Captain Caveman

+1

Don't drink out of any strange water bottles you find laying around...

So you're saying the Raiders go after scumbags just for the hell of it, not because they have a need for a player / position. Ok.

I think he's suggesting that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that winning doesn't have to come at that cost. There are times when it makes sense to sign a player with a troubled past. I don't think this is one of them. Let me ask you a question. Are you seriously suggesting that signing Vick will make us successful? 'Cause he wasn't that good to begin with, and I don't see him adding even one win to this team after two years in prison. Not worth the trouble.

So we have an extra week of camp, and an extra game. And it results in getting fewer sessions than other teams? Explain.

I was watching this commercial for boxing on Showtime. They said "It's a fight to the finish!" That's a pretty good place to end. RIP MH

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

So is this case, which was front page news on every other site Tuesday and yesterday, before ESPN finally decided to cover that no criminal charges were being filed.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the special he's referring to (for new customers only) is 59$ a month for full service including all premium channels and Sunday Ticket. That's how they used to do it when I had DirecTV. That is not ridiculously expensive.

I don't necessarily buy this either, as this kind of publicity would only boost ratings for that show. Ask Michael Vick. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Have they ever done this with anything? Not a chance.

Lori, I also wouldn't expect him to, for the same reasons you mentioned. He could maybe confirm or deny whether ESPN has ever dictated any topics as being off limits in a story, or given guidelines as to which topics should be treated with sensitivity. As a fan and a reader, it would be very interesting to hear about what kind of filter might be in place over there. I wouldn't blame him, or lose any respect for him if he chose not answer though. I've been asked by my boss to do things that I didn't necessarily agree with, and have a lot of empathy for any writer who might be asked to compromise a story for the sake of business. The Daily Show has Brian Williams as a guest last week, and before his segment they made a big deal out of the way news organizations had bent over backwards to land an interview with Mark Sanford. I think it's important that people realize just how dependent the "news" can be on advertising dollars, and how easily it can be compromised in search of those advertising dollars. I'm not saying that that is necessarily happening here, as it seems more likely that ESPN doesn't want to provide negative coverage of a source they consider friendly. I think a lot of people noticed similar prejudices in covering the Brett Favre saga a few months back, and it would be a shame if this becomes a larger trend.

I still don't see anything at ESPN.com on the front page, or on the NFL page. JP Losman signing with the UFL is on thr front page. They are definitely going out of their way to not cover this story (or at least limit coverage of it) which reeks of shoddy journalism. If they're doing it because her claims seem dubious, then make sure you cover that angle in it. I understand that this is going to be controversial either way. But don't just leave it unreported because it might make it difficult to cover that athlete / team in the future, or might raise some other controversy.

I wonder how much Tim Graham could comment on this without getting himself in hot water? I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN (or any other of the other "news" outlets) set these kinds of restrictions to keep people / organizations / teams / leagues friendly, but still, this stinks.

I think most would interpret the original question to be related to Peyton's first 8 years before they won the Super Bowl, when they kept the same system, not the last two, when age started to show it's head.

Right, but it sucks that you're a dick and completely missing the point. The Colts persevered with the same system for years before their Super Bowl (and before they were old and decrepit) and eventually won one. Saying that they're broken down now doesn't have anything to do with all those years they were up and coming.

Is this dude seriously giving Wilson a hard time for asking for a new stadium... 30 years ago? How many teams have moved in that time period? How many times have the Raiders moved in that time period?

Where are you in NJ? I've been trying to get a bar in Jersey City to start playing Bills games, but need more folks to come.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I don't get how this is hypocritical. He's saving himself and the subscriber some money by taking advantage of a DirecTV promotion. You were making money off of other Bills fans.

I'm pretty sure it's a contractual / legal thing. But the bottom line is, DirecTV is making more because many people are going ahead and signing up for Sunday Ticket, which means they also have to sign up for DirecTV. If they made just the football package available on the internet, they would potentially lose out on a lot of full subscribers, and the money they made off the football internet only subscribers would not make up for it.

What if a frog had wings? He wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. Give it up. There are probably millions of things that could happen. But the long and short of it is, Maybin will most likely be playing DE. And if he plays well, he'll most likely see significant time. If that's not enough for you right now, I suggest some kind of hibernation until there's some preseason games happening, or at least a few more weeks 'til training camp.

They're stainless steel, so not your average flower pots. They were more likely a custom job.

Not defending Tom B. (I know that's the 11th commandment around here) but c'mon, that guy did not think they were garbage. Did he leave them at the curb? I doubt it. The dude's a convicted bank robber.