OCinBuffalo

As a someone who spent 4.5 off and on years in Philly, I can honestly say: F them. They are the worst fans in the country, and I spent a year in Dallas too. Honestly. They deserve every bit of this, and much more. One of my best days ever was getting a free ticket to see the Sabres crush the Flyers 7-1 in game 6 in 2006. They turned on their team like a mother-in-law...which ended in me sitting behind the Sabres bench for the last 2 periods. However, I do feel sorry for the people in Philly who need to rent a car, get a cab, fly, have a drink or do anything else that involves dealing with someone personally. The people you have to deal with are all miserable asses today, and are determined to bring you down with them and/or take it out on you.

1. I think this defense has suffered due to the lockout. 2. They have clearly displayed significant playmaking ability, ballhawkish tendencies, and physical ability. NOBODY has been able to run consistently up the middle on us. The frustration has come on the "we have one guy whose supposed to be getting the edge, but for whatever reason, he's not where he's supposed to be and then misses the tackle by inches". One thing is certain: This team gets off their blocks 60-70% better than they did last year. That is purely about physical ability, and it is clearly improved. They are raw though, but that hopefully gets fixed with experience. 3. I think the coaches have made substitutions and inserted packages that have caused as many problems as they have solved. The team is not there yet in terms of who is supposed to be where, in what set, against what offense, etc. The problem is not technique or physical ability. The problem is they don't fully get the playbook yet. McKelvin is a prime example of this: didn't hear his name all game did you? That's because he was where he was supposed to be this game. However, I don't see how throwing rookies into the game, who aren't really sure wtf is going on, is a better idea than keeping the vets in there. 4. As I said earlier, it seems that the coaches are willing to sacrifice situational awareness for fresh legs. OK. Not how I would do it, but, they appear to be largely getting away with it for right now. Who knows? Perhaps the coaches feel that these guys are closer to starting than I do? Perhaps they feel they need to play em asap? What makes me wrong is: Kevin Sheppard laying Vick out and causing a pick. What makes me right is: Kevin Sheppard forgetting his "contain Vick" responsibility and Vick running for 60 yards.

Are they black prisoners?

The former head of the IMF who got scammed by a scumbag, for being a scumbag?

This has been going on since the Raider's game. I understand why we need to rotate players/fresh legs. I understand why we want certain personnel on the field in certain situations. I also love some of the things that the backups did = Moats hit, Sheppard hit, etc. And finally, I understand that injuries mean we have to have guys, especially on defense, that can step in immediately. All of that is great. However, it's not great if you are subbing guys on the field, and the guys who are already there are trying to do their reads, while also pointing out somebody else's reads, but the newcomer points out something else, and the existing guy....and then the ball is snapped. Now, one side of the field is out of alignment, and it's basically a prayer that the other team doesn't see it and/or exploit it. Now we have to hope that somebody makes an incredible individual play, because our scheme is not going to help this down. This has been the root cause of multiple big plays working this season. There are multiple solutions to this, and, it most certainly is a consequence of the lockout. However, it's time to recognize this as a problem. If you can't be sure you are going to get the specialized d package in there, and get it lined up right, then what good is it? Either they have to fix this now, which I believe simply means more hard work in the film room for the entire D, or, they need to tell players that if they can't get it right, they don't get on the field. This is absolutely a coaching problem, and I believe it is solvable. Hopefully the coaches can straighten this out.

Yes, there are some very odd rationales around here. It seems the Ralph Cheap, Nix Asleep crowd is getting desperate. All the psych majors here? This is real world cognitive dissonance. You should do your thesis on it!

Hmm. Now that you have listed it out like that....how much "luck" was there? I'd say it was 80 skill, 20 luck...at the most. And, luck is one game, picking off Brady 4 times, whatever. How can all 5 games be explained then? We are seeing a clear pattern emerging here, as in 3 games in a row with a pick 6, winning the turnover battle, by a lot, every single week. Besides, so many of the big plays the Eagles had were veeery close to being losses, and I am pretty sure that's because guys weren't lined up where they were supposed to be. Which leads me to my second point: I understand the need to rotate people on D...however...not at the expense of having guys run onto the field and clearly not know what the F is happening. Multiple times we had clear communication and/or scheme fit trouble in real time, as the ball was being snapped. We had people out of position as a result. The first Eagles TD is an obvious example. The good news is all of this can be corrected....and I think the D certainly has talent. Therefore, these are fixable problems, this season.

We had already scored a 1950's, wedge formation, wildcat TD on them. F yeah I wanted them to go for it. There was no reason to believe that they could have stopped us for anyone....but most importantly, for the Eagles D themselves. The only way that guy jumps is if he thought they were going to run it, and most likely make it. So, he tries to make a big play. If he wasn't worried about us actually going for it, why else would he jump?

Rosen is the Rangers pbp guy. I am sorry but given his hockey announcing, there's little doubt he's at least a little biased against Buffalo in general. My favorite part was when they started getting on Kelsay for not holding the edge on a running play. Even when Kelsay's not in the game, people want to get on him.

Radio said he's out for the game w/ an ankle injury.

This is the root cause, and is the exact same problem in health care. We keep talking in terms of macro swings.... "regulation vs. deregulation" "billions in spending increases vs. cuts" all or nothing, back and forth. It's ridiculous. We need smarter people, and certainly not the government employees in charge right now, to come up with smarter regulation methodology first, never mind regulations themselves. All to often the regulations that are currently imposed are about power, punishment, are short-sighted, rife with unintended consequences, and always about improving the position of the government employee.....and not about ensuring consumer protection, and protection of the economy as a whole.

Yeah...and you know what the dialog is there? "I'm sorry dear to have to tell you about my boyfriend Serge, but I just can't go on this way. Dammit man....I love Serge, and we are going to live in The Argentine together. But perhaps there is a chance for us...perhaps if you were willing to try it this way, the way Serge does it to me...Ok?...come on....'Just the tip!'*" *Archer rules Yes, not only a scarf, but grosgrain piping. Nothing says "I wish I was a born a girl" more than dressing up like one....from a smarmy private school. Right, and since Patton has been invoked, when he said "Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl-handled pistol"...this is what he was talking about. ----- That's how a grown up man wears a scarf in cold weather...because it's f'ing cold, and he's going to be outside for a while. This is how a Hollywood ponce wears a scarf...for no practical reason, because like you, he thinks it makes him look erudite. Get serious. If the Outlaw Josey Wales saw Bruce Willis trying to look cool in that scarf, he'd spit tobacco on him first, then on the dog.

You know it's interesting, because there are very few instances where the phrase "do I need to draw you a picture"? does NOT apply. I don't need to draw you a picture of what the !@#$ is wrong with wearing a scarf....because I already provided 2 of them. You think it's ok to look like a 70s super model? Like you and Cheryl Tiegs? are about to go cruising in your multi-colored jeep down the PCH. Dude...the guy from "3's Company" wouldn't wear that f'ing girl's scarf, think about that. Welcome back Kotter wore a scarf(I don't know how I remember stuff like this from when was a baby, I just do)...but he didn't wear it like he was a chimney sweep in Mary Poppins. You think that's fashionable? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? You are an !@#$.

You are acting as though blatant examples like this either don't exist, or, "it's the same for everybody". That's simply not the case. In all cases, if you make the choice to take money from any company to represent them publicly, then any public bad behavior, at ALL times, is grounds for termination. This never was and never will be a free speech issue. The Dixie Chicks tried to make it into one. They are retarded. This was only the 2nd piece of evidence that backs up that statement. The first was saying the stupid stuff they did in the first place. (um, you make good records, you have a lot of fans...be happy; you wouldn't risk that....unless you are...retarded). The only protection they enjoy is not being thrown in jail for saying the stupid things they said. There is no protection against being called a pig-faced idiot, which the lead one most certainly is, so there's not even a slander case there. There are no protections against lawful consequences for saying stupid things, for anybody. As my signature used to say "You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mercilessly mock you for it".

Here...I am juxtaposing this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te_Nv3lMUnA and this.... The above looks like a 70s Super model. All he needs is huge bangs...and that jacket to be corduroy. I understand fashion...but fashion is not looking like a woman from 40 years ago...that's just looking...bizarre. I threw this in just for fun. "Hey buddy, you already look like a complete dork, why not throw in a schit eating grin and a 1950s thumbs up while you're at it? Why not go for the whole ensemble?"

You mean like the NPR people....who fired Juan Williams for telling the truth and telling his opinion...on an opinion show where he is paid to give his opinion? And then it took 2 more incidents and some ballsy kid to actually video tape their douchbaggery in a restaurant before they themselves finally got fired? All the while, the entire incident was completely ignored by the MSM, until the video tape made that impossible? Like that? Yeah, that's the exact same as the Hank Williams thing.

That's my point. To piggy back on GG's point, which already piggy backed on my point, if you just call them an a-hole...that engineers the parameter of race, and all its inherent machinations, right out of the problem. It takes away any excuse that could be made if you called them "reverse racists" or "double standard bearers". I have a client who loves to say: piggy back on your point engineer it out of the problem...the parameter part is what he means, but he says part, as in "the race part" machinations....but I don't think he knows what the the word inherent means We can usually tell his comfort/understanding level with what the material we are discussing based on the number of times he uses these things. The less we hear them, the better he gets it.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with Syria at all.

Look at it this way: The last time the refs screwed us to this extent was....when we were a good team. You can't be a bad team, and get rogered by the refs to the point that it makes you lose the game. You do that to yourself, consistently, if you are a bad team. You are right to feel that we got screwed. But, don't lose sight of the larger, and infinitely more pleasing notion: this is a good team, that both had an off day, and, was hosed by the refs on 8 distinct occasions. Notice I said BOTH. They are not mutually exclusive, despite the babble from the morons. Which thing had more effect? Who cares? They both effected the outcome. However, the ONLY way that both these things can be true is: the Bills are no longer a bad team.

I am stuck. I want to post: "this is perhaps the least relevant thing in the world right now"....but by posting that, I am making it a little more relevant. Well, at least for the search engines anyway. Let's go with: If this is the biggest thing you have to worry about in your life right now, boy, am I envious.

Oh...really? Want some homework? Go back and look at every thread on this subject since 2007 when the Democrats decided to try and make this a wedge issue. I have been called every name in the book for simply pointing out that fact, never mind being right about the reasons why it was done, and being right about the outcomes that resulted from this poorly considered and cynical political tactic. The assclowns then were talking in terms of "attacking religious zealots"....the assclowns now are talking in terms of "civil rights". It's pathetic, and inexcusable. Civil rights was never the issue until now, and it still isn't for most of the elected Democrats. They tried to take the moral high ground, for the expressed purpose of selling it for votes.... So spare me. I am calling people "assclown" based on bad behavior. They have been calling me "bigot" for stating facts, telling them the truth in spite of their lame attempts to intimidate and character assassinate me(as if) and because they are upset that I have been right about this issue, every step of the way, since 2007. Yeah, that's the same.

Bad behavior is bad behavior. The minute we start recognizing it as such....and completely cease attributing it to backgrounds, skin, class, whatever...is the same minute we will free ourselves from a whole lot of nonsense. If your story is true, then those people know damn well that their behavior is bad. It's not a reflection on you, society, or anything else. It's merely a reflection on them. They are a-holes. End of story. So are the customers behind you. Ask yourself: would you allow somebody to let you cut ahead of another person under any circumstance short of emergency? Of course not. Hey, I understand an occasional Larry David/Seinfeld getover, which can also be mildly amusing, to downright hysterical. But in general, you know that if things were reversed, you would have behaved properly, and insisted the person ahead of you be served first. DaveinElma: Why yell "racist" when you can yell "a-hole"? There's no excuse for a-hole, and being an a-hole is nobody's fault but the a-hole's.

I doubt that anyone can really tell what is a line item...on what books...for what programs. I think they are pulling most of this out of their ass, so yeah, I do think that they could find more if pressed further. And, to get back to Gary's point: it's amazing what can happen when the normal pressure to make cost-cutting decisions is applied. Or..."welcome to living in the real world. Want that new project? Well, you're going to have to earn at least half of it by finding efficiency and cutting costs...or accept the fact that you can't have it until you do...just like the rest of us."

You are dreaming if you think that Putin would have pulled this stunt on Bush. I know what you are saying and why, but come on man, this is a non-issue for Russia. They are simply doing what Russians have been doing since Peter the Great: bide their time, wait for what they perceive to be weakness and then exploit it. As we know, sometimes their perceptions have been off, but, that doesn't mean the strategy changes. This is merely a chess move for them, whose main effect is: we have gone from 5 to -10 on the scale of dealing with them, in all things. It will take years to gain back ground that was lost by this infant. Russians only understand the stick. Hell, they WANT the stick, they like the stick, if for nothing else than to know they are still "alive" and relevant, that their lives have meaning...yet these idiots kept giving them carrots. Who is Putin...without the pre-Obama USA? Think about that. How does he redefine his existence in a world where the USA suddenly = pussies? He does the only thing he can do, because its the only thing he knows: whip it out. Hey, it's an appropriate analogy, we are talking Putin here, after all, so that means he is just as likely stick it in Obama as Rice.

To what end? Consider for a second what any small business technology/engineering CEO would do to a recruiter who sent them a bunch of (Insert Identity Here) Studies and other Bachelor of Arts/"I made up my own major" resumes, that have 0 "I worked for free in my profession cause that's how serious I am" examples? What % of those protesters do you think has a 4-year BoS degree or would sign up to be plumber's apprentice? Hence: they sit on their asses waiting for a government job to come along, so that they can propagate said government. No Monster, certainly no interview, and definitely no cleaning up their act: these are the future "political appointees" of the Democratic party. They are simply making their bones. Now, they can say they have "been in the streets", "fighting for the rights of working families"....doing yoga, the whole 9 yards!. Buddy, this is their "internship". "Pretty soon they will make community organizer...and that's when the big bucks start rolling in". There's that word again. I doubt that there is a single word in the language that instantly let's you know exactly who you are dealing with more than "juxtaposed". A grown man wearing a scarf like he's 6 and/or auditioning for a role in Mary Poppins(Chim-Chiminey Chim Chim Chiree), or worse, a grown man wearing a women's scarf, shoulder bags for men, and...grad students...all images that are now inseparable from that word. What's that DC_Tom quote? Something about hiking and camping making you erudite? Add the constant, feigned casual use of the word "juxtaposed" to that. "Sorry, but not everybody can be F. Scott Fitzgerald. Have you considered teaching?" OK. You respect people who honestly and openly support policies that are FAIL, rather than those who cover FAIL with "hope and change" and call it "smart". Well, that's something I suppose. Sorry but you are thinking again. You are not supposed to think about this, you are supposed to feel. Don't you feel better about finally having an African American President? Don't your feelings about that subsume(see liberal, scarf-wearing d-bags? I can do it too!) your rational observations vis a vis(now I'm on a roll!) Obama's incompetence?