Rubes

If Spikes can't play, Spikes can't play. It would be a colossal disappointment, but you have to move on. Regardless, I'd still take Posey, Fletcher, and Crowell with any saved money spent on the lines than Posey, Fletcher, and <Insert High Priced FA LB Here> with less money left to spend on the lines.

"We just need to execute better."

Huh. Let's see how this sounds with a little substitution. "Let's hope McGahee was paying attention Sunday - when he wasn't busy bouncing off his offensive linemen." "McGahee looked like a backup by comparison, a Pop Warner backup." "The fact is, the Bills never had a chance because they were hopelessly outclassed at the game's most vital position: running back." "McGahee was bound to suffer by comparison, and he did not rise to the challenge. He played his worst game since <insert your favorite debacle>. Pats writers, who aren't inclined to give McGahee the benefit of the doubt, were astonished at how poorly he played." Yep. Looks like you can just substitute any Bills player in there and it sounds appropriate. Just another way of saying that JP's play, while poor, is not any more a reason for this loss than the play of every single other player on the team. Except perhaps Fletcher. Or Moorman.

I think this team has about 1,001 more pressing needs than addressing the Spikes situation or considering throwing a boatload of money at another linebacker.

The guy who made the INT was covering the short receiver on that side, but he was playing soft. He left his man when he saw JP looking deep, leaving his guy wide open. JP should have seen that the guy was in position to make a play on the ball. The underneath guy would have had an easy catch, and probably would have gotten it down inside the 10 for an easy FG. Personally, I don't give a rat's a$$. We don't need FGs anymore. I'm tired of great red zone opportunities squandered. FG's don't help this team, TDs do.

"I looked like I just jacked off an elephant!"

Yeah, I'm sure Moulds thought to himself, "A new head coach? Again? Sure, I'll be glad to stick around some more, Ralphie. I love it here."

Whatever. Every week there are countless players that don't practice all week due to nagging injuries, and they still get to play on Sunday because they give the team the best opportunity to win. Just more BS. The whole damn thing has been BS.

How about the Bledslow Naked Bootleg?

I think he's pretty much on target there. Nothing earth-shattering. I would say that the acquisition of Benny Anderson has been a big disappointment for me. I thought he would be a mild upgrade at the position, but he's turned out to be worthy of Pucillo status.

No kidding. This would be different how?

I assume that includes Moulds's figure as well?

Thanks for the great distraction from the mayhem below.

Keep your chin up. There's always the New England game to look forward to.

Moulds needs stats? To what, prove himself?

They're not jerks?

I still don't get it. If you're talking about "using" the #1 WR once they were on to the game plan, then you're talking about the second quarter. The second quarter was when Moulds went out. Therefore, we're not using any of the decoy game plan anymore in the second quarter. So it still sounds to me like the decoy game plan (1st quarter) worked, but the "take Moulds out" game plan (2nd quarter on) didn't. So is it the decoy game plan that sucked, or the removing Moulds from the field game plan that sucked?

Ooo, wait, I found another one: EM is getting suspended for his opinion as opposed to some actual reason. This is fun. Can you find any more assumptions?

Hey cool, maybe you could shout plays in for Mularkey. I can't imagine we could do any worse.

Well, there was this public statement: Linky-poo But your point is well taken.

Hmm, let's see. First quarter, 21-0 lead. Moulds leaves in second quarter, Bills still up big. So if Moulds isn't in the game from the second quarter on, how is it that Miami was on to the plan?

I really don't see any big problem with that comment. Mostly, he has said it is a problem between the two of them. Someone asked him why Moulds wasn't in the game, and that's why. Doesn't exactly sound like pot-stirring to me.

Damn, this is a painful thread to read. Really bringing out the emotions in everyone. You know, I'm disappointed that EM was apparently not put into the game plan. I'm disappointed that he whined to the point of disruption. I'm disappointed that MM took steps that potentially alienated a senior veteran of the team. I'm disappointed in the players, I'm disappointed in the coaches, and I'm disappointed in the season. There really isn't anybody or anything I'm not disappointed with. I will say this: It sounds to me like MM is trying to take the high road and to put together a team which, like the Pats, does not focus on individuals but rather the team. When individuals do things that are against the team concept (whether it be Adams or Moulds for, apparently, being upset with the scheme that they are asked to work within) I would expect the coach to have some nads to stand up to them. I don't know what actually happened or how things were really handled, but it's unfortunate that things turned out this way. I really don't know who is to blame for that. However, I'm pretty sure that the frustration of this season contributed in large part to the way this eventually played out.

Somehow, I doubt even that.