OCinBuffalo

First, NFL Rewind is decent. They need to scale...badly. But, for my $40, and peace of mind that I'm not doing the pirate thing for yet another season...so far it's worth it. Next....I analyzed the Browns game this past Sunday. Somebody like Bill_NYC could do a much better job than me with the line play. I broke it down per half, and by O, D, ST, and....Coaching . Summary First, Detail Below. If you wan to read this in 1 minute, just read the bold: Offense Summary: 1. Tackling Richardson(RB) high = FAIL. You cannot. Can't stress this enough. Most of his big runs resulted from some moron trying to lay a big hit on him high. Good luck. Other morons tried to arm tackle him. Hysterical. You can get his legs. But that depends on... 2. Will Richardson run "high" or "low"? I watched enough of the Philly game to see a marked difference in how he ran, compared to the Cincy game. Richardson is a powerful, North/South speed guy. But, that's all he is when he runs high. On his 2nd touchdown in CIN, he ran low, gained the ability to cut, and he was un-tackleable in space. But, every time he ran high, he was stopped easily. Funny thing about this below.* 3. Weeden(QB)/O line pass blocking can beat you if you let them. I counted no less that 23 times where Weeden had 4+ seconds to throw in this game, whether it was via standing in the pocket like a veteran, or rolling, play action etc. The problem was: nobody was open or his first read wasn't. CIN D line is anything but "elite". They were mostly handled, often 1v1. So, as I said, it's hard to tell if CLE O line is good, or CIN D line is bad. They appeared evenly matched to me, and neither looked that good. 4. #11 and #81 are the only viable receivers. #25 also likes to sneak out of the backfield and make catches. But it only worked twice. #81 is the safety valve. #11 is Weeden's first look on every play. Everybody else is just running around out there. #82(TE) sucks at receiving, and he can't run block either. 5. Richardson is damn deadly on screens. Period. Defense Summary: 1. Hey...I know this defense... Jauron's outside/deep first = middle of the field and the flats are wide open...defense in full effect. Initially CIN kept trying to beat CLE deep and FAILing. They did finally do it, but trying to win deep too much was the only reason the score wasn't 49-10. Can anybody say....8 yard slant/out? Eventually Andy Dalton did, lots of times. 8-10 yard cushions = CIN moving down the field with ease. We've all seen this before. LBs, making tackles 5 yards down the field, etc. CIN didn't figure it out fully until he 2nd half, but they did figure it out. 2. D Line is inconsistent...and pass rush was...weird. This is why I need Bill. They "for-real" sacked Dalton 4 times(one called back on an incoherent penalty call)...but most were coverage sacks(I don't know)...due to CIN trying to go deep. There was 1(one) jail break type sack. The Bungles ran the ball because they wanted to keep the Browns honest. But, those runs almost always went for at least 3+ yards, and this D line didn't stuff the run at all. 3. LBs/Nickel are nothing special. Lots here to exploit for us...especially with Chandler and Jones. 4. DBs are downright awful, or is it the 10 yard cushion they give? They couldn't press, or bump, or run. They looked confused, but, it doesn't matter because they can't tackle anyway. We remember this, don't we? This game could easily have been a blow-out in the 1st half. Andy Dalton was largely stopped by Andy Dalton...by missing throw after throw. His WRs had beaten their men soundly. 5. 7:00 left in the game, Browns down by a TD, after just scoring one. They need the ball back...and most of you can finish this paragraph for a Dick Jauron defense. That's right, they "bent and didn't break". CIN "bent" them right down the field. The DJ Defense couldn't get off the field, took 5 minutes off the clock, burned all their TOs, allowed a FG, but, of course...not a TD...putting CLE O on the field with 2 minutes left, no TOs and down by 2 scores = basically screwed. Did I mention CIN didn't score a TD? ( just thinking about this) Well..."it's tough to win in the NFL". Yes Dick, and it's an order of magnitude tougher when you play not to lose, instead of actually playing to win. ST Summary: 1. We will kill them. That is all. Coaching: 1. We get to play against a DJ defense And we all know how to beat it. If you can get up 14-3, he will overreact, double down on covering deep and the outside, just like he did in this game. The middle of the field and the flats will be wide open. Thus, instead of beating his team by 50, you'll only beat them by 30. (Unless you are the Patriots, and are still doing no huddle late in 3rd quarter already up by 3 TDs. ) All we need to do is have somebody beat them deep once, just like the Bengals did, and we have wide open slants, outs, and screens for the rest of the game. 2. We can all talk about the running game...but we should crush this team by passing, tough crap if you don't like it. Look the matchups are there for the taking, like it or not. Yes, I know what you said, what Chan said, what Stevie said, and what Fitz said this week, and I don't wanna hear it. There is 0 reason to fear this team's pass rush, or DBs. There is 0 reason to give them a chance, by running it into the line, playing into their game, and letting them hang around into the 2nd half. Run it enough to keep them honest. Run it as a surprise. But pass it to win, and end this game in the 1st half. None of these turds can cover Johnson, Chandler, and certainly not CJ lined up as WR. Hell there's no reason Donald Jones can't have a 70 yard 1 TD day. 3. IF we do #2....we don't have to worry about Richardson, and let's force Jauron etc. to make the tough calls. They started passing as soon as they got down. But, once they came back a little, it was right back to Richardson runs. We don't want that, not even a little bit. Put them down by more than 14, and they WILL start throwing it. Meanwhile, Jauron will almost certainly find a way to screw up if we get up. Let's make them make the tough calls on offense too = what to do on 2nd and long. If we allow them to play a low-scoring, Dick Jauron, "wait until the 4th Qtr. to see who wins" game, we are fools. 4. This is a largely young, undisciplined team that will quit if we get them down big. They had 100+ yards in penalties, and many were stupid or unnecessary. Both teams sucked on ST, but the Browns got penalty after penalty. They had an awful defensive penalty in the 4th quarter that kept them on the field. I saw them getting into scuffles with Cincy, and then push around their own teammates who were trying to get them to line up and play. We have a much more mature and talented team, and there's no reason not to simply kick their asses with our O/D line, and then take the 15 yarders they are sure to give us as a result. Offense detail 1st half: Play action. We can expect a whole lot of Richardson...and then a whole lot of play action. Only a moron wouldn't do play action against our D. We have to be ready. Cleveland has a rookie RT that can't run block that well. They tried running it his way 2 times, and were stuffed hardcore. He can pass block. In fact I was wondering how the hell CIN is an "elite" defense watching this game. Nothing elite about it at all. Pass rushers had no heart. They tripped Dalton for a sack....didn't know that was legal. Richardson really didn't get going in the 1st Qtr. He had a few nice runs, but it looked like they were disorganized on the O line more than it being Richardson's fault. I can't stress his ability enough when he runs low. Just the same, he is very gettable when he runs high. He did get going in the 2nd and had a nice long run for a TD. CIN LBs were on crack that play. * In fact, CIN got him in the backfield, because he was high, and didn't cut. The CIN DT got one of his cleats...literally...and threw it into the end zone How that's not an unsportsmanlike penalty, I don't know. But it was hysterical. Weedon is a "first-read" guy. If it's not there, he's in trouble. He was 0-3 on passes down field this half, even when he was all alone on a roll-out. But, again, he had ALL DAY to throw the ball on 8 separate plays....but only completed 3. 2nd half: More of same on running it right...the rookie RT isn't that good at run blocking. Mario should have a field day. Watch out for Richardson screens. He is deadly in space...with only a 2 step head of steam. He embarrassed the CIN defense on his 2nd TD. Even though they were down, they still ran the ball. It helped that they got a freebie, tipped pass turnover. That's what kept them in the game, not the play of their defense. So, they were able to run, because that INT was the only thing that kept them from going down 21-3. However, I have little doubt that if we put 21 up on them early, they will start throwing it and Richardson will be relegated to 3rd down and 2, etc. What it means for us, I think: Weedon can run around, roll out, avoid pressure, but he also has the sack to stand in and take a hit. But, if we can blow up their play design/take away the first read, we should cruise. However, we have to be very disciplined this game on defense. We can stop them easily...if we stay disciplined cover properly and just let our D line do their thing. We should be able to contain Richardson, the same as we did with the Chiefs = stay in position and just physically overpower their O line. Richardson will get his runs...because he will get them on everybody. Weeden is the key: the Bungles let the Browns hang around...instead of crushing them early. Their receivers are nowhere near as good as those we've already faced. Should be a relatively simple assignment for our guys. Defense Detail: 1st half: Dick Jauron Defense: you play bump and run...and then you don't bump...or run. Bengal WRs were open all over the field. The advantage of Rewind is: you can see coaches film. Over and over, guys were open, running free. Dalton just didn't hit them. If he had, they could have been up 21-0 in this half easily. If Dalton was on, he could have had a 500 yard game. He wasn't, so he only threw for 300+ yards. Get it? Per a typical DJ defense...you can run for 4 yards on 1st down. The Bengals had "Guy who has 4 names" at RB, and he did just fine getting them the occasional 3.5 yards here and there. Just enough to keep them honest on the pass rush. That's all they wanted from him Green-Ellis, and CLE did little to stop it. I really have no idea why Dalton kept shooting for down field in the first half. He finally got one for a TD, but had they just done the 7 yards on 1st down thing, they would have been in the red zone on every drive. 2nd half: Got lucky with a gimme pick. Otherwise, Dalton exploited the D terribly. And, as I said: once the Jauron D was exposed, Dalton's completion % rose quickly. I actually felt bad for this D, especially when they started pushing each other around. They were so frustrated...since they were simply incapable of doing anything to stop CIN "take 5 yards and line up again" exploitation of the Jauron awfulness. ST: Not worth talking about. No reason why we don't run back a punt on these guys, if not 2. No reason why McLuvin won't average 15 yards per return. No reason why Moorman won't average 50 yards a punt....if we punt at all. Boring day for Lindell. Concluson: I could be wrong...about everything, of course. But, I know enough to know a bad secondary when I see one. I know that we can kill this team with Stevie's game. And, I know that we should bury them ASAP, if for no other reason than: we can.

How about we let Stevie speak for himself? "Stevie Johnson had a nice catch and run 49 yard touchdown against Kansas City. He is not at all upset that the Bills have been running more, “It’s kind of been a surprise to us because you know coach Gailey, he’s great at making those pass plays and putting people in places where we can succeed on the outside, but as of lately, it’s been a running attack and we’ve got to adjust to that. That’s what’s keeping us going so let’s ride that wave and we’re all in so we’ll see how long it’ll be until the defenses start switching up and we have to step up as receivers so it’s just a part of the game plan now.” Now how about moving forward, would it be a shock to Johnson if they stayed with this method? He said, “I wouldn’t be surprised, I wouldn’t even be mad because it’s winning us games. I would be selfish and I would be a fool to say, ‘Oh no, we need to keep four wide receivers and keep throwing the ball' when running is what’s getting us down the field and scoring touchdowns. If we have to switch to one wide receiver, if it’s going to get us touchdowns, I’m ready to be a part of that.” http://wgr550.com/tw...-drive/14280091 I think his choice of the word fool is the right one. Look...I noticed the same body language as well. However, drawing sweeping conclusions off a small amount of body language...without enough accompanying data, like what did he say, do, hear, etc., isn't a good plan. This is what gets you beat at the poker table. You see one thing...and while that thing is real...you draw the wrong conclusion on what it means. Better to sit, wait, see if you see it again, but more importantly, observe what happened before it, and what happened after. In this case, what happened after? He got a TD...came running down the sidelines, and shouted "Let's GO!" to the fans....similar to what David Nelson did last year in the Pats game. That behavior is certainly not sulking. It could mean lots of things. Perhaps he's just happy he just "got it done"? Perhaps he just wants the next play to be as good as his? Perhaps he's trying to fire us all up? Perhaps, in his opinion, we weren't into the game enough, and he was pissed at us, hence the sulking and then the "let's go"? Or, he was calling himself out for dogging it, and the "Let's Go" was for him....while looking at the fans for support? Who knows? Stevie. We could conclude that he's sulking about playcalling/Fitz. But...the evidence clearly shows that we conclude at least 5 other things as well. It's highly unfair to Stevie for us to go casting aspersions on him based on this amount of body language...especially since he said what he did above. Of course players lie all the time. It's unfair to start accusing him of something until we see more. Drawing any sort of definitive conclusion now is highly suspect.

Still, you thought enough to create the note...which makes you a racist. -------------------- I can't believe we got this far in this thread....with no mention of what the http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82325501/ ahem, lizard people are going to do?

...."and the zen master said: 'we'll see'".

The worst part is: McConnell ended up flubbing that line so badly...that's its not even worthy of a soundbite. I didn't know it was coming....but seriously...that entire speech was filled with jokes from the 50s. But...if this is all these MSNBC turds have to say? This...is their "analysis"? We can expect to see a R+5 turnout at the polls...at least. Why? Because MSNBC itself is demoralizing their own voters with this crap.

Of course you are right about incest....but...I don't know about rape. I don't know about "bedrock". Mitt Romney strikes me as the kind of guy who is a lot more pragmatic than anybody wants to admit. The Republicans have to know that he's not going to be there on the nonsense. But...ask yourself: If they know, and all these things were really "bedrock", and were more important than repealing Obamacare*, or doing the rest of the things that will fix the country...why'd they nominate him? See? The state of any party...is reflected best by who is leading it right now. How comfortable are you with the leader of your party? Don't you wish you had a Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan? Instead of Mr. TMZ....and Captain F up? I learned politics from my grandfather...and from the union guys standing around the fire barrel on election day. They were fond of saying: "The first thing: support the best man for the job. Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter. The second thing: make damn sure that the best man running...is a F'ing Democrat." Thus...before anything, I am interested in the person that will be doing the job. Democrats broke rule #2. *(BTW...if you want to have a rational discussion about Obamacare sometime...I work in it right now...I will start you off with something simple...like "meaningful use". Your defense of Obamacare will melt away shortly thereafter, I assure you)

This is true. However, I'd rather look at content: what are Obama's PACs putting out? Cancer and Bain? VS. What is Karl Rove doing? Medicare, fiscal policy and substance. Now, if we want to have a debate on real issues, Dems must curtail using wedge issues like gay marriage.....because it can't win on the big stuff. It's time for some introspection(been telling you guys this for years), and to refocus on what will work...just as Carville has said 100 times. Look at the Walker Recall. I told you all when it started that the unions were much better off negotiating....rather than scorched earth.....because the only thing that was going to get scorched...was them. The writing is clearly on the wall once again. It's time to start acting like adults...otherwise, the beating you will take will be much worse than it would have been had you negotiated. NO BS: doing the same old thing could be the end of the party. I understand your concerns, but I assure you the TEA party '= the looney left. The TEA party can defend it's positions, and people are listening. In contrast: Where's Micheal Moore? George Soros? Ralph Nader? Paul F'ing Krugman and ALGORE, inc?...and how relevant are any of them today? Listening to these people and allowing the Democratic party to go so far to the left, that it would nominate a clown like Obama? That's what CREATED the TEA party. In fact it made the TEA party a necessity. It's what makes people listen to Ron Paul. Don't you get that? If things are to go as you say: Democrats have to do a lot more standing up to their extremists...or just kick them out....than Republicans. I mean honestly, most of these people are patently NOT Democrats. They are socialists. Get rid of them...and get back to really representing the working man. As I've said many times: if my 30-year elected official grandfather was alive....he and his friends would be cracking heads all over the Democratic party today. Today's Democrats have seen fit to ruin most of his work = 30 pts down...with white working class males? WTF? That WAS the Democratic party.

Is it possible for you to conceive....of the USA....being one of your evil tax dodge nations? Consider: what if all the rest of the world's evil people...dodged taxes in their countries...by investing it in the US? Yes...that will kill economic growth. Yeah...we will surely be at the "bottom" then, and will have "raced" there. This brand of idiocy should have its own genre.

Once again, we have to educate people who support the failed education system, but then have the temerity to ask us why we don't support the failed education system. And...they don't see any irony in this. Oops....I suppose we should have Duck look up irony too? That...or they can just repeat "don't pay their fair share 1000 more times"....as if that is a defense for their lack of education.

Dude....the college kids...sitting in their childhood rooms, staring at their faded Obama posters, wondering when their lives are going to get started.... that was pure

Yeah...I did the same. And, like you, I flipped to CNN after Shapton's 2nd sentence. The guy is no "analyst". You have to be capable of non-linear thought in order to analyze things. The guy with the glasses....(they talk about Ryan being a wonk that can't speak in public) made a point that 80% of people will be too bored with to consider. It's not even accurate...as it is the GROWTH of spending that we are concerned with. Pat...or Rachel Maddow.....got owned by Scott Walker. I guess they can't just leave that guy alone. He beat them, and they still can't stop. What has permanently killed my MSNBC viewing for tonight? Chris Matthews forcing a mortified Andrea Mitchell to ask Condi about "birthers". So banal and undignified. Mitchell was scared schitless, and mumbled the word, and tried to add something else. Condi....outclassing all of them with her answer. Making them look like the small people they are. EDIT: These people are all either too stupid, or too amateurish, to understand that nobody cares about the details of the car plant. It's still CLOSED TODAY, idiots. That's all that matters: results. Ryan has put them all on defense....and now Obama is going to have to speak to an issue that 60+% of the country hates = the auto bailout. That's fighting the enemy on the ground of your choosing. Meanwhile...Chirs Tingle is trying to insert race into Ryan's speech....on a night where Condi speaks? Amateurs....wishful thinking riddled, unmitigated morons.

"I'll be damned....we're Republicans!"

Things that are wrong with the GOP(and, this is not with EVERY person in the GOP...just the problem children): 1. Abortion nonsense. The courts have determined the difference between murder and manslaughter. There's no reason why they can't do the same here. Ice picking babies in the neck is disgusting, and MUST be illegal. We need some sort of biological standard applied(~3 months, etc), and be done with this. Rape, incest, health of the mother = exceptions...that should be exercised ONLY after options to adopt are offered. Think about it: would the adopting parents care how the baby got created? Nope. But with all of this, it's a personal decision...and the people involved have to accept the consequences of it. It's nobody else's business, provided we have sound laws in place, and they are being followed. 2. Unwillingness to focus on the military in terms of winning wars...and not just defense contracts for constituents = campaign contributions. We can cut lots of stuff. But too often we are giving the Navy destroyers they didn't ask for, don't want, and they don't want to have to put good sailors on bad boats, etc. Hey clowns: that doesn't mean that we can cut and run from the responsibilities that ONLY the USA can perform....like what is happening with Syria...right now. 3. Choosing the political, and kitty's approach to immigration....rather than the practical, and strong approach. This doesn't mean give away the store. It does mean, have the process, but OWN the process. Instead, the GOP has people who are too dumb to figure out how to own a process that will work and/or they have people who are too chickenshit to go win votes among immigrants. If GOP ideas are better, then they are better. GOP candidates need to learn how to shoot these weapons, rather than complaining that they won't shoot by themselves. Example: I can't imagine why any immigrant would go through the hassle of coming here...just so they can end up dependent on the government. No. They come here because they want to improve their lives. Reasonable immigration policy, making a candidate lose an election, says more about the candidate than the policy. 4. Refusing to put forward a rational plan for gay marriage, that is respectful of tradition, but also makes sure there aren't any gaps in the rights of people who choose that lifestyle. Come now....it's not like the GOP isn't the best suited to determine how to do this properly. After all, the GOP are the ones actually concerned with how the families are doing. Again...OWN the process. Dictate the terms for how gay families will work. Hold gay parents to the same standards, and while we are at it make them high for ALL fathers and mothers. Nothing will fix so many of our problems faster than making the family, however constructed....work as well as it used to work. Should we make laws against the Brady Bunch, because they weren't married for life? 5. No all-out assault on single motherhood. The #s are clear on this. You are most likely to be arrested, drug addicted, stupid, uneducated, pregnant as a teen....if you come from a single mother family. If they want to get after something....forget porn...and get after this. Find a way to get these women sorted out. There has to be better ways than what we are doing. We can no longer accept "I have a right to raise my kids anyway I"...no B word, you don't, not when your kids are 80% more likely to be burden on society. You don't have to right to F the rest of us over. Chris Rock: "You can raise a kid on your own, so what? You can drive a car with your feet...it doesn't make it a good F'ing idea". Of all the problems in the country...why isn't single motherhood the #1 target of the GOP? Every single program the GOP hates has single motherhood as a root cause...somewhere in it. Even if they were cynical about it, married women vote for the GOP 2/1. 6. For people that love free markets....they sure don't go out of their way to make sure those markets are free. Where is the GOP competition machine...when it comes to things like the Walmart/China revolving door? I am not arguing for protectionism...that is the mark of union foulness. No. I am saying: markets must be completely free. Unfortunately, far too many GOP elected people get far too much money from those who benefit from the rackets that is China/Defense/Insurance. The same can be said on defense, and other things. The answer isn't create a "Small Business has to be included in every bid law". No. The answer is: "Don't let the big guys use undue influence to create the project that requires the bid in the first place Now, in response we have the Democrats benefiting from the rackets that are Wall Street/Unions/Green Nonsense/Shovel Ready...and Insurance(no competition across state lines = no competition for union-owned health insurance companies) . There's a lot of work to do in this area for everybody. That's just off the top of my head. Now....show me a liberal who has the intellectual capacity to be critical of the Democrats...and can actually back up those criticisms with fact, not emotional nonsense or anecdotal evidence....or more retarded socialism. You rarely see that on this board.

In that case....he needs better PR people, and also better marketing people. He doesn't have to deal with this....he can just flutter about being an "artist". But, somebody does.

No less disturbing than thinking of the suffering your wife must endure.

hehehehehe....... I see humor is your defense mechanism. Well then: It's OK. I understand. This ain't no never-never land. I hope that when Dear Leader's gone You'll see him right as a moron Take his crap, yes we will Take his crap and drive it Take it to the garbage dump Cause all real jobs are private

So you missed the part above...where I said Dems are trying to divide the country into little pieces...and winning some of the pieces...resulting in a squeaker win at best for Obama? Against the positive, unifying message/intellectual campaign that Romney is now running full bore? Not a chance. The only way it works is if Romney screws up...and even then, all Obama will get is a fractured country, and 0 mandate. He will not be able to govern. That task, as it has been for the last 1.5 years, will fall to Congress. Harry Reid will now not have to try to protect Obama's flank....so finally a budget might get passed. But, Obama wouldn't even have the power to threaten a veto, never mind actually sign one....not unless he wanted to flirt with real impeachment, for real cause. I heard an ABC, not FOX, news reporter, not analyst, say: "The country has proven that they are ready and willing to fire Obama." That about covers it. It's Romney's game to lose at this point. All he has to do is run the ball, and get first downs. However, I doubt he will. He's going to look for the blow out....and...like I said above, screwing that up is the only way Obama can still win. Romney is looking to blast his way into office...not slide by via 15k votes in Ohio.

Hehehehe....my parents were in town, we had the TV on for a sec...and this story came on. My dad said the same thing.

Good work here...ignoring the connerly conner...and trying to get your thread back on track. Been looking for pics on this every day. Nice to be able to break the streak of failures.

Even if that was true...which it isn't, what is going to make up for Obama's gap with white males, of all classes...which I assure you is much larger, and accounts for such a wide gap...that it obliterates the women and latino vote? In other words...a 50 point gap with white men...means women and latinos don't matter. See...you are thinking like they want: "no...no...we are actually winning...see how well we're doing in this little demographic over here...and this one over here?" Next we will be hearing about Bucks County, PA, etc. They are trying to win by cutting the country up into little pieces, and winning those pieces. It will FAIL. How many white males will vote for Obama conner? How many will vote after Oct 11?

Or anybody in the Democratic party who was more scared of Cain....since they were so sure they could "kill Romney". I mean...that is what the leaked memo said, after all. But, all raking over old coals aside....I am also curious about the timing of this. As a rule I don't believe in coincidence. Perhaps this is an entry point....geared towards getting a role for Cain in Romney's government? "I can make trouble for you...so give me that Secretary of Something job", etc.

Simple as I can say it: If Soorkin believes he is "shaping opinion" with his show, and that he socialize people to liberal views.....he is an unmitigated moron. That's because...Rush Limbaugh's show is primarily based on "catching them in the act". Thus, Soorkin is only succeeding...in propagating a radio show/Fox News/Breitbart.com/internet-TEA party meme = Hollywood is unfair in it's portrayal of conservative and libertarian views and uses caricatures, rather than characters, in that portrayal. The problem is: size of audience. When Rush Limbaugh says something...5x the people hear it, than when Soorkin says something. As such the true outcome...is socializing 5 people towards conservative views....for every 1 towards liberal. Now...if Soorkin understands this dynamic...and knows that feeding the machine...means in essence: free advertising (a plug) for his show, and If Soorkin is intentionally using this dynamic to attract Rush Limbaugh's audience, which is at least 5x larger than his, to his show...then he is a genius. So the question for you is: which do you think it is? Or...can it be a little of both?

I've been saying this for years. I don't think liberals have done any real thinking about their playbook for years. I've haven't heard a liberal say something intriguing for years. All that green crap was retreaded old stuff, and the easiest way to tell? It FAILed the same way the old stuff did.

Of course they chose to.... again When they hired Edwards, that's the D he runs. It's not as if they went 3-4...and then hired Edwards. No. We didn't hear about 3-4 until AFTER Edwards was hired. The f'ing point is: if that is what you are going to do...then your NT suddenly becomes key. You can't do 3-4 if you have a problem at NT. You can do it with lesser players at other positions(see Patriots)...but not at NT. So, drafting a NT high is certainly no problem at all. And, if you are going to get one, why wouldn't you want the best one = take him in the 1st or 2nd round? What makes no sense here is you saying that they shouldn't have done...something they are supposed to do, that most of the successful 3-4 teams have historically done(Pats, Jets, Dolphins, Steelers, Ravens). All these teams have drafted NT high...but if the Bills do it, it's wrong? And finally how in the hell do you get me saying "There's a Rooney Rule for coordinators"....out of this? "The more time that goes by the more Edwards looks like a "Rooney Rule/Affirmative Action" hire that was kinda forced on Buddy/Chan. Not saying Chan(Chan is the HC, right?) can't hire whoever he wants...but...also not saying somebody in the NFL front office didn't influence/pick up the phone and push for that". Looks like...is not is, =, or "the same". Looks like...means looks like. I asked for a better explanation, from anyone....you provided poor reading comprehension instead. Now what? No, seriously, I want to know what they are going to say next...since this is headed towards hilarious...I can feel it!

What was wrong with taking a nose tackle high when you are switching to a 3-4? Objectively, now? If I'm a new GM, and we have to switch to that D? That's the first thing I'd draft if it's there at my pick. You take 100 teams, that's a perfectly acceptable tactic....but only with the Bills it's bad? Explain that better, because you are starting to sound irrational here. Meanwhile: The more time that goes by the more Edwards looks like a "Rooney Rule/Affirmative Action" hire that was kinda forced on Buddy/Chan. Not saying Chan(Chan is the HC, right?) can't hire whoever he wants...but...also not saying somebody in the NFL front office didn't influence/pick up the phone and push for that. The reason is: boy, didn't they move quick to extricated him and his defense after year 1? Did Chan have any coaching history with Edwards....like he does with Wanny, Lee, pretty much everybody else on the staff? Hey, I could be wrong, but "Occam's razor" says: affirmative action hire.