Rubes

I agree with you, Fez, that the blitzing tendencies of other teams was probably dictated more by our offense's inability to handle the blitz as a whole (offensive linemen, TEs, and RBs, in addition to Drew not recognizing and going to the hot receiver). I have always been a firm believer that a big reason this offense was not built for Drew is because our line and RBs were just not good enough to handle complex blitzes. TH, I believe, was a fairly big part of that. I also believe that our line did improve over the course of the year, after working with JMac. Plus, as you mentioned, WM proved to be much better at picking up blitzers than TH (which, incidentally, I think had at least as much -- if not more -- to do with WM taking over the starting spot than his running ability). However, I will point out one inconsistency in your argument...the original point is that there is no way JPL could be any worse than DB, but you say "we" could easily be worse. Yes, we, as a team, could easily be worse than 9-7. But the argument here is about JPL being worse than DB, not the Bills as a whole being worse. I think the whole offense improved toward the end of the year, but in my mind what this did is allow us to see that Drew could only do so much to help the offense. He didn't have a great year statistically, nor did he seem to be a difference-maker in most of those late-season games. Plus, perhaps more importantly, in the biggest games of the year against the top opponents, he didn't elevate his game. Could JPL be any worse than Drew? Perhaps, but in my opinion, not much. Could the Bills be any worse with JPL at the helm? Sure. But so many factors go into a team's final record on the season that it's impossible to compare this coming season with this past season and say that JPL is the sole causative difference.

I'm with you, but I still can't figure out what a roater is.

FYI The opener this season between Oakland and New England is a Thursday night game, not a Monday night game.

In a sense, yes. It's apparent that you haven't spent much time on the PPP board, or else you probably would have recognized the tongue-in-cheek-ness of my comment. It really had nothing to do with your stance on the issue, but rather your coming to PPP to look specifically for "respectful, well-reasoned retorts". I don't doubt that a lot of people here are generally capable of a good, spirited discussion of politics that doesn't descend into the ugly attacks and mockery like we see here. It seems that most have become so completely intolerant of arguments and positions that are either baseless or not generally well thought-out that even those arguments that simply contrast with their own (even those that are well thought-out) become, essentially, one and the same with those that are baseless and, as such, worthy of derision. You may find a few here willing to provide a good argument and debate, but far more likely you'll just find a group whose objective is just to slap the ignoramuses back to their rightful place. That's why I knew, when I saw your original post, that you were basically just going to get ripped from one end to the other, and hence the bravery comment. I always find myself fascinated by the WNY economy and its current situation, but I haven't lived there in decades and I'm not much of an economist to debate the topic, anyway. I still believe, like most here, that raising taxes (no matter how small) is not the solution for a place that is already taxed far too much and filled with what appears to an outsider as a gluttonous waste of local government. Keep up the good fight, though. Always room for intelligent debate, regardless of what you see here...

Incredible analysis, FFS. Incomparably detailed. I will say, however, that you are the King of the Hanging Parenthesis.

Speaking of soundbytes....

I meant, he's brave for his original post looking for feedback here.

Damn....somebody out there gets paid to surf the Bills message boards. Where do I sign up?

No no no no no Listen to everyone else here, they're right.

Because the concept of euthanasia is just too liberal for this country, that's why.

Well, if nothing else, he's brave.

Oh dude, that is low!

BWAAAAA-HAHAHAHA! Nice one

Nice, I'll take that. Now, if we could just find a conservative with one, we'll be getting somewhere!

Portman? I missed that. Well, that does it for me then... Now just gotta figure out a way to see this without the wife.

So now I have to have a position on Halliburton. Honestly, Joe, I don't know a hell of a lot about Halliburton. I'm not even certain exactly what they do, although it seems to be a lot of different things. I've heard what everybody else has in the media, most of it in the time leading up to the election, and that has mostly been in the realm of innuendo. There has certainly been plenty of suggestion of impropriety on the part of the company, but I doubt we'll ever really know for sure. Am I suspicious that Halliburton probably used their connections with the vice president to position themselves to great financial advantage? Of course I'm suspicious of that. That kind of thing, I'm sure, goes on all the time. But I also know that those are just suspicions, and it's a hell of a lot better to base a position on facts rather than suspicions. If I wanted to do that, I'd have to do a lot more homework, and I'm just not interested enough. That's why I don't go around screaming "Halliburton evil!" like so many of those liberal pantywaists you see.

Well Joe, to the best of my recollection I have never discussed on this board any of my views on Halliburton. In fact, I can't remember discussing much about AIDS funding, taxes on the rich, health insurance for the poor, capitalism, or any other issue you bring up here except gay marriage, although I could be wrong. (Edit: I do recall the earlier discussion about personal accountability.) But I don't recall ever referring to Halliburton as something evil, or anything else for that matter. If nothing else, however, you are consistent, giving in yet again to that wonderful impulse of assumption, and one can only presume that this is because of my particular views on the completely unrelated subject of gay marriage. Should I assume that you have assumed my stance on the ANWR debate as well? Oh that's right, I believe in gay marriage so, naturally, I must support whatever stance those God-hating limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals support. Or is it the liberal pantywaists? I can't keep track. But who cares, right? Nobody could possibly support one liberal issue and take a different stance on another. And if they do, it must mean they just can't make up their mind. Unfortunately, for most people the world is neither black nor white, as it so conveniently seems to be in yours. I presented my views on the oil companies that sponsored that conference, and why it is perfectly reasonable to believe, and even expect, that they would have a strong interest in the subject. Seems like a decent argument to me. I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but somehow you think this is a contradiction. I have no mind to be made on this matter, as you would suggest, since I have never before stated any particular view on Halliburton, positive or negative, that conflicts with what I have said here. You may be assuming my view on Halliburton, and in your mind this creates an imaginary conflict, but I'll leave it to you to resolve that conflict on your own since I'm certain you can do a bang-up job assuming what my arguments and positions are anyway.

The thing I can't figure out is why Congress cares about it.

Ah Joe, you always keep things interesting. Well obviously I did read the credits (given the whole Dr. Trash thing) but that's okay if you want to assume otherwise, as this seems to be one of your strong points. I did read that oil companies made up a large portion, if not most, of the sponsors for this conference, as was the James Baker III Institute, not much of a liberal-backed organization itself. I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be paying attention to now, the limp-wristed linuigini-spined liberals or the liberal pantywaists, but it's entertaining enough so I'll just rely on you to keep me up to speed. And by the way, if you had read it yourself, you would know that this was not a study, it was the report from a two-day conference and discussion held at Rice University. The conference was sponsored by numerous oil companies. Some of the speakers did cite research that has been done. I didn't read and cross-reference all 131 pages, so I imagine some of that research has been done by these companies, but I don't know for sure. It's probably reasonable to assume that, but that's besides the point since you did already. As to the report, if it's irony you want to call it, then clearly irony is not one of your strong suits. You want irony? If we were to believe everything you say, then it's liberal ideals that are the root of all the world's evils. The fact that a conservative Republican-backed conglomerate like Halliburton is leading the push toward the very liberal concept of alternative, environmentally-conscious energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil (foreign oil in particular) should be irony enough in your own mind to rattle that conservative conscience of yours. As for me, I find little irony in it. The report you so graciously provided eloquently spells out enough of our energy situation to dissolve any of the irony you seem to find in this. The reality is that we are headed for some tough times if we continue to depend so heavily on oil as we currently do. In order to transform this country from one that is so concentratedly oil-centric to one that is more diversified absolutely requires the contribution of those companies currently heavily invested in our energy infrastructure. We need to head in that direction, and those companies that refuse to jump in and contribute will be left behind. Irony? Not really. These companies know that they need to be involved in the process in order to maintain their roles as leaders in the energy industry, and so they can continue to be financially successful in this changing marketplace. Rather than being stunned into submission by the irony of it all, I'm sure the limp-wristed, er, I mean, liberal pantywaists are more likely welcoming with smiles the idea that Big Oil is beginning to sound serious about concepts that have long existed in the realm of the liberals...and heretofore dismissed as such.

Actually, the most likely major source for hydrogen production (if it indeed becomes more mainstream) would be natural gas. But you are right that production of hydrogen, with current technology, is dependent on fossil fuels. The current thinking is that renewable energy sources, as a source for hydrogen, is still 30-50 years away.

So let me get this straight... The limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals are, in fact, liberals (at least some of them) because they support the transition from an oil-centric economy to one based on more environmentally-friendly energy sources, potentially slowing global warming while at the same time further diversifying our energy portfolio and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The Baker Institute for Foreign Policy sponsors (along with, interestingly, the support of some guy named Dr. Trash, the poor guy) an academic conference at Rice University which, principally, addresses the need for new technologies that can aid the development of cheaper, more efficient, and environmentally sound energy supplies, which would potentially slow global warming while at the same time reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I may be reading this incorrectly, but your interpretation of this is that the limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals should be shocked into embarassment that such a humiliating thing could possibly happen? Or, perhaps, could it be that some firm-wristed, titanium-spined anti-liberals are coming around to the idea that some limp-wristed linguini-spined liberal-supported causes are actually not so satanic after all?

Ding ding ding! We have a weiner.

Must have just been sacked

I would have loved to see him crush RJ a few times. Hey, speaking of RJ, why wasn't he on that list? He had to be the worst FA ever.

Haven't you been around here long enough now to already know the answer to that?