Dibs

No. The optimist says "Hey there's going to be growing pains but we will get better. We are on the path now." The rationally thinking moderate says "There's bound to be growing pains. We are only 3 weeks in. Lets see what happens." (Like the OP......welcome to the board btw desertbill, good post......and as far as I can tell, most of the longtime respected posters here.). You were right about the pessimist though. It seems to me that to the pessimist, both optimist and moderate sound the same. I think that at the end of week 2, Bills fans were given more cause to be optimistic......and at the end of week 3, Bills fans were given more cause to be pessimistic. I personally don't mind fans being vocal either way.....it's their poorly thought out strategies, opinions and predictions that I find hard to take. You're likely only hearing crickets chirping because we are only week 3 into year 1 and people in general are still unsure of what a reasonable record they should expect this year, let alone in year 2.

Can he play LG?

Einhorn is a man.

Yeah, this was the much bigger mistake made IMO. They had a decent talent in Rinehart who they could have signed for relatively low money.....and they obviously didn't fully recognize that talent and/or overestimated the talent left on the roster.

Hiya Jim (I obviously found it ). Firstly, the concept that you didn't say something like "somewhat obsolete" or "in part the US const..." is a little worrying to me......but I'll give benefit of doubt on that and continue... In direct answer, no, I don't think that it is obsolete. In fact think it does a very good job of covering what are logically basic human rights. It was however written at a time and place that in many ways had different circumstances and influences than that of today. A good example of this is the 3rd amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. At the time of writing, this was quite an important issue. It was written in direct response to the British previously passing a law that enabled them to house soldiers in private residences in America. Its inclusion was quite obviously due to the specific influences of the day, and as time has shown, was quite irrelevant in following times as there has never been a legal occasion where it has been used. It obviously isn't a bad thing to have in a constitution, but it certainly is quite archaic with many other issues becoming far more important than this one in the years following it being enacted. Another good example is the 7th amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. The amount of "twenty" dollars was obviously meant to keep trivial matters out of the courts. For the time and place this was likely extremely reasonable, but in today's money one could demand a trial by jury for a dispute over a couple of pizzas. Again, this shows how the constitution was written by people of a different time. 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.

Respond in your PPP thread....and either link it in this one or PM me the thread address(I can't be bothered searching for it). I can't guarantee I'll respond to it(though I do enjoy a good intellectual discussion).......but I'll certainly read it(and depending on my energy levels will read the whole thread).

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Levitre has never made the probowl.

I always thought that being moronic was a prerequisite for posting on forums. I'm gonna have to rethink my thoughts.

I'm looking forward to the All-22 thread this week so the knowledgeable people on the board can analyze and then explain to me what exactly happened to our pass rush this week. (I'm also looking forward to then regurgitating that information to my friends so that I can look brainy and knowledgeable )

I wasn't meaning so much the "Pioneer" aspect.....but more the "lawless frontier" aspect. Pioneers going out to settle new lands and start a new life were in need of some sort of means to protect themselves. Australia was different in that A) It was settled much later than the US....and B) Once you get past the lush East coast, it's all bloody desert.....not many people actually wanted to pioneer out into outback Australia lol. .....and we didn't have quite the same indigenous peoples issues that America had. I thought Africa might have had some similarities due to the concept that like America, European settlers traveled there to forge a new life in a dangerous and generally lawless land.

No, self-defense is not considered a valid reason for owning firearms. Guns are not common in Australia and are virtually non-existent in cities. Apart from certain localized organized crime related incidents with guns (Bikey gangs etc who only really target each other), I am stretched to think of any home invasion or assault in modern times where a firearm was involved. The only main incident I recall was when a gun owner killed a young boy who broke into his home on a prank. Obviously that got a lot of media attention so it sticks in ones mind. I don't think our gun laws really would have anything to do with why it is "such a great place to live" as you'll find that of all of the modern western countries in the world, it is pretty much just the US that is rampant with guns and has loose firearm laws. IMO the gun situation in the US is understandable due to your history of "pioneering of a generally lawless frontier". Apart from perhaps certain areas in Africa, I think this was quite a unique situation in history......and has evolved into a relatively unique modern day situation for the US. Edit: In regards to your constitution......being written in 1791, it likely was pertaining to a different type of society than that of modern day.

Of the 64 starting OGs in the league, half of them(32) were drafted after the 3rd round(4th round - undrafted). Over a quarter of them(18) were drafted after the 5th round(6th round - undrafted). This doesn't mean that they are a dime a dozen.....but since nearly every team in the NFL finds at least one guard from your theoretical second string/drafted/undrafted players, the fact that the Bills took a shot at finding an OG from this group is not a hangable offence IMO. List of starters below(4th+ rounds) 4th Round NYJ: Willie Colon CIN: Clint Boling IND: Mike McGlynn PHIL: Todd Herremans WASH: Kory Lichtensteiger DET: Dylan Gandy DET: Rob Sims GB: TJ Lang GB: Josh Sitton NO: Jahri Evans 5th Round BUF: Colin Brown CLE: Jason Pinkston JAX: Uche Nwaneri ATL: Garrett Reynolds 6th Round IND: Donald Thomas SD: Jeromey Clary CHI: Matt Slauson MIN: Brandon Fusco MIN: Charlie Johnson NYG: Kevin Boothe 7th Round DAL: Mackenzy Bernadeau SEA: JR Sweezy ARI: Paul Fanaika Undrafted NE: Daniel Connolly MIA: Richie Incognito PIT: Ramon Foster JAX: Will Rackley OAK: Mike Brisiel DAL: Ronald Leary CAR: Garry Williams STL: Harvey Dahl SF: Alex Boone

I can see this thread quickly being moved to PPP but.... You need to get a gun license in Australia to own a gun. To get a license you need to show you have a legitimate reason for wanting a gun (either for hunting or member of gun/shooters club). The license helps ensure that everyone who owns a gun knows how to safely store(kept in a locked secure box: by law) and use them.......which the vast majority of the population who don't have guns(and a vast majority of those that do have guns as well) are very happy to have in place as law. I don't know all of the gun terminology but Automatic and Semi-automatic assault type weapons are totally banned(due to there being no legitimate reason to own one).

I want to defend my country......but that was a friggin ridiculous law. On a totally different topic, I wouldn't want anyone who makes ridiculously rash generalizations about a country based upon one generally innocuous law emigrating to Australia.

2) No. For me, letting Levitre go was all about medium term cap management. The fact that the player who is replacing him has been woefully over-evaluated by the Bills doesn't change the cap logic used when letting him walk. This wouldn't be an issue if Brown had come out and played to a similar level to Urbik(which I suspect the Bills FO expected him to do). 4) Last season he was undoubtedly one of the most dynamic players in football. It seems odd that you would suggest otherwise. To me, apart from Spiller still not seeing the cutback lanes......he seems to have lost his "pop". I usually don't know what I'm talking about so take this with a grain of salt but to me he looks like he is playing without spark or much motivation. He looks to be just going through the motions. 10) In fairness though, the entire DL didn't seem to me to perform well today. Possibly any of them could have left the field without much difference. Yes he played QB not CB.......but today he played pretty bad QB. Acknowledging the fact that he played like a rookie who was being bamboozled by a good and tricky D doesn't mean that we don't still love him.

Nope, there are definitely WRs open. Manuel looks downright scared to me.

<sigh> The bane of the Bills supporter.

Yeah....real !@#$ing funny.

Absolutely disgusting.

Dirty Sanchez

I think his point was that if people keep betting against us, the odds will be better for us for betting on the Bills.

:lol: :lol: That's hilarious!

The extra wind resistance from the tattoos slightly slows down the velocity of his throws.....and him wanting to give 100% for the team.....he covers them up with armbands to avoid said wind resistance.

....and in 3 years time, assuming EJ thrives and Geno is on his way out of the league, what will it matter what the media said after just 3 games into their careers?

Seriously?