OCinBuffalo

The Dallas Cowboys and the NY Jets. 2 teams that are less interesting than the Bills...just in terms of sheer talent, personality, wow factor and even Barbara Walters factor(the Fred Jackson Story Blah, blah...blah...blah), and boy weren't we supposed to be good? Isn't that a story? In the good old days, the media would be trying to start a fight between Spiller and Jackson, because it's "interesting". Instead, "interesting" is done. ESPN, etc has decided to take over local coverage of certain cities, for reasons passing understanding. Therefore, a non-QB who gets on the field 2 plays, who is anything but "interesting" at this point, is more "interesting" than Spiller. Therefore, when the same mediocre Cowboys QB plays the same way he has for years, it's a...headline . And, then, they have the gall to say "the Bills haven't been relevant"? The Cowboys haven't won a playoff game in 15 damn years. If they do: nothing, again, will that be relevant, and therefore, "news"? There's a journalist in this thread, so I will ask: If this was on the level, wouldn't the real headline for a real news story be "Romo doesn't do the exact same crap for the last 6 years"? Do they think anybody, even a serious Cowboy fan, is thinking, "boy, I can't wait to find out how things are going to go with Romo?" Meanwhile we have the Jets. That franchise is headed straight back to the toilet, where they have dwelt for almost all of their history. The Jets beat the Rams! Best Sanchez game all Year! Top Headline at ESPN! The funny part is: they actually think that they are getting over with this. Or, they just don't care. Either way, they are forgetting the other half of "telling a lot of people what they want to hear = $$$". That is: "telling a lot of people what they don't wan to hear '= $$$" The other part: Hearing "The Jets suck--in depth, all day, all the time", and, "Let's get deep into the details of the suck, let's spend 2 full segments of NFL Live talking about how badly the Jets Suck"...isn't going to make you any friends in the major media markets you've targeted. Besides, they already have that: it's called sports radio and message boards. It will however make Bills fans giggle: "Yes, Mort, please devote more time to Jets Suck..." When the ass falls out of this thing, we will all get a good out of it. You can already see it happening with this new NFL 32 thing. That's the response to fans calling them out on this nonsense. But, on the last day of ESPN New York, of course, it will be our fault. The fans: and their terrible, child-like attention spans...just couldn't stay focused on the suck that is the Jets, or Cowboys. Imagine the wonder: us refusing to continuously attend to what amounts to a pair of turds circling the toilet. Yeah...it's our fault for not wanting to pay attention to that.

Yeah, but that's not what I was saying. I was saying: the draft is a finite, zero-sum game, where picks 1-5 have significant value. Why would we play around with trying to get a backup, who is a backup, rather than, if this is the year to pull the trigger, pull it? (BTW: this doesn't appear to be the year to pull the trigger on anybody.) And, I don't mean spray and pray = RG3. I think it's a matter of priority. And, also yeah, injury. For all intents and purposes we are "starting" TJ Graham in place of David Nelson on 5-60% of our plays...due to injury. That's a guy on the field, contributing(or, trying to ) on a lot of downs. In contrast, drafting a solid backup puts a guy...on the bench. And, yeah, things could have gone the other way, Fitz could be out and we could be starting out 3rd round QB pick right now. But, it didn't. We already know what starting a 3rd rounder looks like = Trent Edwards. We all thought: "how smart, draft a guy now and develop him". The problem is: he's a 3rd rounder for a reason...because he can't develop. If a QB can last until the 3rd round today, with these frenzied notions of giving away 3 picks to get a guy, so that you can build a team around him ( )...there has to be a very real reasons why. Due to that my question is: what is the difference between drafting a 3rd round QB....and a 4th-7th round QB, if he's going to be a back up? Why waste a 3rd round pick(solid starter) on the bench? Meh. More than a little bad luck there with Troup and Easley. Carrington has been the solid 3rd rounder he was supposed to be. 5th-7th since Buddy has taken over are not making this team fairly regularly. Speaking of "building a franchise" that's how you can tell when one is being built, and not simply recycled. Also, perhaps you forgot about Buddy "helping" with the 2009 draft? Is now a good time to evaluate that one as well? Since we know how Maybin got picked(or we think we have a pretty good idea) I'd say following that with picks Buddy did have a say in: Wood, Byrd and Levitre wasn't too bad. While we are at it, 2011: Great(in terms of value): Searcy, Hairston, Rogers Good: Dareus, Sheppard ?: A. Williams, J. White, C. White Bad: Jasper...but who cares? 7/9 of those guys are seeing significant active roster time, and/or are on the field every game. Too early to say too much...but they aren't bad. Johnny White is a Packer, and I think that's too bad. Jasper? Who knows, who cares? 7th round pick. Buddy's record at drafting is pretty damn convincing, and well documented both here and at SD. Not sure why anybody would dispute that...when all you need to do is google it.

But, I did see him play. 2 times now, live, in the NFL. I also saw Manning 2 twice, live his rookie year. The difference is what I have now: Game Rewind. I've watched a lot of RG3 in large part due to posts like this. Based on what I've seen, and given these circumstances? Nope. You've raised and settled your own issue: is the Redskin's current record RG3's fault? No. But...actually: yes. The team you say will be built around him...can't be...because the next 2 first round picks, and a 2nd, won't be there to help. Doesn't the 3 picks given away in fact require RG3 to be winning games without his team? I think we can agree that given the horrific Colt's D during Manning's time there, almost every year, he won games by himself. As always, anything can happen. But, given that FO's history and Shanahan's QB development/tampering skills? Also: nope. You are right: this is not about rookie year team records. This is about the ceiling for one guy vs another. IMO, based on what I saw while spending nearly the entire game observing both QBs, both times? Manning is a HOF. RG3's dependent on the team you say will be built around him. Which will be all that much harder to do without 2 1s and a 2.

Exactly. I've been living downtown, more often than not, about 4 years now...I wouldn't advise any of those places except Duffs and Anchor, for a one-time trip here. I don't know much about South Buffalo, and so far no one has given me a reason for caring. I would listen, if anyone bothered. No one has. I was going to list my alternatives...but then I thought: do I really want to? One thing I can say: Chef's = WTF = Emperor's New Clothes. I suppose if you didn't realize you were eating ~spaghettios when you were 5, and still didn't get it at 15...there's no reason to expect you would at 35. But, there's always "the stories" (I have an idea, rather than telling people, like me, one at a time: Perhaps you can compile your Chef's stories into a book...and see if it sells? What could possibly go wrong?) I knew I was eating good Italian at 5, 15, and now, and I sure as hell have always known when I was eating sub-standard food that is completely supported by nostalgia. But really, the answer to the question above is: nah. I'd rather walk by Jim's Steakout, and watch the gaggle of suburb people trying to PC their way through the insanity...and giggle as I do. The converse is also true, as I'm walking, I'd rather not contemplate finding the other insanity that comes with "we don't live here, let's act like a-holes! Whoo-hoo!" when I arrive. Things are perfectly fine as they are. EDIT: I just re-read this...and although it's accurate...it sounds too snobby even though it really isn't. OK for the OP: Forget Chop House. Go to Mothers. You want a nice surprise? Want to impress your wife? Don't get too hammered. Go to Mothers any time from 8pm to 3am(remember...not too hammered) and forget all else. And, you are taking your wife out...don't dress like an idiot. You don't have to be uptight. Just look presentable.

This is true. However, QB is different. If we had drafted any of those 3...you know what this board would be like right now. And, we'd have no guarantees that any of the 3 are any better than Fitz. Hence, we'd have taken on trouble, with no significant upside? We go through all this hell...for a backup? I guess I want a QB we KNOW can play in this league, and is a backup in name only. I don't want another Edwards, a 3rd round pick with this issue, and "can he overcome blah, blah, can he make the transition?" I don't want question marks. If we are drafting a QB, then let's be serious about it. QB is the ONLY position, due to the league today, especially the rule changes, where trading up makes sense. I still say the RG3 trade was ludicrous. We'll see...especially when the Redskins are drafting at #10+ again this time, and there goes another top 10 pick...never mind next year. But, I would have nothing against packing this year's 1 and 2 to get up to get a guy we KNOW can play. And, as far as "KNOW" goes, I trust Buddy/Whaley to be able to make that call.

As of today: Sportsclubstats.com, http://www.sportsclu...om/NFL/AFC.html, gives us a 7.4% chance of making it. Edit: Crap, I thought I was doing hockey.... No matter, with a few changes, the point is still the same. The upside? Statistically, we do not have to win out in order to make it in. Actually we can lose 1 game and still be in relatively good shape. See here: http://www.sportsclu...st/Buffalo.html Scroll down to "What If", and see that 9-7 virtually guarantees a spot. (The numbers at 9 wins add up to 88.something...%, rounded up. The 0 at the 10 spot is less than .5%. Get it?) If you want details, just click on the "explain" links, it's fairly thorough. The thing to remember is, we don't play in a vacuum. The other teams have to win out, or just win games, as well. Their chances of that, given who they play, aren't very good. You can mouse over the HOME TIE AWAY above the graphs to see the swings. However, this thing has us mostly likely going 7-9(see the Count column in What If, 2.9 mil outcomes is largest #), and the Colts going 8-8 to get in. So, yeah, next game is a must-win. The entire forecast changes dramatically in that event.

Not really. I agree. We are no longer a team that has to rely on 5th and 6th round draft picks starting and doing well, never mind never missing on 1-3. We can talk about this guy and that one...but the trend is obvious. At this point the players on the field can compete with anyone. We are 2 dumb plays away from being 6-4, or at least 5-5. That was not the case prior to Buddy/Whaley taking over. The LBs are young, don't know if they stink. Nobody can honestly know that at this point. But, LB is the only thing I would suggest we might have done with the #3. And, no, I don't recall a better LB than Graham is a WR. For all we know, Bradham and Sheppard might be who we needed. I see flashes from both. They need to improve, dramatically, but I think that's more likely than less.

Well, I'm here, and the only reason I'm not still out is: my sister has demanded that I make chili tomorrow. However, I was able to take many scalps tonight. My favorite from tonight: Walked into random bar, near Surface Rd...literally. Apparently the best name they can come up with = turning a noun into a pronoun. Anyhow, seeing people wearing Pats regalia... I blasted in with the "Let's Go BuffALO! Acted goofy, got some laughs, then I did it again for the people who missed it. We hung out for a while...I got some sucker Pats fans to trust me(bought a round etc.). Mistake. Turns out, one of them has a son who's our guy. Told him..."Alright, when you see your son tomorrow...give him a 'hey, hey, hey, hey'. Ok? You try it." He did it. (and my sister, having been a victim of this her entire life, gets it immediately...) I told him he didn't do it right, he had to "say it like Hey HEY HEY Hey" (and now my parents knew what was coming...because they quite familiar with my wiseassery as well) He did it...again. So, of course, I told him he still didn't do it right, and he had to do it right this time: "No, like this: HEY, Hey, HEY, Hey! Ok, go!" We all know what happens when we do this 3 times, right? (now my cousins, sister's friends, etc. were completely prepared) My whole crew, stood, and in unison: "Let's Go Buffalo!" All that was left to say: "Thanks for leading the Bills cheer, buddy!" I was bathing in chagrin. I still have some left over if anybody wants any. There's other stuff, but: "I have not even begun to fight".....

5 pages....0 answers. Coincidence? Weo...Weo, for Pete's sake, asks the only relevant question 5-6 posts in, and instead we spend 5 pages on nonsense? You know? I half expected the same thing...given the level of discourse on this board recently. Yes. It's far past time we started regulating things around here, because the quality that most of us are used to...ain't. And, even given that, I disagree with some of what you posted. The current question that confronts me: Do I have the interest, time, or tolerance to bother?

Hopefully they can find their greatness. And, I wouldn't lay this at the feet of Boehner as much as Obama. Beohner has 400+ people to deal with. Obama only has to deal with himself. Edit: And Valerie Jarret.

My only take is either Gallup is wrong, or Axelrod is....and that Silver can never be wrong.

Having worked and lived in FL for the sum of 14 months...this doesn't surprise me at all. It remains the only place I was proofed, twice, in different stores, over 2 weeks, for buying soda. It's the only place I've seen someone drive their car, slowly, looking straight ahead, into a pond. That happened right in front of us, and no senior moment here, when we went in to get the guy? He wasn't a day over 40, with no medical condition we could see, and he wasn't trying to kill himself...intentionally. If youtube existed back then...I'd have big $ just posting "Florida...again." videos. They can't drive, they can't park, they can't handle anything outside their routine. The smart people all live in small, contained areas, and the idiots abound everywhere else Say what you want about San Fran...at least they are competent at most things.

Nationally? I was watching CNN.

And credits the Obama campaign. Especially since he exits polls show the people largely favor "smaller government". (Then why did you vote for Obama?) He's hanging this on Romney running a bad campaign. Taking an extreme position on immigration, saying somebody else could have done better with Latinos. Should have buried Obama with Libya and kept attacking instead of backing off for the last 2 debates...too conservative. Basically he's saying that the Republicans don't have to change their views on much...just do a better job explaining them. Who thinks that's right?

Reading is fundamental.

As soon as Colorado went D, none of this mattered.

And Gallup was wrong...big. But hardly any of the polls were right about that...which was/is my point. Many had 68%, and still some had Obama losing by 1 or Romney losing by 6. Neither of these things are true...especially in Ohio. Where Romney is winning/losing by the minute. What's unnerving here: There's no way the turnout was D+6 AND and the national race is a relative tie. IF it was D+6...Obama should be blowing Romney out nationally the same as he did with McCain. None of this makes sense. It doesn't square with the historic trends. It is unprecedented. Go look at the results, and find me a D+6 or higher turnout. What do you want me to admit exactly?

I don't know....Obama had an angle of attack handed to him with the whole Iran uprising/Green party...and did nothing with it. That was a perfect scenario to support it covertly, and not get us into "a land war in Asia" Ideology is what got in the way. If that was Reagan, he'd have gone for it. It's easy to sit back now and 2nd guess of course, he would have looked awfully bad to the left, the people who he owes for being in office. But, leadership is about courage, not going along with everybody else when they are wrong, because you are too weak to do the right thing.

Not really. The fact that lots of small sates are Rs, is inconvenient for Ds, but, it doesn't mean they always will be. There was a time when the entire South was D. Now it is R. And, have you considered the alternative to the EC? It would be about even fewer states. The R would campaign in New York, etc...in hopes of driving down the margins there, and the D would campaign there to drive them up. The only real change: both would campaign in Texas. We'd go from 10 battlegrounds to what? 6? States like IA, NH, WI, and even OH would probably never see another campaign stop ever again. EDIT: in the general election.

This is a good idea...provided we don't get suckered. What's your estimation of Obama getting suckered? Mine is not so good. Obama has a lot of growing up to do on the foreign policy front. And is Obama the guy to attack Iran, and prevent that from happening, if that's what must happen? I hope he is.

Dude... I think the storm is a larger issue than voter fraud. And, none of it is as big as whether social conservatives are forcing the Rs to do stupid things....like lose the the Senate that was easily theirs to win.

that only matters if Colorado does too. not saying it won't.

2000 difference in OH right now....man...we may end up having to wait 17 days until the provisional ballots are counted...unless VA goes Blue. We can almost guarantee a recount in FL.

That's what I was asking about....

Go back and find one post where I said bad polls = Romney wins. You can't. I am not an idiot. That's something you would have said. I repeatedly said "none of this means Obama will lose". What I did say: somebody, either Axelrod or Gallup is going to be in trouble on Wednesday. And the polls, with a D+6 or higher turnout...do not make sense...still. What I think we're going to find out about this: how we do polling has to change.