Rubes

No, but I think they do have a losing record overall in them. EDIT: Here's a good one from 2008, when the Bills beat the Raiders at home on a last-second FG to improve to 3-0 on the season. Before the collapse.

Not totally sure, but I think it does that when there is an apostrophe in the user name.

Agreed!

I've had 2 lower bowl seasons for well over 30 years, and got 7000 points. No idea how they calculate it, but I seem to recall seeing something about how twittering and other social media activity can earn you more points.

Scans are less invasive and easier, but obviously don't have the same resolution to the microscopic scale as a biopsy would. But if the scan is positive, then you don't have to go through the invasive biopsy. On the flip side, if the scan is negative, you still don't know if there is microscopic disease still there, so you need the biopsy.

Whew, that's great to hear. But yeah, next week will be the real test.

Outstanding response! :lol:

Sweet, thanks Rastro. Great to hear about Watkins. I'd like to know what you think about Seantrel on the right side. Sounds like the offense is looking okay, but tweets seem to indicate the offense is out of sync...

Well done, sir.

Man, this thing can't end soon enough. Please, for the love of all that is holy...just pick El Pegual and send the card up to the NFL owner's podium...

I agree, although at this stage it may be more of an unhappiness with Legursky as the only legit backup center -- this being a means of evaluating Urbik as the backup.

Man, if Henderson can handle the right side as well as he did the left, that could be something special.

Perhaps, if that's what I was actually doing. The point I was trying to make is that your arguments apply no matter who the QB is, whether he is a still-raw second-year QB, an exciting 3rd-year talent on a playoff caliber team, or a 2-time Super Bowl-winning QB. Eli isn't looking crappy because he's now suddenly terrible. Kaepernick looks as exciting as ever, but he's a huge risk at QB the way he plays. Are the Giants and 49ers now amateurs, despite their very recent success in the league, because they have Curtis Painter and Ryan Nassib, or Blaine Gabbert and Josh Johnson, as their backup plans? You'd have a pretty strong argument that both of those teams are in at least as bad a situation as the Bills, if not worse. But yeah, those two are proven talents...despite how crappy Eli has looked and how pedestrian the 49ers offense has looked so far. So they've got that going for them. Again, not everybody knows or executes all the right moves. So far, I'd say Whaley has done a pretty good job, all things considered, and he's got this team a long way from a complete disaster.

Ah yes, the mantra of the pessimist. If they suck, you can claim you're a visionary, if not you're happy. You win both ways. We get it, you hate the moves this team is making. Meanwhile, awesome teams like the 49ers have arguably a worse situation at backup QB than the Bills, and franchise Eli looks like absolute **** this preseason, worse than Manuel. Not everybody can make all the right moves, not everybody knows all the right moves. They're not perfect, but I think the Bills have made some very good moves and are hardly a disaster in the making.

I didn't particularly like the play either, but I will say this: offensive play design is all about the matchups. The goal is to get your skill players in the best matchups possible. It's rare to get your players completely wide open, particularly in the red zone where everything is compressed. So the idea is to try and get your guys into winnable one-on-one matchups. That doesn't have to always be in the end zone. If you can get Freddie matched up one-on-one with a DB, chances are good he'll win that matchup, and then he has the chance to make his way to the end zone. Of course, that doesn't prevent a talented defense from sniffing out a play and blowing it up. In this case, even if Freddie beats his defender, he's still probably going to be met by one or two other defenders before the end zone. Whether that's because the WR routes were not designed well, or not run well, or because the defenders are well trained to spot this kind of play and to break off their coverage, it's unclear. But the type of play here, at least in general terms, is not unusual or horrible. It's called all the time, by all teams. Some just execute it better, some defenses are better at recognizing it and defending it.

Possibly, but some plays are designed to allow for the QB to find the open receiver, while other plays rely on pre-snap assessments and timing. The type of play there has to be decided pre-snap based on the defensive lineup, who Manuel thinks Freddie is matched up against, and if there is a good chance of the WR clearing out that side of the field to allow Freddie to get into the end zone if he beats his one-on-one. Looks to me like the play was designed to be a quick out, Manuel saw the defense lined up accordingly, and did what you have to do on plays like that -- get the ball out to the back as quickly as possible to give him the best chance of beating the defender. I honestly didn't like the play call, but in the end it was a good play by the defender.

Only if that's what you want to see. The play was designed to be a quick out to the RB in the flat. The claims that Manuel needs to be more patient and let the play develop completely ignore the (very likely) possibility that this was the specific play called, which was designed to isolate Freddie in the flat against a single defender. Then it's up to Freddie to win his one-on-one matchup, which in this case he didn't. So it's possible, and likely, that Manuel was just executing precisely what he was instructed to do. As for Henderson, if this was in fact the designed play, then his job may very well be simply to get a strong push on the DE to direct him outside, without the need for engaging him for much longer than the initial contact. So as long as he can get his arms on the defender and direct him outside and away from the path of the pass, he's doing his job.

I thought I heard one of the announcers last night say something like: this was the last week in the preseason they would be doing this, but they would decide in the next couple of weeks if they are going to go with it during the regular season. That seems like too quick a time scale for the NFL, but I'm pretty sure that's what I heard them say.

Boy, no kidding. You'd think he would start with something a little more reasonable.

There, fixed that for you.

please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy please stay healthy

...to be followed immediately by all of the threads wondering why it's happening then, after all of that time had passed.

You are correct. Nothing has changed, other than the fact that they claim they will actually call the penalty more frequently, rather than let it go.

Watch it, bud.

Wow. That's some pretty good stuff right there.