todd

That will probably be next year. I'll buy that as well. I'm addicted.

I can feel for you, man, but the truth is that the Pats ARE dominant. They win. As much as I think they get lucky sometimes, the fact is that they put themselves in a position so that a few good bounces would help them win. Other teams get good bounces, as well, however since they aren't in a position to win, it doesn't matter. The exeption to this is the playoff game against Indy last year, in which I feel the Pats were given the advantage by the refs, and the tuck rule game. However, You just can't argue with their record. I hate the pats, but luck only gets you so far. They're good.

Crap. I must not be here enough. I'll make a note and visit more often. Especially while I'm at work!

3rd picture down

I really think it's awesome when this is the most popular thread of the day. That's why this place rocks! This one is classic, and needs to be archived. SDS ... can you pin this one to the top for a while?

I used that player as an example. You like to talk about busts. Is jennings a bust? What was the defense AS A WHOLE ranked last year? Dude, you might want to stop this argument right now, because you're getting creamed.

Woohoo! I was waiting for a silly answer like that! You're making this discussion easy. Moulds was considered a bust by many fools until his 4th year. Funny, that. Josh reed is not a bust. He's only entering his 3rd year. Sorry, man, a 2nd rounder can't be called a bust after two years. Ryan denney? Brilliant. Isn't he going to split time with Kelsay this year as a STARTER? McGahee? The guy hasn't played a down of football and you are projecting a bust? I might just click the ignore button based on that single line. Angelo Crowell. Wow. How many starters? 1. Reed 2. Henry 3. Williams 4. Jennings 5. Clements 6. Schoebel 7. Kelsay/Denney That's pretty damn good, especially considering that you also build on FA, which you conveniently ignore. Not to mention Evans, who would start in 3-wr lineups, the fact that rookies don't normally start, etc. Oh yeah, then there's our nickel corners, and rotation on the DL. Nice try, man. You came up with 4 names that are "busts", two of them is starting, another hasn't played a down in the NFL yet he's still a bust somehow?! Please, this is getting silly. Step back and take a look at things objectively.

You spoke of busts. Are you going to recant or name some?

Again, my request was to name the busts. I haven't seen an answer yet. I'm sure there are some, because it happens to every team, but support that "bust" comment with facts, please. How many sacks did Jennings give up last year? What round was he drafted in? Has he produced appropriate value to be drafted that high? These are the types of questions you need to ask when evaluating a draft. Not just by throwing around the term "bust".

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think careers are long. Additionally, you must take into consideration circumstance, such as sacrificing his first season by fixing the salary cap. Additionally, his 8-8 season after that was pretty good. Last year was really the only failure. If sullivan would like to prove his point by taking a look at convenient stats, that's fine. But he's doing an injustice to factual reporting and editorializing. He has an agenda, and whatever it is, it has nothing to do with writing with his head based in reality. It's important to have long-term perspective. If you'd like to ignore that, so be it. I prefer to look at an entire picture. I dont' think that anyone can point to the hiring of GW as a good thing, but Donahoe has drafted well, and I think has assembled a pretty good staff right now. He's also brought in some darn good FAs.

Ask Jerry Sullivan. He can usually be found licking a toilet bowl clean.

Bust draft picks, eh? That's a hackneyed theme. And not supportable. Go for it, man. Name all the busts. Good ones like Travis Henry, Clements, Jennings, Wire, etc. You can't argue that point. Donahoe has hit some home runs, and if you'd like to bring up bust draft picks, you might want to look at the entire picture or else you may look like a fool. Gilbride? Well, he looked good at first, but then sucked. What is debatable is when he should have been fired by Williams, and the reprocussions if Donahoe forced Williams' hand, especially if he knew the season was shot. You want to take a shot at answering either of these points? Or are you going to fellate the opinions of moron Sullivan.

Nope. I'm right. You example of sample size is perfect. It's easy to choose the past 5 years because it omits the success that donahoe has had in the past. I'd even call the 2002 season a success because it was in line with what could be expected after a miserable first season under Williams. Jerry sullivan brought up the past 5 years because it was convenient for his idiotic, venom-spewing opinions. That in itself is a HALF TRUTH! It's as plain as day! If he took into consideration all situations, and the past 10 years, you'd see a different picture. But that's not the picture Sulliprick wants to paint. He doesn't want to be objective. I don't mind someone being negative when it warrants it, as long as you are objective. The wanker sure isn't objective, and that's what bothers me. To call out Donahoe as a failure is really, really stupid, and not supportable by rational thought process. Screw sullivan.

You're missing the point. It is idiotic to take as fact opinions based on half-truths and factual omissions. That's what Sullivan is a master of. If you take Donahoe's record as a whole, you will find that while he is not faultless, he's done a good job of assembling a good team. Sullivan takes the stance that Donahoe is an overrated fool. Psychology majors might call this projection.

The problem is that what Sullivan points out as "obvious" is only obvious to idiots like yourself. Sullivan is about equal with Chuck Dickerson when it comes to being an idiot, but at least Dickerson knew a bit about football. Sullivan makes broad, sweeping statements and editorializes based on half-truths and piss-poor "statistics" that only a buttmunch would take as truth.

I like newegg.com. They have prices that are usually within a few bucks of the lowest, but their shipping and service is the best I've dealt with. Very good company.

Well, I guess this is an attempt to address the problem of drunks in the stadium during games. I have mixed feelings about this. First, I think many people at games get out of hand and make the experience less enjoyable for others. On the other hand, drunks are going to find somewhere to drink. A parking restriction isn't going to change anything.

I'd rather have Schoebel than Seymour. Pats are built differently than the Bills. Schoebel was on a defense that was pretty good, and he was a key part of it. I'd rather have Schobel than ogun because His production has been improving over a period of time - even when on bad defenses. Ogun is still an unknown - he had one good year.

Actually, it isn't. Check out the rest of the thread, and note the signing bonus. Much lower. That means if we need to cut him, the remainder of the amortized bonus that would hit the cap is minimal compared to others. Not only that, the salary itself is probably backloaded, so when you look at the total amount of the contract, rather than the average per year, it's actually quite sane. It's a damn good deal for the Bills. Salary-cap friendly and pays decent RDE money to a ABOVE AVERAGE RDE. I don't know how you figure double-digit sacks as average.

I don't agree with that article at all. The running game and passing game are so intertwined, it's hard to separate them. The guy pulls out a few stats to make himself feel better, but stats don't tell the whole story. Questions: He looks at yards per catch. To me, yards per catch is directly related to a strong running game because if you have a strong running game, the defense can't drop as many guys into coverage. Typically, I think that teams that force a defence to stack the line will fare better in the yards per catch area. Not only that, he's only statistically looking at yards per catch and yards per carry. Those are such small parts of the overall picture, it leaves his arguments open to question. Super Bowl winners over the past 10 years or so with "star" running backs: 1. St. Louis 2. Denver 3. Dallas 4. Baltimore Just to name a few. I don't think the guy has his head on straight.

not to mention what they gave up for boston.

Can't. Dammit! Gonna be in North Carolina helping my pop. He just had knee replacement surgery.

:I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Jerry Sullivan. Drew has a good game last night, and he still has to talk about his "Fragile psyche" in his column. In one paragraph he takes a swipe at Donahoe, Bledsoe, AND Travis Brown. Jerry, you prick, looks to me that his psyche held up quite well dispite drafting a QB in the 1st round, didn't it? What a dink.

She's got a little too much back for my liking. And she's not pretty, and looks like a skank ho. Anyway, please keep in mind that this is coming from someone who thinks JLo also has too much ass, and looks like a nasty tart.

You mean you don't want to watch coverage of the RNC? I'm sure all the speakers will be interesting.