OCinBuffalo

I've watched that many times now. I also watched Kalil's face as he walked off the field after that 3 and out. Not pleased. He knew it. Nothing else to say. The result of that play is not about: 1. scheme...it was the first play of the game 2. pressure from elsewhere causing "x"...it was the first play of the game 3. trickery...it was the first play of the game 4. blitzing...it was the first play of the game That was just a 1v1 whipping against a top tier LT, plain and simple. As far as what it means? It means this: I don't know the Colts DC, or their scheme, or why/how Hughes didn't work out there. Even though last year, he actually did(from the link below): Frankly, I don't care about any of that. Clearly, we have our DC in Pettine and a good pass rusher in Hughes(never mind when Mario starts going), remind me what else I am supposed to care about? Here's one Colts blogger who has already begun the lamentation: http://www.stampedeblue.com/2013/8/16/4616542/the-colts-have-a-big-problem-with-thier-pass-rush Colts fans can talk all they like. When they get done? The play on the field has already begun to end this conversation.

I asked 44 Bills fans who should start the season as QB. That is, I asked 44 female Bills fans who should start the season at QB. From ages 13 - 65(my guess, I sure as hell didn't ask), it was 44-0 in favor of EJ. Actually, I was quite impressed with the various reasons given. Not one of them said something dopey or girlish. Not a single one. They took my question seriously, and believe me: they weren't shy in their opinions in any way. Top reasons why: 1. When EJ is out there the team just looks better, they look more (the words used were composed, focused, organized...organized was used a lot). 2. EJ can make the throws, Kolb looks like he is behind. Many said something along the lines of "If Kolb is this far behind at this point in the preseason, then what is the point? (5 different woman literally said "what is the point of this?" ) One woman was pretty insightful, I thought: "Even if Kolb can play well, the team can't wait for him to catch up, that's not fair to the rest of the players." Many, many said: "This is over. Now get EJ as much practice as possible" etc. I asked these women if they had any doubt, and what would they say if EJ ran into problems during the season. Answer: none, and "that's the way it goes with a rookie". 3. EJ has a better arm, and it's not even close. One woman, once I explained what I was doing, said any other woman who says differently didn't watch the game, or they don't know crap about football. Either way: "she needs to keep her mouth shut, and shouldn't be wasting your time." That was hilarious. I believe that right then, if had pointed out another woman to her, and claimed that she said Kolb had a better arm? This lady would have slapped the schit out of her. Yes, I was tempted to do exactly that, and point out some poor, innocent, unsuspecting girl, then watch the hilarity ensue. But I didn't. 4. The EJ runs the offense faster. This was best explained by a younger fan. She said she thought the O was running faster when EJ was in, so she looked at the play clock, and found that she was right. Most plays the snap was happening in 18 or fewer seconds. Her mom and I sorta stood there like "wow". Who knew I'd run into a 14 year-old empiricist? The only female fan who thinks Kolb is better? The 6 year old girl. I am certain she went with Kolb just to tweak her mother. Boy, there's going to be some epic battles between those two in a few years.

That's right, because the Vikings passing game was working so well...having AP in there would have made a balanced attack, and our D would.... Dude. You can't be serious with this. I saw the Vikings sideline. I sat not 30 ft away from some of them. They were not pleased with themselves at all(nor were they pleased that they kept giving me things, over and over, to make fun of them with. It was too easy. ) Adrian Peterson doesn't stop the fumbles, sacks, or the picks, nor does he help the Vikes O line not get schooled 1v1. That's the thing about all of this. They can blame the coaches, blitzing, scheme, not talking beforehand, your mother, the style of D we play now, the exotic read, whatever they want. What they cannot do is explain how they were beaten in 1v1 situations, so many times. There are no reasons, there are only excuses when it comes to 1v1 losses. From what I saw, and, from how the Vikings reacted to their own play, coming off the field? They knew damn well they were whipped physically out there.

The view from hammer 's lot...b-tches. http://s10.postimg.org/fdpa7v8nd/2013_08_16_16_55_58_308.jpg

Let's get into it. Key #1: The first thing you notice is #84, Cordarrelle Patterson. (Yes, that was Randy Moss's #, but that's not weird. As soon as you see this guy play, you see why) You notice him because he returns the kickoff from the Titans to the 50 yard line. You also notice him in the passing game. Relevance to Bills: Patterson gets big returns because MN has good special teams. Good special teams is exactly what we need to see, after we dominated the Colts ST. This will separate the guys who are good, vs. the guys who got lucky against bad last week. Speaking of separate, look at this: The Texans are being blown up all over the field. This reminds me of a lot of what the Bills were doing in game 1. It will be a great test for the Bills to play against and beat STers like this. In fact they did everything right, and it's 84's fault he wasn't gone. Ok then, Vikings ball on their 45 1st and 10. Christian Ponder MN QB throws for 15. The Vikes are in max protect = 7 guys blocking. The Vikes WR Simpson gets away with push off, and then curls back to get the ball. Nice play, even the push, because that was an NFL get away. The only way that gets called is if the DB falls down. The Bills DBs better be ready. 1st and 10. The announcer must have known something was up, because he actually said "Ponder, 1 for 1"...as if this was a stat worth mentioning. Because? Ponder INT. This throw was off the mark. It was slightly tipped. It was still off the mark because the slight tip moved it towards the WR. Had it not been tipped(had it been able to pass though the DT's arm ) it would have been behind him. At best it would have been right at his helmet. Texans ball on their 37 1st and 10. Matt Schaub TX QB throw to a quick comeback rout for 8 yards. Not much MN D could do on that. Another push off. 2nd and 2. Schaub throws for 6 yards to flaring RB, after looking through his reads. Viking LBs slow on that. 1st and 10. Schaub with all day to throw, hits a 14 yard pass. Great play. 1st and 10. Schaub gets rushed by the DE, unblocked. However the DE leaves his feet and jumps laterally to cut off the outlet to the RB. The problem with doing that is: now you can't change direction. Schaub just waits for the guy to fly by, then throws it to the RB, anyway. Great poise. But, the delay means the RB only gets 2. 2nd and 8. Small run, 2 yards. The Vikes D line is starting to come alive. 3rd and 6. Trent Edwards special: WR gets 4 yards, when they need 6. Everything about this play = crap for the Texans, and doesn't tell us much about the Vikes. Texans field goal. Vikings ball on their 20 Hey! We know this guy! We've pummeled his ex-team 2 years in a row! Matt Cassel comes in for Ponder, Cassel throws some good passes on this drive, but it dies in the red zone. Then, on the next drive he throws a horrible pick(we've seen this before). Cassel should have just stayed where he was, instead, he steps into trouble, and then aims a ball to the sideline. Horrible. Thus: Key#2 The Vikings offense looked very inconsistent in this game. Inconsistent never means bad. In this case, there were some good plays, but they were outnumbered by bad plays by the offense. Yes, we know Adrian Peterson isn't playing. However, Christian Ponder hasn't earned the right to throw 2 passes, the last an INT, and then go sit down. Relevance to Bills: Ponder was bad, given his 50% INT %. I imagine we will see a lot more form Ponder this game. If I was a Vikes fan, I'd be demanding it. I expect him to play the full 1st Quarter and part of the 2nd. Key#3 The Vikings O line appears to be: average. They can be beaten. Surprisingly, the Vikings only got 51 rushing yards on 15 carries = 3.4 ypc. It appears that Adrian Peterson is no Terrel Davis, or (insert Broncos RB here). Peterson is the biggest reason why he does so well. Relevance to Bills: The Bills D line and front 7 in general has a chance to take a step forward in this game. It's not like the Viking's line sucks, and, if the Bills do well, they will have earned it. However, the Vikes O line is not dominant. This game will be good measuring stick for seeing exactly how much the Bills D has improved. EDIT: But keep in mind, no Kiko for this game. And, yeah, I think that's a big deal. Key#4 The Vikings D line can stop the run against average RBs. And, they can rush the passer fairly well too. However, they have weaknesses in the secondary. Relevance to Bills: If there ever was a game to see some long balls out of our QBs, this is it. Much depends on whether our hurry up wears them down, and, pass protection from our O line. They have to be good for that to work, because the Vikes will get them if they aren't. I don't think we will get much in the run game early on, and I expect that CJ will only be in for the first 1-2 drives again. Fred should be able to have some success. I'd also expect Chandler to make some plays, as again, the Vikes don't appear to be good in coverage. And the biggest thing: Our screen plays should be really effective in this game, because the Vikes LBs aren't fast. Again, this is a great measuring stick team for the Bills O. They aren't dominant, but, they will take advantage if you beat yourself/don't execute. I didn't see very much from the Texans O that translates well to our style of offense, thus, only 1 fancy pic. Sorry. I do think that we can wear the Vikings defense down with the hurry up, but that means we have to execute. I am really looking forward to this game, to see where the Bills are. In fact, I'm looking forward to it so much, that I am going.

Why, are you watching this Eagles game? See? I told you guys guys they sucked. The only reason they are winning? Cam Newton 8/17 112 yards after playing the whole half. Cam Newton is the guy that I am praying EJ doesn't turn into. Matt Barkley <<<<< EJ Manuel. Period. Paragraph. Page. On top of that, the Eagles D is horrible. IF Chip Kelly stays, it will be because he is able to fix the D over the next 2 years, and get Michael Vick to start playing QB like an adult. That may be too many results to expect from a college coach. EDIT: I'm not saying that Vick sucks. I am saying that he still plays like a rookie too often. And, I'm a little tired of ignorant analysts calling Marrone a "college coach". Marrone spent 7 years in the NFL, 3 of which as a O coordinator. That's a major distinction from Nick Saban/Stever Spurrier type guys. I will end with: Eagles Sack Fumble just happened. :lol:

Give the guy credit. He has moved from completely unacceptable no shows/going to sleep/not reading the material on foreign policy to At least getting on the call now, while he is f'ing around off-site...for 10 days. (How many of you take 2 week vacations? I never have) That is improvement. Now, the next step is to actually do the job up to standard. He may get there. You never know. By 2015, he might actually have this part down. Be patient.

But the thing is: they didn't vote for this. They voted against Bush, and many voted for Obama, the person. They did not vote for the Democratic platform. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of the left. Only ~30% of the US agrees with any of their positions. They keep acting as if the reason people voted for them is their merit, and not default, or against bad candidate Romney. Look at the House. Look at the state houses. Coming soon: The Senate. Done. A real solid Republican candidate can easily come in and eat their lunch. Or, how is it that Chris Christie is wiping the floor with his opponent(who I don't care to go look up, because he is literally irrelevant) in a heavily blue state? Christie(and again, this doesn't mean I think he's the best, is better than Hillary, or is going to win) is beating them with common sense, and reason. But most importantly Christie is beating them because he is a real leader, and has provided real leadership.

I am drunken, that one is a definite. What does a frat boy have to do with you deciding who is going to hell? That's why you are in trouble here. You sound like a judgmental tool, and that will always get you slapped around at PPP. We don't let "moral superiority" phonies on the left get away with it, why should we allow it from the right? Also: Can somebody explain all this "frat boy" hate for the last 5 years? You don't marginalize somebody if you have a constant need to keep bringing them up. Rather, it sounds more like you wish you were them, but, you have to keep telling yourself and other people that you didn't want to be them anyway...as if you actually were presented the choice. I highly doubt any frat boys give 2 schits what people think about them. That's why they are frat boys, and their critics are not. Most frat boys I know have done quite nicely for themselves, so perhaps this is a jealously thing? I suppose it takes some strength of character to put yourself in a position of being "1 down" for a while, and earning something, however ridiculous it ends up being. While the "frat boy" haters, by their constant need to bring this up, seem to have weakness of character. Perhaps their mere existence provides more humiliation daily than they can handle, so they could never fathom taking on more?

Of course it was. The distinction: Fox has better people, who've done the job for years. Fox has talent. You can get all riled up at a guy like Hannity...but then, consider: Hannity riles you up, every single night. That's talent. When I watch MSNBC, all I do is laugh. I laugh at how pathetic they are, and often find myself thinking: "Christ, I could have delivered that better, liberal slant and all. They completely missed what would have been a hard hitting point, and went for the silly cheap shot instead." You see it all the time in their interviews. They are often acting, like how they think Fox "acts". The difference is: Fox people aren't acting, in general, and they are secure in what they say, because they've done their homework. MSNBC people don't have enough talent to do their own thing, and they clearly don't do the homework. They do this weird, off-putting caricature of what they perceive Fox does. This is why MSNBC people keep making headlines for their idiocy. Oh sure, the liberal columnists say that Fox people are acting. But that is because liberal columnists are too narrow-minded to consider that other points of view can be valid, and that Fox people are secure in their POV. It's this fundamental misperception of what a Liberal analysis outfit must be, that keeps them failing. MSNBC basically failed for the same reason Air America did: inferior talent, that they pulled off the street, from other jobs = ex-schills, PR people, comedians, etc. None of these people ever had any real success in news/analysis prior to going on MSNBC besides Chris Mattews. And, because Matthews knows the job, he's currently saying whatever he can to try and get attention, and save his job. He will fail sooner or later. Oh sure, you can say O'Reilly is a witless crumudgeon, but, for the demographic he owns(and he does), he is perfect. 14 years of #1 or whatever doesn't happen by accident. O'Reilly saw an opportunity and he hit it, and, he's changed his style over the years to gather in even bigger audiences. Roge Ailes(Murdoch has little to do with Fox New's sucess) is no fool. He knows that if you put out a quality product vs. a hateful, spiteful, douche-fest, you're going to win.

Babble babble babble. Instead of the Hamburglar we have the babbleburglar. You don't even understand that poster, do you? Look, if you're going to hang around here, and pretend you are Mrs. Smith, and this is your homeroom class? Prepare for lulzstorm headed your way. We don't take admonishment well, and a rookie has no right to say anything to anybody about how we do it here. This is the HS field house, not homeroom. That means yes, everyone's ass gets snapped by a wet towel now and again. You face a choice: laugh and deal with it, or, fight a losing battle to demand that we stop our high jinks, or, leave. I learned it from watching B-Man

Not to be a bigger douche than Immelt, but, he was CEO of GE. GE sold NBC to Comcast. (GE took a PR hit for their behavior with Obama, and then they took a market share hit = cut their losses and sold NBC.) Comcast has already lowered the boom on the more psychotic/dishonest leftists at NBC News. Look for more heads to roll as Comcast is a quality company, and they aren't about to let a bunch of tools ruin a business line. I'm guessing many of NBC's anchors/hosts will probably get the boot over the next 18 months. There's nothing wrong with liberal analysis shows. In fact, I think it's important, when considering the solution to a problem, to hear from as many...informed...people as you can, and to make that group as diverse as it can be. However, there is plenty wrong with inconsistency, double standards, omission/denial of fact, and outright lies, coming from a small group of people with no interest in solutions. MSNBC had a chance to deliver quality. They delivered crap. Primarily because they lived off of pointing out other people's failings, and not off of doing their own jobs well.

No, you still don't get that I do understand. The trouble here is: the things that are highlighted are either factual, the result of analysis, or...funny. They are not talking points...still.

Hooray! Mission accomplished. Pretense...is not argument. I don't want to hear your dopey predictions of the after life, any more than I want to hear Frenkle's pretentious suggestion that he has the corner on the reason market.

And I will freely admit that I was referring to the "state of this discussion at PPP", and not tgreg personally. In fact, he never said anything to imply slavery was the only cause. I merely implied that he did. Recklessly That tgreg took it personally was fun. For a while. The Civil War has been a long standing platform for metaphor, for all sorts of idiots here, starting with Moslon_Golden. But now? I have to eat.

Why?

See? I can do it too... And I am way better at it.

Jesus. Look here: I not only quoted you accurately, and understood what you wrote, I asked you, within the context of what you wrote, why you think B-Man, who lagely posts news articles, and analysis from well respected writers(largely...he sneeks in the occasional wingnutty guy...but that was early on, when he first got here. He doesn't do it much any more.) is posting "talking points". What he posts is not "talking points". It's fact, or cogent analysis based on facts. So, then I asked: can you tell the difference?

Hehe...and while you're googling that, google who didn't pay any corporate taxes 2 years ago at all, who has been buddy-buddy with the Obama admin from day 1, 2004, and who has been propping this incompetent up on their airwaves since then as well. Dude...going here? Not a good plan for you.

I did, and I am taking issue with the above part of it. Now, have you read this sentence properly? Do you comprehend it? Good. Now tell me how posting a news article is "the same" as posting whatever is on the front page of Media Matters?

I wonder...do most not-liberals, like tgreg, understand the difference between a talking point, and a fact? B-Man's articles are news reports, largely. Or, they come from Charles, The Liberal Cleaver. (Charles the Liberal Foe Hammer?) Nobody can say Charles Krauthammer presents fact-less positions, or spin. I haven't seen a single liberal with the balls to question his premises in years, and I read liberal columns every week if not day. What is so egregious about posting the news, or a piece of cogent analysis?

Yes, and in doing do, they will give license and cover to honest to God racists/systemic racism. Usign race as a political weapon is perhaps the most damaging thing these clowns can do to our society. It's even worse than what the environtologists are doing to honest to God conservation. The worst is? I really don't think most of them posess the wisdom to understand what you wrote LA. They are Charlie Sheen winning....

Dude, are you just trying to haze us with this gifs? It's working, btw.

Exactly...what?