, he will, in Orwellian fashion, claim that Bledsoe was the man all along. Because he turned on Johnson like a rabid dog in 2000-01, once he understood he was wrong about Johnson's skills. So don't worry too much about his views, it's really much more about him than the team.

Fair enough, perhaps there are not even exceptions, which further strengthens the point...CD

The big rush to start Losman. If the Bills finish, say 9-7, meaning 9-3 over the last 12 games with Bledsoe at the helm, why would you want Losman to start in 2005? With a 9-3 finish, something like 11-5 would seem quite possible for 2005. Unless you were certain there would be no drop-off in play from Bledsoe to Losman--which seems highly unlikely when you look at the play of many 1st round QBs early in their careers(I know there are exceptions, but they are exceptions, e.g. Roethlisberger)-- why would you want to jeopardize that, when the team has not been to the playoffs for 5 years. I understand getting Losman experience would be great, but not if it cost the Bills a couple of games and the playoffs next year. It seems evident that this team is coming together with Bledsoe at the helm. I doubt that will change unless Bledsoe shows regression again, but not until. Losman can wait.

You would think we would get more from a hand picked interim leader.

Another invasion?

The apparent reason is that when they went through Al Qaqaa in late March or early April(2-3)--the facility is about 35 miles south of Bagdad--they were in a hurry, and finding no WMD, kept on moving to Bagdad. With a relatively small force, there was not enough manpower to secure the facility. When they returned 10 days later, most everything had been looted.

Although I am technologically challenged to provide a link to MSNBC, here is a quote from its website for those who are interested: "At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S. led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity."

Although the veracity of the WH is not in question, there are problems with the WH timeline on the missing weapons. The WH relies on an NBC report of April 10 2004 that the weapons were already gone by that time. That is what CNN is reporting. Other sources show, however, that US troops reached Al Qaqaa in March, and the weapons were there. That is why NBC itself is not reporting the story that CNN is reporting. At that point(March 2004), the site was not secured. When troops returned in April, the weapons were gone. But as the WH has also said, this is no big deal anyway, there are lots of weapons in Iraq, so I guess this is OK.

Reading more about this, the administration was not even informed until 10/15/04 that the explosives were missing, based on news accounts. So if this old news, it only indicates you are more in the loop on this than the WH, which I hope is not the case.

Oh OK---it was the branching out part that confused me. But I must say, bloated bureaucracies or not, securing 380 tons of some of the world's most powerful conventional explosives seems like a pretty obvious thing to do. That is especially true since the whole war was predicated on securing WMD. I mean, if we had found Sarin gas or nuclear devices, would we have left them unsecured. I guess this seems to me--and I'm no expert-- a major error. And one that has left the world in much greater danger, given that just one pound of this stuff brought down Pan Am 103. Multiply that amount by 760,000 times, and knowing it is strong enough to detonate a nuclear device---gosh, you would thing we were more competent than that to just leave it lying around.