Offside Number 76

And a lot classier. Made his point without getting personal, himself.

I don't think Leinart is that good.

I would much rather watch the Saints-Lions game. And to address the topic, the Pats might have gotten a break on one hands-to-the-face call, but that's not really why they're up 31-0 at the half, is it?

none of us know what he really is, yet.

2 questions: 1. Why no choice for interior linebackers? Are we assuming happiness with the 4-3 and/or Poz as the MLB? 2. Why "OG" and "OC"? Is there another kind of center besides offensive?

brilliantly done

How about this: We still lose, and it's still Jauron's fault. Works for me, as long as there's a change.

(1) The word is "past," not "passed." PAST. How the hell are we supposed to take you seriously? (2) Trent is not afraid to throw past the line of scrimmage.

I generally like Schopp. Today, though, it was almost as if he was blaming the loss on the folks calling in. A number of his remarks weren't just condescending (which usually amuses me); they were downright mean-spirited.

Chapter 3? (EDIT: Later in the day, with more rest...did you mean Chapter 13? That's for folks like you and me. The auto companies have to go through Chapter 11.)

What is wrong with some of you people? A team can't go changing rookie QBs every couple of years and expect success. Where was Eli Manning a few seasons ago? Drew Brees? Hell, what was Kelly's first season like? How about Aikman? (That was no wins in 11 starts; I'll save you all the google search.) Look, Edwards has been far from stellar, but the Bills haven't given a rookie QB a legitimate shot since 1986--and that's if Kelly qualified as a true "rookie." That's a huge problem. It takes time to develop a player at that position. And it's not like they've surrounded their rookie QBs with a lot of talent, either. Yeah, a couple of teams have had some success right out of the gate recently with quarterbacks--New England (I STILL say Brady's a product of the system, and Cassel isn't making that any tougher to believe), and Pittsburgh are the most notable. But the vast majority of the time, it takes a little while. How about some legitimate front-seven men on D, or a tight end who can catch a pass and still remain on his feet? Edwards may or may not be the answer; we don't know yet. I may even be leaning towards "no, he isn't the answer." But there are other players on this team who definitely are NOT NFL-quality starters, and I think the Bills should start there first.

Moorman and soccer. Parrish and track. Peters and competitive eating. Lynch and demolition derby.

A fair amount. Next year will be the first year that Graham will play a lot of his own recruits, but even then, his seniors will be Kragthorpe guys.

It wasn't meant to be a JP vs Trent comparison. Does everyone on this board read that into everything?

Just saw Tulsa pull what I think would be called a "Double Jauron with a Losman Twist," were it a gymnastics maneuver: On fourth-and-9 from the ECU 30, Tulsa can't get the play off, so they call a timeout. After the timeout, they STILL can't get the play off (only 10 men on the field), so they call ANOTHER timeout (their last). When the ball finally is snapped, it's a beautiful 25-yard pass...right to a defensive back.

yep

Amen.

Read above. Several people gave the reasons. You might not like 'em, but why ask what the reasons are, after they've been articulated clearly above?

Exactly. Start having double-digit win seasons, thereby attracting higher quality free agents and creating some optimism in the locker room, and then get someone else for the final push (we all know Marty can't do it). I'd have him here tomorrow if it were up to me.

He would make a good intermediate coach between Jauron and whomever the Bills need to take them to a Super Bowl.

He wasn't negative. He told it like it is.

No. Several posters went through this above.

I think that after a safety, teams punt, rather than place-kick with no tee, to get more air under the ball, thereby diminishing the possibility of a big return. I'm not sure, but it makes some sense.

According to everything I've read, this was a free kick and not a "free play." (And I'm not sure that a half can't end on a punt, either, unless the free kick is used.) The free kick, as above, is an unteed place-kick, drop kick, or punt, with no rush on the kicker. It is allowed after any fair catch (including a kickoff fair catch) and is mandatory after a safety. EDIT: From the NFL digest of rules, it appears that the only way to run a play on an expired clock after a punt or kickoff is to use the free kick after a fair catch. Here's the rule: "If time expires while ball is in play and a fair catch is awarded, receiving team may choose to extend the period with one fair catch kick down. However, placekicker may not use tee." http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/faircatch

Looks like that's the wrong play by play, from what I'm reading elsewhere. It seems the play was the last of the first half, and it looks like nucci has the answer above.