ATBNG

.......at the start of today's game, do you kickoff or receive?

Campy - it was right on the heels of my stating in another thread that Takeo was still playing ILB. I was on the bike at the gym and Belichick's show was on and he basically went through some footage showing the ability of the Buffalo linebackers. As he showed Takeo blasting Williams from the weak side, I was thinking "oh ^%$#" - I'm going to get creamed for that. Belichick pointed out that Fletcher has been as productive as any MLB in the game in terms of tackles over the past five seasons (right there with Lewis + Brooks according to Belichick and maybe ahead of them at 900 tackles or so over that span), and noted that he was severely underrated. I think the thing he most liked though was Fletcher returning a kick, and that was "something we had never probably seen" on special teams - a starting ILB as returner, and with a good return to boot. Belichick loves versatile players. I think a lot of the posters on here would have enjoyed the segment - pretty fascinating.

Not so fast. He was referring to tape later in the show where he showed Fletcher returning a kickoff against Oakland. Belichick clearly has a ton of respect for London Fletcher. He also showed a crossing route where according to Belichick, Spikes "welcomed Reggie Williams to the NFL." Ouch.

It does not include the 1993 season - for the record. It either started in the last game of 1993 against Miami or the first game of the next season (against Buffalo I think). I bought tickets on the day of the game three times that season. They didn't sell out.

You're right - Fletcher plays ILB for you guys, my bad. Shouldn't actually overlook Fletcher, who is a pretty awesome player. But Takeo has not exclusively been an OLB, which I'm sure you know. I'm sorry, but what prompted the insult? I'm pretty conscious of being respectful to you guys when we discuss football here and would never be otherwise, but I would hope for the same in return.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that the Patriots have been very fortunate to win their two Super Bowls. They've gotten lucky breaks left and right. Luck is a big part of all sports. They have been able to get bounces and breaks when they need them most. So there's one for you. When the "tuck" rule play happened, my friends and I thought the game was over. But hey - should we not be proud that outside of that call, the Pats stopped the Raiders on 2 and 1 twice to prevent them from running out the clock? Should we not be proud that our kicker made the greatest kick in the history of the NFL to extend the game? The "tuck" play doesn't diminish those acts of courage in my mind. But sure - the "tuck" play was very, very lucky - no doubt. I don't see how being a Bills' fan for a long time makes you an expert on whether the Pats' newfound popularity is fleeting. At any rate, you're miscalculating on this one. I can assure you that this area has transformed itself into a great NFL area in the last 12 years. All the numbers don't lie. I give Bills' fans a lot of credit for supporting their team in a small market as well as knowing their stuff (else why would I post here?), but this does not mean that the fans in this larger market do not care or are fleeting fans.

Not only is this statement not remotely factual, there is no evidence that you could ever come up with to support it. These "apathetic" sports fans pay the highest ticket prices in the country in 2 sports and sell out every game. Now that is a fact.

Again, ridiculous - the Pats were the second leading NFL team in terms of merchandise sold out of 32, and you're somehow saying that this means we're poor fans? If I said that Ray Lewis was the best middle linebacker in football, and that Takeo was second, would it follow that I thought Takeo stinks? Of course not! Lots of people seem to have this view on here - that the Pats' fans are fleeting. Would it have been correct in 1992? Absolutely. However, a lot has changed in the last 12 years. In pretty much every economic aspect (ticket price, franchise value, merchandise sales), the Pats are at or near the top of the NFL. This is in large part due to the team's tremendous fan base.

Using that logic (and ignoring the absurd 70 million number - divide it by 10), what happened in Los Angeles? Shouldn't they have a successful team based on population alone?

You're not correct. The Pats have sold out every home game for 11 straight years and have a season ticket waiting list (which requires a yearly fee to stay on) longer than the list of actual season ticket holders (more than 50,000 people waiting). They also have the most expensive tickets in the NFL. The early 1990's aren't coming back RTB. This is a football area now. It isn't only because they're winning either - they had good teams in the 70's and 80's but still football was not very popular here. The key was 1993-1994 when for the first time in team history we had stable ownership, a Super Bowl winning icon coach who captivated the fandom, and a franchise #1 QB. Once all those factors drew people in, they were hooked on the NFL (as they should have been all along) for good.

Pats/Bills have gone under 10 straight games. Weird but true.

It's hard to tell so far Simon. In the first game, they schemed Manning by playing an extra DB and rushing three most of the night. Law was beat a couple times during the night - on the other hand Harrison didn't have a huge game. In the Arizona game, the whole defense was pretty dominant - there were four or five times that McCown dodged an aggressive blitz package and seemingly had a window to throw into lots of single coverage, but he found nothing (or he's not good enough to make the throw/read). Historically Law has been a very inconsistent player from year to year - last year certainly was his finest as a Pat. He's also been a little banged up with his ankle lingering from last season, but he's been able to function on Sunday without issue. I think he and Moulds will be a good matchup - I haven't caught much of Eric so far this year but I know he's been somewhat productive by his numbers. Poole isn't horrendous, although he struggled terribly in the playoffs last year. I think he was worn down physically and just got dominated by some big receivers (Bennett, Muhammed). They've been playing Samuel quite a bit (Dr. Z touts Samuel like he is the next Charles Woodson - that's going too far but he has shown some great flashes for being a second year guy taken on day 2 of the draft), and Wilson (at free safety) can match up on a wideout in a pinch. In my opinion, the aspect of Drew's game that is most effective is when he is able to hit that 18-22 yard pass which he still probably throws with as much zing as anyone in the league. I'm looking for the Patriots to naturally send a lot of varied blitz packages. If the Buffalo line/RB/Drew can effectively pick up the blitzes, I think there will be some open guys in the middle of the field. I know the circumstances of the 2003 week 17 game mitigated the performance, but the Bills were as bad in this aspect of the game (especially Henry, who apparently opted not to block that afternoon) as I have ever seen a professional team. Enjoy the game tomorrow - should be a good one.

I think you have it just about exactly right - because you are talking about two above average defensive teams, the home line effect is around 2-2.5 and the line would be 7.5 or so on a neutral field and 10ish in New England. I think the line is about right. Home divisional dogs are well known as a solid historical play, and more and more you see that fact reflected in the line.

I think that probably was a smart move by Charlie, in that he wants to be a head coach pretty badly. He doesn't have the type of pull to come into an interview and start making personel decisions. Any decision on Drew has huge cap consequences. The bottom line on Charlie "fixing" Bledsoe is 5-13. Drew is definitely not a good fit for Charlie's offense. My guess is that if Charlie had gotten the job, he would have started lobbying for a Drew-free world pretty soon, because Charlie is into self-preservation like most people.

Yeah - he's usually probable just about every week due to his shoulder and/or elbow. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for it, but he will be starting Sunday.

That's ridiculous. The pass went off Givens' hands in the end zone. Touchdowns in close games are "needed." Players can get hurt on every play that happens in a game. Every team in football tries the Hail Mary in that situation. Please spare me the Weis bashing - blaming a coach for a player getting hurt is silly.

Why do we drive on parkways and park in driveways?

I enjoy listening to Aikman, Simms, and Boomer Esiason. Daryl Johnston is solid. I liked Sterling Sharpe a lot as well. And hey - I think Steve Tasker is relatively new but is getting to be quite good. Guys I don't like are Bradshaw, Deion, Paul McGuire (sorry), and most of all the ever grating, always obnoxious Cris Collinsworth. Case in point - with 2:40 left last week in the Indy/GB game, Manning had about a 2 minute conversation with Ed Hochuli. He then went up to the line of scrimmage and proceeded to do his loathsome "I'm calling an audible act" by walking up and down the line and back and forth while trying to drag Green Bay offsides. Peyton the preener is AT HOME, mind you, and he's still pretending the crowd noise requires him to consult with his entire offense before running a play (If the GB "road" fans were indeed causing that much noise, big ups to them. I'm very skeptical though.) However, since Green Bay was alive I'm sure they realized that he was confirming with Hochuli in that conference that the 40 second clock would expire just after the 2:00 warning hit so he was in no danger of losing five yards. So none of them were remotely fooled...but Collinsworth was. He gushed after the play "I think Peyton Manning never had any intention of snapping that ball and was trying to pull Green Bay offsides for a first down the whole time." Geesh - you think, Cris? He's a dumb know-it-all - clearly the worst kind.

Always the bridesmaid...... NEVER GILBRIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Army of Darkness.

According to Nader's League of Fans site, the average ticket to a Red Sox game is 42.50. The average ticket to a Cowboys game is 53.00. But since the Sox have 8 times as many games at home, the fan revenue comparison is not even close. Dallas is actually middle of the pack for NFL franchises in this regard. #1? The New England Patriots.

Red Sox Nation supports its team financially better than any team in all of professional sports. Is that not an accomplishment? Frankly, your rhetorical question is quite wrong. Of course it was more important than the Devil Rays' win over Toronto. First of all, something is at stake between NY and Boston. Secondly, even if the Sox can't win the division, it is to their benefit to keep the division race within reach while the Yanks play Minnesota next week. Johan Santana is quietly threatening a Hershiser and probably would be best avoided in a five game series.

Like with a wall?

You're going to hate me for this, because I can't remember any other album that ever annoyed a fan base as much as "Liz Phair", but I like most of the album. "Red Light Fever," "Firewalker," and "Little Digger" are great songs, and I think "Why Can't I" is a good pop tune. I completely agree that she and the Matrix misfired with all the other songs out there, but I just skip on by them. I also like Michael Penn a lot as a caveat. I also am partial to whitechocolatespaceegg above the other three albums, but admittedly ATBNG likes his music poppy. I think "Exile" gets attention because it was so revolutionary at the time, but the album as a whole is spotty to me. Too many songs.

All That You Can't Leave Behind would be my choice, but I think most would agree with you on TJT. Admittedly I didn't like their choices on their best of the 90's CD. Thought that Pop figured waaaaay too prominently.