ieatcrayonz

At first I thought this was crazy kids. Then I thought it was scary. Now I have listened closely and you should too. The line that convinced me was: Honestly, throughout history, what teenager hasn't been a sucker for simplification of paperwork for health care providers? Some may think it naive that all these children believe provider paperwork can be simplified, but these children have taught me to dream big. I am now an Obama supporter. Where do I order the pants? P.S. I have let go of Tancredo and Edwards although I hold out hope that they will both be part of an Obama administration. P.P.S. I reserve the right to change my mind if I see another hot looking picture of Sarah Palin.

I agree. A side benefit is that he would make Edwards almost seem masculine.

Where did you get this information from? They are in different states, committed different crimes and Henry has not even been convicted. This seems like a longshot at best.

If they really wanted to intimidate people do you think they would have put the tubby kid in front?

Porcelain doll. I am not into racial stereotypes.

I erased and ignored the vulgar parts of your post and will only respond to the ignorant parts. I did not say the Bills should try to lose, only that we should root for them to lose. Lo and behold, they will be tied with the Pats if the Pats beat SD next week. OOOPS. No they won't be tied. The Bills will be ahead due to tie breaker.

This is a classic way of showing you have a crush on her.

They needed to shorten the game. You do that by killing clock. You can't kill the clock when you are getting turnovers because that gives the ball to JP. He can't sustain drives. As I said, it was a risky manuver. It didn't pay off. That is the nature of risk.

Exactly. That kills clock. Don't get me wrong. I don't think they let them get the TDs on purpose.

It's not ideal but all we have to go on. You have to admit....he was looking good.

Think about it. The Bills were trying to take time off the clock by sustaining drives like they do every week. Only this week they had to do it with defense. It's risky but it was worth the risk. If they stopped the Cards in the red zone they would have won the game.

Maybe I didn't explain it right. I think the Bills D stayed on the field for long stretches on purpose. They wanted to shorten the game by giving each team fewer possessions. With Trent in, they would not have done this. They just didn't want JP to have to handle the O. It would have been a brilliant strategy if they could have stopped the scoring.

I hate to say I told you so but this is definitely a good loss for the Bills. Not only is it a wake up call but the loss helps with tie-breaker scenarios. If NE beats San Diego next week, the Bills will still lead the division due to tie breakers. With a bunch of NFC wins, they would not be in this position down the road.

Basically, it is that Trent is more fragile than 73.4% of porcelain dolls. I think yesterday's hit would have knocked out 100% of porcelain dolls so I don't think you can pin that on Trent's obvious frailty. The overall point of the post had to do with people knocking the D when they were just implementing a "JP Strategy".

Well the two Trent fumbles that led to scores were definitely his fault. But yesterday a guy ran right by him and tackled JP at the 2. That one is on JP because he hung on to the ball which means he saw the guy coming. Overall he was better yesterday until JP came in. Hopefully the trend continues once Trent is back.

I know it is not a Grateful Dead song but this thread reminded me. Eric Clapton wrote and performed "Tears in Heaven" just before he died. He knew he was going. Very sad. As for the Grateful Dead I don't really like them because of all the hippies but I do like the songs "Shakedown Street" and some others.

He is definitely as frail as 73.4% of porcelain dolls. But I don't think you can expect any QB to get up from THAT hit. I don't think it was a symptom of being injury prone. The "deep thigh bruise" was and I'm sure there will be many, many more, but this was not one.

There is something being missed in all the analysis of why the Bills lost yesterday. Some are blaming the defense and some JP. Before someone starts in, I don't think you can blame Trent. A lot more than 73.4% of porcelain dolls would have been knocked out by that hit. If you were objective and only looking at the surface, you would have to blame the defense. They NEVER got off the field on 3rd down until the 2nd half and rarely then. But if you did that you'd be failing to understand the strange strategy they employed once Edwards went down. The defense had a great third down rate all year and yesterday they can't even make ONE stop? It may not be obvious, but that was on purpose. The Bills went into "bend but not break" mode to try and shorten the game. By letting the Cards stay on the field, they kept JP off. They would not have done this to Trent. The part that is really the defenses fault is that when they had to stop the score, they could not. You can't give them 100% of the blame for that, because they had put their own backs to the wall on purpose. Most of the fault has to go on JP's shoulders. In summary, I would blame the time of possession stat 100% on JP. I would split the overall blame for the loss 85% JP, 15% defense.

Dude. And in my second post I pointed out that: Piece it together.

Dude. Answer these questions: 1. Are there or are there not frequent ties for playoff spots? 2. If you are an AFC team in a tie would you rather have a 4-0 or a 2-2 record against NFC teams? Get it now?

I was replying to you with that post but you must have erased your original while I was typing. I thought you must have begun to understand so you erased it but I guess not. I think my explanation still holds. Your logic doesn't make any sense because any record could result in a tie.

Not really. It won't hurt them in the division tiebreaker but it won't help them either. Let's say they end up tied with an 11-5 record. If they have a better head to head or division record then they are ok. If they have a worse record then they'll lose out. But if that record is tied the Bills will be screwed because they would have won all of their NFC games and therefore less AFC games.

Dude. Parity is reality and no team is easy to beat. It is almost inevitable that there will be several ties for playoff positions. The Bills are in a really bad position on tie breakers already. They are 2-0 against NFC opponents and will probably beat San Fran when they play them. That puts them at 3-0. This means if they win this week, they will end up losing just about any tie-breaking scenario as the NFC games count less. They might do ok within the division but if they are tied for a wild card or home field they are in big trouble. This sounds weird, but if you want the Bills to make the playoffs, you should root for them to lose this week.

As I mentioned in another thread, winning this game would hurt our tie breaker situation. I hadn't thought of it, but the Cardinals winning hurts their tie breaker position as well. That ought to make things interesting.

So it has nothing to do with priests trying to lay altar boys? My bad.