OCinBuffalo

Yep, and it was that doctor who made that decision not the Bills. Btw, my brother has been dealing with this injury for most of HS and College. They didn't leave the screws in the first time for him either??? Sure as schit, he broke it again - and he lost his starting job. Now he's got the screws in and just got his position back. His doc said that they aways try to avoid leaving the screws because they can cause complications later on. Apparently what this doc, and McCargo's doc at NC State, are missing is that this approach can cause complications right now - i.e. breaking it again!

OMG: "some people" could be anybody - the parking lot attendant at the Air Canada Centre, this guy's wife, the dude at Tim Horton's where this guy gets his donuts, etc. This reminds me of what 8th grade girls do to each other->"some people say the Cassy is a slut". The fact is that it's been denied by the NFL over and over again. Now, with due respect to the "Coach Saban" fiasco, I do not see the NFL making flat denial after flat denial and then actually moving the Bills to Toronto. Why? Because the NFL is not one, ego-manical, pansy-ass guy who can't stand not having everyone kiss his ass every second. Moreover, the NFL can't run away from it's commitments to a cushy job in college. The NFL has to do it's business in the public eye and would suffer a huge credibility hit(which will have a direct effect on its ability to negotiate with everyone), not to mention the wrath of the politicians mentioned above who have already staked themselves to this issue. If the team gets moved while Schumer is in office, he loses HUGE and Not because of this issue itself. Rather, the perception will be that old Chucky-boy doesn't have the power he claimed to have - as a member of the Judiciary committee(for this it's the anit-trust angle). This would quickly morph into "Chuck says he can do a lot more than he can actually do" = Chuck is a little punk. As far as this Godfrey guy goes, this argument is classic in the sense that he is guilty of a fundamental mistake in logic: If what he is saying is true - that the NFL wants to replace small cities with big ones - how does that directly "auger well" for Toronto? It can't because a city called Las Vegas exists, so does Orlando, so does Birmingham, so does Sacramento(and others you can think of), and let's not forget the elephant in the room - LA(btw, this is the last time I use that cliche ever). Each of these cities has at least the same if not better reasons to locate a franchise. Toronto is a big city, the NFL wants big cities, therefore Toronto is the next place a franchise will be located? BS wishful thinking is all this amounts to - and clever manipulation of the media. He is using them to let the NFL know that he is serious about owning a franchise - that's all.

I went over to finheaven to see what they were saying. I was surprised to find that rather than complaining a good % of the posts were like this. At least they can admit that as fans they pretty much suck. Thank God we don't have this problem. Or do we? The last game I was at the Club seat people were acting like they were watching golf.

Yeah but here's the thing you are both forgetting: changes in who makes these decisions. Yes, Edwards was supposed to fill PW's spot. But who told us that? Donahoe. I don't suppose you are saying that this was Donahoe's only mistake? So, you can't point to only one example - especially when it's not a valid example since it's Marv/DJ +scouts+coaches decision now - and therefore say that McCargo/get another CB = spinning wheels. On the other hand, we can't just have blind faith in McCargo either. For my part, I am willing to trust the Marv. I also think that DJ is a hell of a football coach and more than capable of evaluating talent properly. He drafted many of the guys on the Bears, and they aren't doing too badly. Things seem headed in the right direction and I would suggest that we can be cautiously optimistic about this year's player moves.

Exact same story for me. I wanted the Eagles to win - especially since I was living in Cleveland at the time and the Raiders had gotten lucky in Beating the Browns in the playoffs. Good old Brian Sipe threw a pick into the endzone on 3rd down from the Raiders 14 yd line. The Browns were down 14 -12, he could have thrown it away, they kick the FG = win. The Raiders went on to beat each team they played with some sort of BS/lucky calls/other teams doing something stupid. Kinda like the Patriots.

As much as I hate to keep this going - I just wanted to add a point. Has anyone considered that these international tournaments(Olympics, etc.) are one gigantic tryout? North American(I'll add the Canadians just to make them feel good ) players in baseball, basketball, hockey and football all get paid a heck of a lot of money. Meaning our guys represent the "Haves", or Major Leaguers . The "big time" players from Croatia(or insert tool country here) are lucky to get paid 1/20th of what our players in all four sports get. They play in leagues that are the equivalent of box lacrosse in their countries(compared to soccer). Meaning the rest of the world's guys represent the "Have nots", or Minor Leaguers. Beyond playing for national pride, the minor leaguers know that this international competition is probably their best possible opportunity to impress NFL,NBA,MLB,NHL scouts/organizations. Meanwhile, why in the hell would some "Have" guy coming up on a contract year want to match up against a "Have not" and potentially get shown up? Or get hurt? Bottom Line: the bigger the deal the "Have Not" guys make out of beating the USA, the more likely they are gonna get a look. The "Have"s essentially gain nothing out of playing for the USA, and the only thing they lose is people on a message board like this one pissing and moaning. Read: no real effect. The fact is I haven't seen attendance/TV revenue go down in any of the leagues we have as a result of losing and international competition. Which leaves the question: If everyone is so upset about USA team losing, why are they still willing to go to its leagues regular season/playoff games? So, basically as a country we are rewarding bad behavior - QED we have no one to blame but ourselves. For my part, I have sworn off the NBA in total until they bring home a gold medal. I turned down free tickets last year and I won't watch it on TV.

Something more suited to the French - hilarious. So I guess them being perceived as wimpy goes a lot further back than Bill O'Reilly.

Like I said last year, I was 100% behind getting top safeties and corners in the draft because we needed huge help there with Milloy, Vincent practically needing wheel chairs and Clements in his last year. But, I also said I was 100% behind shoring up both lines this year. We definitely need to spend our first 2-3 picks on lineman, with the only exception being if an excellent, not just good, linebacker is available. I will be just as upset as you are if we don't follow through on this - or do something great in FA - no retreads, has-beens or never-weres.

Great logic coming from HA, I am astounded. j/k Seriously this is a great post. I love this economic canceling out idea. Based on this I say: "Niet. Pay that man his money."

I don't know Honestly, it's hard to say. I can see both sides of the argument - large effect vs. no effect - from The other Zierlein Post. My guess is that it will have a marginal effect because Dick Jauron is going to hire his replacement. With DJ's emphasis on teaching, I find it hard to believe that we won't get a guy who can contribute to the continued development of our o line - as opposed to simply an azz kicker.

Bug in the model? How in the heck can Oakland have a PRI score of 5 at QB? Shouldn't that be higher? I understand there might be some difficulty with WR but is it more important than fixing QB? Or, is this simply based on an opinion?

Don't bother...this guy won't ever recognize your facts - that the Patriots of the last 6 years usually slide by on a late-game FG/TD - MOST of the time. I hardly see that as "dominant" performance. Dominant would be what the Bears did to them in the SB. 46-10 - that's dominant. More importantly later in the 1st half and most of the Colts game, their old D got dominated by the Colts'(of all people) running game. I could hardly believe the announcers actually recognized it, and even more shocking is that they actually said it - The Patriots are Tired. But it doesn't really matter what we see - this guy's perception is what it is. I mean, come on, he's a Pat's fan. It's not as if we were expecting him to be objective. So again, don't bother trying to get him to take off his "Pats aren't in trouble" glasses, it ain't gonna happen. Just remember: "The Patriots have won 3 out of the last 6 Super Bowls"(formerly 3 out of the last 5). I wonder if after next year it will be "3 out of the last 7". Ten years from now: 3 out of the last 16, etc.

Go Bears - but I won't be sad if the Colts win. I went into the weekend thinking "As long as the Patriots lose" I am happy.

Last time I drove through there on the way to Chicago, it was at night. I saw about 20 muzzle flashes from the highway. That town is definitely dying. Needless to say, I put the pedal down, and almost immediately I drove right by some cops on the side of the road who looked at me as if to say "that's all your car has got? Get the F outa here!"

I guess you were wrong. Dungy outcoached Belichick in this game. The colts ran the ball and tired out the Patriots D - who is OLD - just like I said. In fact, if the Colts weren't playing from behind for 85% of this game, Addai would have had at least 120 yards and Rhodes prolly close to 80. I am sure Belechick doesn't love the prospect of coaching against Dungy anymore, not that he ever did.

Yeaaah, it's good to dream. But if anything (and this will sound weird) I think Samuel's play actually makes Clements stock go down. In fact, it may end up helping us to keep Nate. If the perception is that Samuel is "the best CB out there" then that means NC is not. Everyone knows that the best should get the best contract. But what does #2 get? If Nate is not the hottest FA out there at his position, I wonder what that will mean. Let's say the Redskins, Cowboys(and the rest of the big $ usual suspects) go after Samuel, that whole thing kinda leaves good ole' Nate out in the cold as a "me too". I dunno, that may mean he is easier to sign back - but of course it may not.

My mistake. I swear my eyes messed with me there. Perhaps it's just the # of times I have heard that the Patriots are a "class", or THE "class", organiztation in the NFL in the last week. Complete Joke. All you have to do is watch the games/press conferences and see that is far form the case.

Yeah and grabbing a camera guy by the throat and tossing him aside is an example of what exactly? Certainly not class. As far as Manning goes, he would say that whether they were gracious or not. Manning has class and is certainly not going to call someone out after beating them. So what are u saying again? Using Manning's comments as an excuse when we have seen for ourselves the actual Patriot's bad behavior is kind of silly, IMO.

That's the best part - I think it's clear that they need serious help at LB. They are old and have been exposed as such during the last 2 games. The Colts were in comeback mode most of the game but still managed to run for 120+ yards on this D. I just hope that they keep the guys they have due to the "veteran leadership" line of thinking so that we can exploit this next year.

Sorry, I am too smart for such an obvious attempt at baiting - and you know that. :worthy: But, I remember that being a quandry for the 49ers, especially when Montana went to the Chiefs. In fact that was supposed to be the 93 superbowl matchup - 49ers/Chiefs. Too bad we messed that up.

Like I replied to the other - you are probably right. But the key thing you said was "era". Montana played against a conference where defense was the absolute focus. Brady did not. But, you are right - he will make it into the hall, but not because he is better than Montana.

Yeah that was prolly too much - but a lot was made of Marino not winning the big game. I guess we'll see. It really depends on the next 4 years, IMO. Montana won 4 over 9 years with the same team in a conference where excellent - not just good - defense was a standard on multiple teams. I can't see the same thing being said about the AFC during Brady's time. But, you are probably right.

Billy(and the rest of his ball-washers) can say(or not say) what he wants but here is the history as it will be remembered: The Greateast Championship Game Comeback of all time was lost by the Patriots. They were coached by Bill Belichick. The nail in the coffin of that loss was an interception thrown by Tom Brady(who had a passer rating of 79). END OF STORY. Those are the facts. Spin, deny, twist all you want, but those are the facts that will be recorded. With these facts firmly in place, the Patriots, Tom Brady and Bill Belechick are not legendary, and I will even go as far as saying both are serious ? for HOF induction. Tom Brady is not better than Joe Montana and does not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence or "have his arm around Joe Montana" or anywhere near Joe. Joe Montana won this type of game and he did it against defenses that are 4-5 times better than the Colts(or Broncos, Jets, SD). Brady may be 12-2(now) in the playoffs but what defenses did he play against? Moreover, pick the best defense Brady has played against in the playoffs. I dare you! Are they better than the '80s Cowboys, Giants, Bears, Redskins, Vikings or Eagles defenses? Of course they're not. Brady = Montana was perhaps the most supremely stupid thing I have seen on this board, (well, there is retatta) and I hope it goes away permanently as the facts simply don't back it up. Anyone who continues this nonsense is simply embarssing themselves. As far as class as an organization goes, I would look to New Orleans - and they at least have an excuse to be upset. They were all over the field congratulating the Bears - players and coaches. The Patriots? Um, no. Class is shaking the other teams hand - not running off to the locker room and ducking the press. Actually, I couldn't care less about the press - but at least go and shake the other QBs hand. No one should be talking about the Patriots and use the word "class" while doing it, EVER.

I second that. But don't forget that they were that team's only loss that year. But, whatever, the Bears would have crushed them - especially Marino. I really wanted to see that.

I just realized - CBS has the super bowl this year = NO JOE BUCK! Hooray!