OCinBuffalo

Not to be a douche(too late?)...but McNabb sat his first year, for the first 6.5? games. I watched that whole thing go down right in front of me. It was pure genius from their FO. They drafted the guy nobody wanted in McNabb, and the fans went ballistic(because they are Eagle fans = idiots), then they sat him in favor of a vet FA whose story is remarkably similar to Kolb's. Which meant the fans ran around saying "I told you so" for about a month. Then, when it was clear that there was nothing to lose, and Pederson wasn't helping McNabb by playing ahead of him, lo and behold, they started McNabb. The fans(did I mention idiots?) self-congratulated for "forcing" the FO/new coaching staff to make the move. The season ended with their idiots, I mean fans, hailing themselves and the FO as the best things ever. As I said: genius. Do I think this necessary for our fans? Of course not. However, why re-invent the wheel, or not take a few parts/pieces of it and re-use them? So far, this entire thing appears to be following a pattern, especially the cutting of Jackson prior to mini-camp. We've already had our QB competition, haven't we? Or, one of them? Whether that was to see which vet had a real chance of taking the team forward, or, whether it was merely to see which one is to be EJM's foil, remains to be seen.

This is all great. It's the same thing I've been wishing(not thinking ) through. Yeah, all of it is there, on both sides. Who knows what it means? I have petty much decided that the bar is the very last place I will need to be to watch this game, but, knowing me like I do, I will probably fail in that effort. ............... Side point: I'd hardly call Deion Branch, Randy Moss, and Wes Welker, and later, Gronkowski and Hernandez "band aid" people. In fact, Brady wouldn't have the numbers he had has without them. I don't get this myth that Brady hasn't had receivers. Sure he has. Terry Glenn, Deion Branch, Troy Brown, Givens were pretty darn good too. He didn't have Jerry Rice/Andre Reed year in and year out for 10 years or whatever it is. Ok. But having Randy Moss at the top of his game for as long as he did, and then Wes Welker during/right after? Come on. If you look at his entire career, he's had Pro-Bowl caliber receivers many more years than he hasn't. THIS is the first year, and the only time prior to this year, was what I was saying in 2006, right BEFORE they signed Moss, and Welker : they don't have anybody above average at WR. I just looked at every year since 2001 to be sure. Yeah, 2006 was the 1(one) year where he had Troy Brown and a bunch of no names. Every other year, somebody on the list above was on their team. So 1 year out of 12 = "Brady makes people who would be 3rd/bench WRs look great"? Myth Busted. Where did this myth come from? Take one guess. Hint: it involves Connecticut. IF you want to talk about a guy who had little/no help at WR, and absolutely made the WRs he did have look like stars, and is a HOFer....much better to start with: John Elway.

I'm talking as as team. And, not for nothing, this team has given the Ravens a serious challenge, consistently, for the last 3-4 games we've played them. We can't really take a point in time and compare, career to career, as who says Gilmore isn't a HOFer? Who says M Williams doesn't finally find a home here in this system, and ends up in Canton as well? I agree. There's practically 0 chance that we will be blaming the coaching staff on D this year. As of now it's all on the players. Either they are as good as the paper suggests, or the aren't. But, that raises a bunch of questions: since apparently the plan last year was to leave it to the D line to make plays, and have the other 7 sit back and react, perhaps the D line isn't dominating? Or, is it that this is simply expecting too much from any D line, even the Rams of old, the Steel Curtain, or the 85 Bears? And, if this year, the plan is for the 3 down lineman to move people/hold position, so that other people can make plays, isn't that a different job than making the plays yourself? I know this: good defense is always an entire team concept. When you begin by saying "these 4 guys are going to make all the plays, and the other 7 are just there to support" you begin to fail.

Absolutely. I don't care if we are losing by 3 TDs, or dare I say, up by 3 TDs, blitz them again. We need practice in this new D, and the very best way to get practice is by doing it in a game. The best way to form a reputation, and to be feared? Blitz them again. It starts there. The temper tantrum that will cause, the immediate and constant whining to the refs(don't forget about that), that ESPN will be forced to air, would be hilarious. At the very least, and, "being realistic", you can say that the Bills have more impressive pieces on this team than they've had since 2003-4, and perhaps dating back to the late 90s. I'd love to be sitting there mid-season wondering why we didn't know this top 5 D was on our team all along. See, the thing is for me? The Bills DO have the Ravens talent, on D, on paper. On paper. Getting it off the paper, and onto the field? Nothing explains last year's results on D. It simply doesn't make sense when you go position by position and consider what each player is capable of individually. This is why people are so quick to hang the outcome on Wannstedt, and why that doesn't seem to be that far off....right now. We had a top 5 DE/LB(M Williams), a top 5 DT(K Williams), a top 5 CB(Gilmore...no, look it up, he was awesome last year), and a top 5 S(J Byrd) on this team, last year. You aren't supposed to be close to terrible with guys like that on the field. Not to mention the supporting cast of Carrington, Scott, Bradham, etc. The best part about having a guy like Pettine here is: now there are no excuses. Nobody can question Pettine's abilities, given his RECENT record. So, either the players are simply overrated, or, the coaching last year was exactly what we feared: excellent, for the mid-90s.

If it wasn't that hard to figure out, I doubt we'd have 6 pages already. Re-read the thread. This ain't even close to "figured out", from a fan perspective. Ahh. And now we see reason #4 of "Why did you start this thread, in June?" Might as well get the agendas, and the "I was wrong about Biron being better than Miller, and rather than admit that (most importantly: to myself), I am going to spend the next 7 years saying Miller sucks, even when he wins the Vezina"-type people identified early on. Why did Wizenhut run down the field screaming on TD play he didn't want run? People make stupid plans, or overestimate their abilities to make change, the right change, all the time. Just because somebody has a plan, doesn't make it a good one, nor is it indicative of their ability to carry it out. We could answer your question with: Wisenhut actually believed that he could bend Kolb to his plan, because of his belief in his coaching ability, and his own "awesomeness" in general. Not much of a stretch, given the apparent significant subscription to the idea that identity, or celebrity == ability. So many forget this. I do not. I don't because growing up with Kelly as the QB. My dad was the opposite of patient. It got to the point where he was forced to watch the game outside, through the windows of our house, regardless of weather. Watching my dad outside, standing in the rain, seeing him yelling and cussing(and being relieved that this time, it wasn't directed at me), having to keep relighting his smoke, but not actually hearing any of what he was saying...is a bit of hilarity I will always cherish. Yes, The Senator has nothing on my mom when it comes to unabashed homerism, or class. I mean, it's not like she didn't make him a plate, and deliver it to him outside. It's similar to how she treats Boston fans. You are allowed in the house normally, but when the game is on, you go outside, along with the dog.

Chris Brown made an effort to point out that EJM kept throwing 80 yard bombs to Da'Rick Rodgers in his OTA reports. And yeah, it became a trend. I recall that he did it 3 times over the course of 2 weeks, at least. He also hit Goodwin multiple times as well. This is the info we have. I'm not saying it = 10+ 80 yard TDs this season. I am saying: tangible evidence does exist that he can physically execute long throws to NFL receivers. Whether he can do that in NFL game conditions remains to be seen. This evidence directly contradicts the speculation that he could not. (And, I am speculating that the long throw, and other, speculation came from sports reporters, who, rather than doing the job themselves, simply bought the Bills pre-draft BS. This explains the disproportional rancor, and complete overreaction, from some in the media, at the pick. They got suckered, they don't like it, and they killed the Bills for it.) IMO, it's a stepwise thing, and that's obvious. So far, the first step appears to be complete.

No. Dodging is threads about the #1 O line(analytically proven) from last year completely falling apart because it loses one guy. Dodging is threads about doubting Fred Jackson, in any capacity. Dodging is threads about " Steve Johnson, ". .....when the major question at QB is the elephant, the room, the house, and the whole block. And in the past, dodging was "fire Lindell", when we had a serious QB question that nobody wanted to talk about. ........................... If no one minds, I've summarized some criteria we have so far, and let's see if we agree: 1. EJM must perform at least = to Kolb, in order to start. 2. Kolb must prove that he's better, by a lot, than the guy who got beat out by Fordham guy, in order to start. Simply being as good, or just a little better, as EJM = see rule #1. 3. There is value in letting the vet take on the Pats in week 1, and if that's how it goes, it's not that important. Alternate 3. EJM's draft value says he starts, barring obvious deficiencies in his play, and if there are, then that is important. (I would think only one of these 3s is right. But you could take away some of the conditions, or change the importance) 4. We should place our faith in this coaching staff, as they know more, and have more info than us. Now, I will add my 2: 1. EJM has to prove, in game, that he can in fact read the whole field. By that, I mean on a pass play that has 2 routs to the left, and both are covered, can he read the right side of the field, and hit that receiver. I think asking to see him do that 10x is asking too much. However, I would like to see it in multiple games, provided the conditions exist. Also, I think this is a realistic standard, as it is likely to occur fairly regularly in our 3 wide, at least, West Coast/K Gun offense. Oh, and btw, I am not making the assumption that Kolb does this, so, he has to show the same. 2. Both QBs have to show they can make all the throws. We can't lose half our playbook, like with Fitz(are you telling me Chan Gailey can't draw up a bomb?), because of lack of arm ability. Lot's of ways to do this. The most straightforward is simply to look at each throw: quality, distance, completion, WR F up, etc.

You're just looking to be indicted, with this post, and that handle, aren't you?

Then do the second part.

The first part of this thread: It's June, yes, and we don't know this and that, and camp hasn't started, and pads and no pads and blah, blah, kaqeprjawpjcpaefjapeja. Forget all that. Look at our threads, everybody is ducking the #1 question we face: Who is the starting QB for week 1, against the Pats*, at home? Is anybody ready to say, right now, who that is, with 0 disclaimers? I'm looking for guts here(because I don't have enough to answer that question myself. ). You don't need to give reasons, and feel free to use your instinct. The second part: If you're like me, and you really can't bring yourself to get behind a starter, then this part is for you. What specifically will make the decision for you? What is important, and what doesn't matter, because it's only camp? What about the preseason games will be relevant, and indicative? What is nonsense? Example of prior nonsense that I was guilty of espousing: "We ran vanilla offense, they were blitzing and that's why....", as a reason(excuse) for why the O played mediocre/terrible. IMO, the best way to avoid the hell of Flutie/RJ or worse, Losman/Holcomb, is to start the process early, and figure out the criteria, that we can all agree on, that should determine the starter. This way we aren't making them up as we go along. The other part is for posters to lay out their thoughts on what each QB will have to show now, BEFORE, we are in the weeds of camp, and we have "but look at the camp #s yesterday" posts making everybody crazy. For many of us, it's not like we haven't been through this before. We do have some wisdom as a fan base(a quick perusal of other team's message boards is all that is required to prove that). So another part is: what do you remember from last time, that informs what we should or shouldn't be thinking is important, this time?

Not nearly as petty as Kraft feeling the need to say "I don't answer to Tom Brady", publicly. If a "leader" has to go around reminding people who is in charge: he ain't. Frankly I don't see much difference between Kraft and Jones, in terms of football acumen. The only real difference is: one has a HOF QB, the other has an ESPN-hyped clown(only slightly better than Sanchez, another ESPN-hyped clown), who is only considered "good" because there's a lot of Cowboy fans in 7 states that want to hear that. Or, you can go here: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php get an account, like a certain message board troll who will remain nameless has, and ask "what do you guys think about the Patriot Way". The responses will range from apoplectic to hilarious. However NOBODY in Chiefs Nation thinks that the Patriots organization, is anything but a QB. They should know, as they've hired, and then fired, multiple people from that organization, including their GM. Thus, to them, the Patriot Way is a joke. Also, I wouldn't call Belechick's body of work in the draft, for the last 8 years: "excellent". I would call it the opposite of excellent, with some maybes at the end of that time frame. Just imagine if we had drafted DBs as many times as they have over the same amount of time. There are posters on this board that would literally go nuts. (Of course, the fact that they've drafted DB so many times, and still won, is something to consider as well) These are the inconvenient facts that you will never hear ESPN or NFL Network talk about, because it is not in their financial interest to do so.

I have watched the kid throw in OTAs, and he has nearly flawless QB form. He is the exact opposite of FItz in that aspect, especially when it comes to release and the spin on the ball. Thus, I am near being absolutely convinced that this "consistency" thing, for a guy with 68% completion , and "long ball accuracy", when we've seen him throw 80 yard TDs, over and over already , and, "he was only accurate because he threw a lot of short passes", for a guy who averaged 8.9 yards per throw? Nothing more than leftover pieces of draft disinformation. Most likely draft disinformation that was spread by the Bills themselves. Now, it's disinformation that is still out there, and some people have latched onto it. The Bills aren't interested in running around correcting anybody, because that would only prove what they knew and how, and therefore stands to get them busted as being the spreaders of draft manure. There was one radio show where some media person called the Bills out on this and said "we will never trust them again". I fail to see the downside for the Bills in that. Especially 2 weeks prior to the draft, when instead of trusting what the Bills say, the media chooses to engage in their own speculation....talk about disinformation. Consider: they did the exact same thing with Cordy Glenn last year, and not only did it work, they admitted to it right after: "Hell no, he's not a guard. People were saying it because we were saying it. A lot of that was us."

Nice. But, given the reading comprehension problem: you do realize that this is going to fly right over the heads of many here, right?

Nah. This point is valid if Stevie does it 1 season, and could even be stretched to cover 2 seasons....but not 3. No. 3 seasons in a row is simply: consistency. That is an undeniable trend. Or, put it this way: what are you going to be saying if he does it again this year? That it's due to Robert Woods? This feeds into the other point: If Robert Woods does anything, Stevie Johnson will be a dependent variable in it. You take Stevie away, and what is the likelihood that Woods does as well? Consider the converse: take Woods away and what will Stevie do? Well, we already have 3 years of data that gives us that answer. If anything, the counter intuitive may happen: Either having the help on offense means Stevie is no longer the only option, he plays better than he ever has, but he only gets 800 yards, or, the added help takes attention away from him, he actually plays worse than the last 3 years, but ends up with 1200+. Imagine the fun that either of those 2 scenarios will cause on the board.

The other thing is: Why the F do we have to have a guy named "Tool" on the team? What is it with Buffalo, that we always have to have some practically irrelevant thing, that other fans use to make fun of us? I had to listen to Jet fans in particular, none of whom probably passed 10th grade English...get to make the Loss Man joke. Why do our teams seem to have a side business, that is making the modern moron seem witty? But, this is nuanced, to be sure. For example, I see the wisdom in having a LB named Butt Kiss. You want a guy who is angry. Angry at being called Butt Kiss his whole life, and left slightly crazed by it, playing LB. You want a guy who is going to hit everything he sees, hard, as a result. But at QB, I don't see how anger helps. Confidence is the key, and being the Loss Man or the Tool...doesn't inspire much confidence. (Incidentally, I was at this charity event a long time ago, half hammered as per normal, and Dick Butkus was there. Thankfully, one of my co-workers stopped my curiosity from getting the better of me, so I didn't ask him what growing up as Butt Kiss was like. However, to this day, I still want to know. It's not that I can't figure it out, I just want to hear his take on it. That, and I want to get him to say Butt Kiss, because I think that would be hilarious.)

It better be. The last time I checked we are all here talking about a team that has been terrible for too long, for no good reason, and plenty of bad ones. IF there wasn't humor, and sincere attempts to post reliable news, and stuff we care about, then what would be the point?

I heard McDonald's is hiring. (He doesn't like Applebee's, so...)

What? Does this includes bags of douche? In that case, prepare for the Eagles, Jets and Cowboys(in order) stadiums to be near empty this year. Also, what about the stadium bags of fun?

Quoted for relevancy of poster.

Per LABillz, I would never ever say such a thing: http://aprettywoman....85-Profile.html All that and college, a decent job, outdoorsy, and good English? That is the opposite of suck. There are of course other applications of the word suck here that I will leave to other posters.

Well, blaming Canada is funny, and, you do such a fine job of taking the blame(as a way to get attention...any...attention). So.... Of course you do. You won't take any of the blame yourself, and you try to heap it all onto Obama, or this time: the Zionists. Argue? The Lend Lease Act is fact, therefore, there is nothing to argue. We were literally shipping them tanks, machine guns, oil, food etc....and all of this started before Pearl Harbor. In fact, both countries would have easily been starved, militarily and literally, without us. In fact again, our shipping was being attacked by Nazi Uboats as a result. The notion that the Nazis didn't attack us? Preposterous. The notion that FDR started WW2 because he wanted to go after the Communists, and NOT the Fascists? Or, that he didn't want to support the Communists, because in his hubris, with his ideological blinders in full effect, he didn't believe that he could not only control the Communists with his aid, but also "guide" them? Um, that is called: having your plausible conspiracy theory backwards. Right, and we didn't go into Somalia, and completely F that up, and that wasn't done by your favorite's husband. Newsflash: Africa has oil, and more importantly, minerals quantities that you will only find there. So, your premise is ridiculous. Newsflash 2: Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia are....part of Africa. What Africa doesn't have....in the Non-Egypt, Libya and Tunisia parts is: a bunch of psychotics bent on acquiring nuclear weapons so that they can start a holy war, and bring about the Mahdi...who will only reveal himself once the war begins. When are liberals going to start putting the meaning back into words, and/or select the words whose meaning fits the scenario? Or, PastaJoe: when are you going to define Jihad as the POLITICAL movement, and not the religion, it so obviously is? When are you going to define making war, while hiding behind religious freedom, as BS? When are you going to say that Islam, the religion, is not absolved of all responsibility here, when it's proponents have done literally NOTHING to separate themselves from the political movement, and in many cases appear to be along for the ride, waiting to see how it turns out, and if they can benefit? How do you define barbarian? How do you define barbaric war of conquest? Who is the only religious figure in history...who is also a conqueror? Why aren't we allowed to define that religious figure as he is defined in the holy books of that religion? How do you distinguish conqueror from murderer? Or, is it going to be more "the definition of is" from you clowns? Actually, compared to the other posters in this thread? Yep.

Should we expect threads supporting Chris Christie going forward? Or, did I read too much into this? Edit: It's just a question. Due to the recent level of reading comprehension on display here, I deem it necessary to clarify that this question does not equal "OCinBuffalo supports/doesn't Chris Christie". I don't want to be reading that I am a Christie Lover/Hater, or that I was wrong about him, a year from now, because I asked a F'ing question, or correctly identified a set of characteristics that would seem to exclude all others but him.

I'm not attempting to get paid for this, Malkin is. And, I use emoticons as a haze. All it takes is for one poster to admit that they demanded them from me, and the reign of gifs will be over.

But, I am once again: Right. And you have to eat it, again. Who is stating fact in this discussion, and who is applying wishful thinking? First let's deal with ...lybob per my standard approach: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=irs+scandal+polls As such, I don't to go to a mall or ask anybody anything, as everybody, who gets paid to do that, already has. It is as I said it would be: This is a huge problem for the Ds, and they are going to be put to a decision. Either you cut Obama, and the far-left "big government is the answer/we don't have to end the LBJ/FDR legacy, we need to expand it" agenda loose, or, you face losing the next 2 elections, at least. Why? Because NOBODY TRUSTS YOU, the 28% of America who thinks the IRS scandal isn't a scandal. Another name for that group? The far left. The only question will be: how big will you lose ? You can wishful think, or read Dana Millbank columns, or yell at me. When you get done doing that, the decision will still confront you. This is because every single approach the D party has been using is an avoidance of the big issues(which they know are losers for them), but, each approach has an expiration date, and everything you have in the fridge is about to go rotten. Wanna open the lid on Gay Marriage again, and see how it smells? How about Global Warming? How about "everybody who doesn't support Obama is a racist"? Yeah...all of it is headed one place: the trash. As far as polls go, I'm not going to bother rewriting what I said, or why I was right, because you aren't going to pay attention anyway. Instead, here's reality: now you see the effect that Big Data can have on an election. But, in terms of governing, now you see what happens when the ONLY thing you have is Big Data. Analytics, in this case literally means "microtarget tiny slices of the electorate with a customized message for each", which is another way of saying "lie". Or "tell each group what they want to hear", which means lying collectively. It is not "leadership" which is "convince the electorate as a whole that your plan and your ability to execute that plan is superior". You only get that from a real candidate, a real leader, and your guy: ain't. We have the marketing derived and spammed AntiPresident, or, the Spy-Ware AntiPresident(take your pick, because both are 100% accurate), rather than a real President. The difference, and the results, are obvious, are they not?

Not saying that. I said I want to what happens when they are on the field, and see what they can do. The potential exists for a lot of things, but potential means nothing until it shows up on the field. However, a lot of potential is better than no potential, or little potential. Or, I'd rather be us, than the Dolphins, who pretty much know their WRs can perform at an average-good level, but also know their ceiling, and know none of them individually or as a group will ever be great. Double that for the Jets and Pats, who have little potential and ceilings so low that only a smurf is comfortable with them.