Dibs

Sorry....all those calls were good. Refs doing good job today IMO.

Let's look at the checklist: Rookie QB playing very well. Check! Running game working well. Check! Defense stopping the run. Check! Injury riddled secondary getting turnovers. Check! Bills fans still focusing on the negatives. Check!

I find it hard to believe that all of the physically gifted QBs who have failed over the last 25 years......and there have been an awful lot of them....had bad work ethics.

I don't agree with a minimum post number for starting a new thread because there are regularly great threads created by either new people to the wall or long time lurkers. They are the people that I think should be encouraged to participate, not have rules prohibiting them from full participation. Here's an idea for everyone......if you think a thread/post is truly moronic, potentially a troll thread, and/or is based upon extremely little logic......put the poster on ignore and leave the thread alone. A day later it will have dropped to page 2 and you won't have to go through the extraordinarily difficult process of scrolling past it without clicking on it. Note: I am guilty of the above myself and apologize for being hypocritical in regards to something that I am preaching.

Those players won't be FAs next season......they will be entering the first year that their rookie contracts can be renegotiated. If the Bills want any of them, we will likely have to give up draft picks to trade for them.

:w00t: :w00t:

Come on......all DDD was saying was that you can't accurately predict how good(or bad) EJ is going to be at this point. How is that in any way wrong or bipolar-like? Not having a polarized view on a topic does not mean that someone swings from one pole to the other.

They certainly are honoring the "intent and spirit of the contract". If a team chose to bench a player in order to hinder them achieving incentive based benchmarks(number of snaps etc).......THAT would be against the "intent and spirit of the contract". Teams cutting players before their contracts expire is fully expected and fully highlighted within their contracts. That is why players attempt to get as much guaranteed money written into their contracts as possible.

I wasn't meaning to imply anything past the actual facts.....unlike many others who have been posting this week. My error It was understandable rookie QB play and there is certainly no reason for thinking that he won't improve or can't develop into a great QB.....but it was definitely bad QB play. My point was though(initially) that the article made no reference to play design or scheme apart from showing that the plays highlighted....the plays that EJ seemed to have the most problems with.....likely would have worked if he had enough time to throw and/or he made the correct decisions on the plays.

Why are the previous two posters highlighting Hackett as the problem here? Didn't the article pretty much show that it was bad QB play, often exacerbated by bad OL play that was the problem? Was I missing something in the article?

Actually, I just noticed it's 3 threads.

heh....the author of that piece must be a Bills fan.

^^^^^^^^ THIS!!!

Obviously this is a rhetorical question. Of course it doesn't. I think everyone on the board would rather true fans here(like yourself) regardless of their depth of knowledge of football or the team in general......rather than the swath of fair weather fans we are bound to get when(not if....please don't let it be if) we finally start being a solid contender again.

After last weeks performance my emotions want to put this picture.... .....but my head says this one is more appropriate.

Don't sell yourself short. Whether by fluke or natural ability, your list was strung together very comically. Great stuff. I'm curious what somebody who actually has been away would think of the list...

It's refreshing to me to see that unrealistic optimism gets mocked in a similar manner to unrealistic pessimism on this board.

I don't quite understand. You want a TE converted to G.....then a FB converted to G. Does the order of conversion matter or do we just stick with the converted TE if he pans out and not bother converting the FB?

*sigh* I sigh because I really don't care much about this. I don't live in the country nor do I have any strong predetermined political views one way or the other on the topic. Perhaps I was a bit naive to expect a straight forward conversation on the topic, I don't know. I expected something like this.... Dibs: "....being written in 1791, it likely was pertaining to a different type of society than that of modern day. " Jim: "....so you believe the US constitution is obsolete?" Dibs: ".....no, I don't think that it is obsolete.....<gives reasons for initial statement>" Jim: "I understand that, but how do you think that effects the 2nd amendment?" Dibs: "<gives his opinion on how he thinks it effects the 2nd amendment.>" Instead I got you showing that you either didn't understand what I wrote....or were consciously avoiding acknowledgment of the concept itself. The concept which I might add was specifically what you called into question initially. Though actual conversation seems rather futile, being a man of my word I will now write my views on the 2nd(which was always going to happen as I stated earlier). I'll keep this fairly brief... I believe that the 2nd amendment(similar to the 3rd) was worded largely as a product of its time. At the time, the common man in the modern world was easy prey to be oppressed, abused or generally physically attacked. The strong arm of the law was not so strong, nor did it extend very far(particularly in America). He was also subject to regular incursions upon his sovereign soil by invaders. As the government (via military and police) could not provide reasonable equal rites protection for it's citizens, the 2nd amendment was an obvious necessity for the time. Furthering to that, the guns of the day were nowhere near the mass killing machines we have in modern times. The key aspect to me is....can a government (which has democratic checks and balances) provide reasonable equal rites protection from both domestic and foreign threats? If so, then there is no reasonable argument for allowing weapons capable of mass slaughter to be available to the citizenry as they likely will cause more harm than good to the average citizen. The question then becomes....can the US government today provide reasonable equal rites protection for its citizens? As I do not live in the States, I honestly do not believe that I can give an informed opinion on that, I can only make an opinion based upon statistics and logic. The fact that there are copious quantities of guns (including military grade weapons) throughout the country which lead to an incredible number of shootings suggests to me that there would be a very strong argument that the government can't in fact provide reasonable protection domestically to its citizens, thus leaving a need for people to be able to protect themselves from essentially modern day armed banditry. However.....if the statistics were to show that the number of deaths/incidents caused by the average citizen were to grossly overshadow the number of deaths/incidents caused by the criminal elements in society, there would be a strong argument to suggest that the average citizen would be safer with tight gun control.

Yep, it usually is. Nicely done WSS(the whole post, not just that last bit )

It seems that you did not understand the basic concept of what I wrote. The crux of it was within my last paragraph.... "The fact that the constitution itself allows for amendments to be added or removed shows great wisdom on the part of those who drafted it. It not only allowed for the concept that they might not have done a perfect job, but more importantly allowed for the changes of time having influence on what was important to the people it protected." The examples given of the 3rd & 7th were not to make comment on whether they should or shouldn't be changed or repealed, but were provided to give example to the base point. At the top of my head I could add the 13th, 18th and 21st amendments to the list of examples which further back the concept. As any future comment I make in regards to my views on the 2nd amendment will be founded upon that initial basic concept, I do not think it rude that I insist on you showing an understanding of this concept before I proceed. I understand that this might well feel like some sort of clever verbal trap but I assure you it isn't. I simply wish the person I am having a discussion with to be on the same page. Also, I get the impression that you will be expecting some sort of lefty liberal bleeding heart response from me in regards to the 2nd.....to which you will possibly be somewhat disappointed (though I warrant will still take some sort of umbrage to, we'll see).

Before I answer (and I definitely will answer if that is what you'd like), I'd like to know if you agree with the general premise of my previous post.

That was really fun to watch! I couldn't help but imagine the feed if Rogers was mic'd up instead. "Where'd he go? Oh.....ah, ****!!!!!"

I find that heating soup in the microwave is similar to how the NFL works. Low heat with regular 30 second stirring......then gradually increase the heat while maintaining stirring. Continually test the heat manually until nearly ready, then a final blast of 15 seconds on full heat. See? It perfectly resembles how the NFL works.

I don't disagree......but Spiller can certainly be very productive and durable up the middle. According to ESPN stats, last season Spiller rushed 85 times(41%) up the middle producing 529 yards(42.5%)......6.5ypa.