McD

The closest thing you'll find to an olive branch to this thread: (not that we need one, lol) COOL FACTOID: In the last 27 Super Bowls, 19 of the winners have been the team that had the better defensive ranking while only eight have been the team with the worse defensive ranking. If the same thing were true for the offensive ranking, the cool factoid above wouldn’t mean anything… but it isn’t true. The winner had the better offensive rank 13 times and the worse offensive rank 14 times – a toss up. As you can plainly see, the offensive ranking did not seem to make much difference one way or the other, but the defensive ranking in the Super Bowl game does seem to have an affect. Despite the fact that more points are scored, it’s still true that the fewer a team allows, the better their chances.

Ha ha ha! BS man, you have NO argument! You're only action here is to be part of the internet grammar police, lol!! Oh no.... please own up to your comments. I ask a question and you turn on it? Let me guess... you're taking a creative writing class and you have a bet going that you can use the word "obtuse" more than anyone in the history of public forums... lol. WTF man! I know right? But again, I've not been proven wrong have I? Hardly. Defense wins.

Assuming it's in Buffalo? I'd say congrats, and probably discuss the game. Really, is a tie THAT big of a deal? now if the guy was walking around rubbing peoples faces in it like a dick, I could see that being an issue. If there wasn't a ban on team attire at the dealership, than the boss was an ass for firing him. The guy was a good salesman, and like I said, the boss could have sent him home. The salesman stood by his prinicpals when there was no LEGAL reason for him to change.

Do they? Nope... they don't ALWAYS win SB's, but that's not what the OP said either. Same question... do #1 offenses ALWAYS win SB's? You mean the Steelers great, and better, than Ravens defense?? Yes, I saw that. The better defense won... and?

"Great", BUT not necessary. Do you not see the flaws in your own argument? Anything to debate, eh?

Not so John. I've always acknowledged the need for O, but you don't need a franchise QB to run it. You need an effective QB. Have you forgotten the ass kickings we took in our SB's? We had a dynamite O, but the D... well you know. Yawn... provide something of substance John. Again you all hang your hat on a single player... without regard to the other 21 starters! A single point of failure?? It would be great to have a Rodgers, but there's not another one out there. With a stout D, we'll be much better off that with a reach at QB.

I'm putting on my "Defenses win...PERIOD" tie and you can't make me take it off...

Since I just drove my wife home and I'm facing a 4,765,196 on 1, I'm doing pretty good, thanks. Throw me some stats now John. I think Fitz can, and will, put up better #'s next year. Now this, if anything, is a breathe of fresh air.

And the point can be made that the better defensive team won as well (Pitt ranked #2, NYJ #3 in overall D and Pit ranked #1, NYJ #6 in scoring D) AND won by scoring the game winning points... next?

Defenses do win. I've supported that fact. Deal with it John. Thye comment on Rodgers was to a post raving about all he had accomplished and THAT was why he was considerd a franchise QB to them... my response was "what has he done to warrant that"? Fairly simple. Do I personally think Rodgers is franchise? I think he's well on his way and is playing lights out right now. Still here John.

No, actually I've seen THAT defense/response to my posts quite a bit. I've presented my case, and gave evidence to it as well, but most people here have just been bitter about that, lol. Nothing I can do about that John. Also, take a gander as to when I posted this. It was soon after (minutes I think) the Divisional games. If Im not mistaken, I wrote this because of another thread going on and on about the playoff QB's. I sat there watching ALL of the supposed superstar/franchise QB's go down, and who was it that took them down? Defense, defense and more defense.

I didn't realize I had to spell everything out for you, you seem like a big boy. Funny how you left out that I said you don't need a franchise QB... which you dont. But you'll argue that too (comma) right? Lol... Is this a discussion board? I opted to view other people's arguments and even accepted some views all while defending my own position where there was no acceptance. I'm good with that, I'm a big boy. Fixed you up above too.... since we're being all grammatically correct.

My OP still isn't wrong. Defense wins and you dont NEED a franchise QB to win do you? I did not back myself into a corner stating the defenses win EVERY SINGLE TIME, ALL THE TIME! No, no... and that was lame trying to act like I did. As for Trent, I said he wasn't a franchise QB... and? Is there an issue with that observation? Could we have won with Trent if we had a great D... would he have been better? Sure... I never said we or he couldn't be better. We all (I'll consider you a good football fan) know that you need to have some common sense with this. The best O or D in the league will struggle if it has the polar opposite on the other end. But I'll take a Top 10 D with an avg O over a Top 10 O with an avg D.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Since this was all paraphrased, I think a little was lost in translation. I think he meant to say that the #'s compared favorably to Brees and that was all. Then I think a separate statement about how the WAC is much different than the SEC, and he used the SEC because of they're considered the class of college football.

Wrong. Edwards was, and still is a ****ty QB, but he would have been better with a better D sure. The '04 Bills were #2 in yds allowed per game, and #9 in pts allowed, but were not even close to avg on O... as they were ranked #25. If they were just avg they would have made the playoffs easily. The Bills were 9-7 that year, the last time we even sniffed the playoffs. Funny that you think that I need to say I'm mistaken. I'm not mistaken. This isn't mathematics with a single absolute outcome. Sure, you could say facts are skewed and there are inaccuracies on either side of this debate, but we press on. If you want to say I'm mistaken, then we're all mistaken. Ok, you're input has been acknowledged. Please fell free to add more. Back to your comment about Bledsoe being sacked. You sure that wasn't just awesome D by Pitt? Seems like the D made a play as opposed to Bledsoe throwing an incomplete pass.

Why because you can't break it down? You don't really offer anything other than your opinion... and that's cool, no offense there. I'm not the one "hanging my hat" on a single player to win. Let's talk about a "broad" generalization... most of you are saying we need a franchise QB and will include Cutler and Sanchez rated #16 and #27 in the league... talk about BROAD. I'm keeping it pretty tight actually both defense reamining are top 6 in ypg, and both are #'s 1 and 2 in D in ppg. C'mon man!

I don't think it's a stretch at all. I think when you play from behind, as the Bills have done almost all year, you make yourself predictable thus giving the opposition a chance to go after you (proactive). When the game is tied, or you have the lead, you dictate play and the opposition has to be reactive to what you do. How many times has Fitz HAD to force a ball because he had to play from behind? or, because the D knows you have to throw, Fitz has to face a blitz and/or nickel/dime packages? That happens when you're behind a lot more than when you have the lead. A good D keeps teams in games. Fitz's stats will not "jump through the roof, but I'm certain they would be better with a better D. people harp on Big Ben... and they should he's a helluva QB, but he didn't "win" that game for them. His D did. The Jets D kept him to 133 yds 0 TD's, 2 Int's, and a 35.5 QB rating, he was also sacked twice. If the Steelers D doesn't return the fumble for a score, this would be a different argument.

I LOVE that you brought up SD having the "best D" not making the playoffs... they ALSO had the "best O" too, AND a franchise QB that led the league with 4,700 yds, and was 2nd in QB rating. The 2010 Chargers were an anomoly. A bigger indicator of them not making the playoffs was that they were tied for 9th worst with -6 turnovers. Of the top worst 20 teams with turnovers, only 3 teams made the playoffs... the Saints (-6), the Colts (-4), and the 7-9 Seahawks with (-9).

The game will come down to JUST the QB? I guess nobody else on O counts towards thier success??

Defense wins.... defense wins... defense wins... I'm not wrong. Please oh exulted one tell me how I'm wrong? You're argument will be winning the SB. Correct? My argument is that in general you need a good D to win in this league. in oreder to get to the SB, you need to WIN in the playoffs, in order to WIN in the playoffs you need to get there, in order to get there you need to WIN in the regular season. We got our ass handed to us because our D sucked. Give this team an avg NFL defense and we are 7-9/8-8. Give this team a good/great defense and this team has a shot at the playoffs. I'm tired of all of the "we NEED to draft Mallett/Newton because they have the potential to be a great QB". I call BS on that. We have a good QB, who might get worse, or could be great. I'd love to see Fitz on a team like Pitt/GB... all of a sudden with that great D, he would somehow be a franchise QB. Hmmmmm....??? Give Fitz another year, get him a RT and a TE... that's all we need on O to get better, but on D we need 2 DL's and 2 LB's. We could also lose 1 or 2 of our S's to FA, so we will prob go there to. That's at least 5 needs on D... an area we suck at... load up the damned D! How about you talk football and actually add something constructive to this thread?

Glad I can amuse you, lol. That's just typo's from "fast fingers"... The one thing this shows is you're really not looking at the content of the thread, you're just looking for ANY little thing to try to delfect your ignorance of the OP. Awesome!!!

I have a legal obligation to obey LEGAL orders by a superior officer. The same rules apply EVERY day, not when he/she sees fit and NEVER for "personal" reasons. There was not anything that said he couldn't wear the tie, the boss was just a little thin skinned puss. I wont argue that it was a foolish thing to do, but I will argue that the employee had every right to wear appropriate attire. So now we're going to give every boss in the country the authority to tell you what to wear to work? And, I'm not talking about jobs that have a set uniform or dress and appearance code. If that dealership has one and he violated it, fine. But, if it was never an issue to wear the tie before, and the "boss" has a hissy fit because his team lost.... well, that's pathetic.

To allow him to wear it before the game, but not after the game is silly. I bet there wouldn't have been an issue if the Bears had won the game and he wore it then. This is school yard BS... The boss should have a grown man about it all. Worst case is, you tell the guy he is relieved from work that day, and you'd like to meet with him the next time he comes into work to discuss "appropriate attire and sensitivity". Progressive discipline could have been used here, but I guess that dealership doesn't send it's bosses to any leadership training?

What violation???? His boss's subjectivity? Give me a break. So my view on this is different. I'm in the military... I serve to protect the rights we have such as the freeedom of speech, religion and expression. And some petty, dick boss in Chicago has the right to fire someone because of a "tie"? That boss went way too far on this. They guy wasn't harrassing anyone. Do you know what he has to endure all year long living in Chicago as a Packers fan...? He DEALS with it, just as his boss should have just dealt with something that was NOT even an issue. There is noting wrong with his choice of attire; toughen up Chicago, you're supposed to be a thick skinned town. Put yourself in his shoes as a Bills fan... if the Bills just went to the SB after beating Miami, you're damned straight I would be sporting my teams colors to work, especially if I lived in Miami. They boss even admitted that he fired the guy SOLEY on the basis of the tie... not that it hurt sales, not that it bothered customers... the boss is a dick, plain and simple.