MattM

No one outside of pissed off Pats fans think that was a blown call, especially compared to what the Pats' tackles have gotten away with over the years (Easterbrook had a funny column describing how the Pats tackles do just that with their opponents-tackle them to the turf--yet never get flagged). In addition, that play was in the middle of a swarming scrum of players--the refs had no good angle to view that play, IIRC (and I do RC, since unlike you, I'm sure, I've watched that last drive over and over and over since then!). That is incredibly unlike the Pats' gifts, many of which occurred right in front of one or more referees with unobstructed views of the action--like the Tuck Rule or my personal favorite, the AFCCG against the Colts. I had that one TIVOed as well and watched in amazement how a ref no more than ten feet away and looking right at them watched a Pats' DB just absolutely grab a fistful of Pollard's jersey at the shoulder from behind, so hard that Pollard's head snapped back. This happened twice on one drive without a flag. Again, back to your main point--what I want is an example of you guys getting shafted on a call that most fans outside of your immediate fanbase acknowledge was a bad call, again, like the many pro-Pats' calls over the years. Folks who have interest either way in the Pats acknowledge them as kings of the blatant officiating bias--don't believe me, go ask on other team's boards..... PS Actually, my all time favorite may be in the Bills-Pats first game in 2007, when on the play before the safety a Pats LB or DE was literally two feet into the Bills backfield when the ball was snapped and yet no call when he made the sack that put us into position to lose a safety. Again, I had this on TIVO (still do) and watched repeatedly as the ball was snapped in slow mo and the Pats defender had by then jumped so far offsides it was ridiculous, yet no call, especially odd considering offsides is really the easiest penalty in the book to call other than perhaps a false start. Here's Easterbrook's write up for that game-- "The Patriots were flagged for just one 5-yard infraction, although there were at least four plays on which a Patriots offensive lineman wrapped both arms around a Buffalo pass-rusher, and the Flying Elvii benefited from an extremely convenient inadvertent whistle that ended a play when a Buffalo runner had 50 yards of green grass between him and the end zone. Meanwhile, the Bills were hit with seven penalties, including a ticky-tack nudge-in-the-back call that wiped out a fourth-quarter first down in New England territory and changed a scoring opportunity into a punt." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...terbrook/060912 Some folks "get it" and call it like they see it. Kind of like Bart Scott in 2007 and you all see what the League did to him....

Tim: A. That's why I also mentioned the Serie A (Italian soccer) referee scandal. For the lazy, here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Italian_football_scandal That involved large numbers of people, teams and refs and happened this decade in one of the world's most popular soccer leagues. It also left no doubt that matches in that league were fixed with the help of referees. The ignorant among us might argue that it's a different place, with a different culture (and I can say that so the un PC among us don't have to, as I've got a vowel at the end of my name, too), but with things like the Whitey Bulger mess and its long history of civic corruption, I'm not sure if Boston is too much better than southern Italy in that regard. B. As noted, Donaghy did try to implicate other refs, but to date the authorities have not believed him. Mr. WEO, AFCEastFan, et all, I'm still waiting on that close game you all lost in the 4th on a bad call that the rest of the world agreed was a bad call. (Crickets chirping into the night.....)

I might have thought that, too, until Donaghy and the Italian soccer ref scandal a couple of years back. I also know what I see when I watch games (especially these days with the aid of a DVR) and again, I implore a Pats fan to give me just one example of them losing on a controversial call or non-call late in a game, 'cuz I've got a whole bunch in the other direction. I've never once gotten an answer that jibes on that point. Interestingly, the one they always come back with is the Broncos playoff game a few years ago when there was a bad call against them on a long pass that led to a score. Unfortunately for them that was in the second quarter. I pick my example carefully because if you were going to fix a game that is when you would see it done--late in the game and only if it was a close game and only if the team that was "supposed to win" needed the help. Otherwise, why risk exposing yourself? As noted above, we've already seen one major US sport have a problem ref (and he tried to implicate others apparently) influencing games for money. In his case it was for gamblers, but gamblers aren't the only ones who would have an interest in a particular outcome--why owners, League or team executives and networks all come to mind as people with keen interests as to who wins and loses. I stand by my view that this is all within the realm of the possible--whether it has happened, none of us here know for sure. It would be a stretch, admittedly, as conspiracies, particularly larger ones, are difficult to pull off, but to dismiss it out of hand as impossible is not correct in my view, particularly when it's already been done in similar leagues. I also find it hard for an objective person to doubt that the Pats get beneficial treatment from the League--other recent examples in addition to the ones I mentioned and the NYT article mentioned and which you didn't address include Wilfork not getting suspended last year despite 4 fines during the course of the year for dirty play (yet Roy Williams get one game off for a couple of horse collar tackles the same year) and Nick Kaczur basically getting nothing from the League despite having intent to deal quantities of Oxy. Don't take this the wrong way, Tim, because I actually like your reporting and I don't think this of you personally at all--what we're talking about in this thread is, in my mind, something that reasonable people can differ on, for ex. That said, isn't it possible that media outlets attached to networks with multi-billion dollar contracts with the League might have an incentive to downplay any potential real controversies of this sort with the NFL? I know you can't answer this in a public forum, but I'd be very curious if you or any of your ESPN buddies had ever been told to kill or downplay certain stories due to casting a negative light on the League? I have journalist friends at some major institutions and from that it doesn't sound like it's impossible to me. There doesn't seem to be much left in the way of independent journalism these days and the current newspaper crisis won't help in that regard at all, I'm afraid. PS You want to see a great example of the BS calls I was referencing above and one that few people paid attention to at the time and which doesn't involve the Bills? Go back and watch the Texans-Pats game from 2003 where the Pats won in OT. I imagine that ESPN has tapes of all of the League's games. I was watching that game on NFL Sunday ticket. Brady threw a deep pick late seemingly sealing/turning the game. Lo and behold, way late and way away from the action, some kind of defensive penalty was called on the Texans. Why I remember that one so much is that the announcers didn't seem to understand what the call could possibly be and were really flummoxed by the whole thing. Sure enough, Brady brought them back to win the game shortly thereafter. I just shrugged, even then used to such things happening for certain teams.....

Understood, Tim, but what say you to things like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/f...ttee&st=cse There were plenty of other articles around the time of Spygate in which other NFL folks, named (Jack Del Rio and Rod Marinelli each accusing the Pats of some bizarre headset problems at key times of the game at Gillette come to mind) and unnamed, accused the Pats of more than just Spygate. Doesn't it stand to reason that if a team that had received a very clear memo in July 2007 saying don't tape your opponents then goes and does so two months later that said team might also be interested in cheating in other ways? Personally, I think that the League these days is a bit like the latter stages of Orwell's "Animal Farm"--"all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Dr. Z in his column (God bless him) during Spygate wondered aloud whether Kraft's status as a big shot owner meant that matter got handled much differently than other owners would have had it handled. Things like the Pats playing the Bills four years in a row off the bye week (natural odds of that happening randomly about 1 in 4000) or the Pats getting to play back to back West Coast games twice last year so that they wouldn't have to travel back east come to mind. This year, as soon as I heard Marshawn would likely be suspended, I said to my "I'll bet you $100 we open up with New England this year". It's just so predictable at this point. Have you ever wondered how one team seems to get more calls and non-calls late in close games than any team in recent memory? I don't know if you were covering the Bills during the "just give it to them game", but there have been at least three Bills-Pats games in the last ten years that basically came down to horrific officiating (usually multiple calls/no calls going one way in a close game) in one direction only. If this were truly random, shouldn't that even out over time? I've asked Pats fans this many times in many fora and never gotten an answer--name me one close game that they lost late in the game on a controversial (and I mean controversial outside of Boston) call. They can't seem to do that, yet I and most other close fans of the sport can name close to ten that they won that way. That Baltimore Monday nighter in 2007 was a joke--once again, as soon as the Pats got the ball back I turned to my wife and said "the Pats will march down the field and score. If they need it, they will get help from the refs on the way." Again, it's just so predictable at this point. Isn't it possible that very rich and powerful men who are used to winning at everything they do will be so addicted to winning that the line between moral and immoral gets blurred? We see it all the time in other areas of life, why would sports be any different? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm just going by what I'm seeing with my own eyes, like Nate Clements being nowhere near out of bounds yet an early whistle wiping 6 off the board in a close game yet again......

Plus 1--he's easily the dirtiest player in the League, IMHO, and I wouldn't want to see him in Bills uni. He's a POS--that hit on JP was so blatantly intentional it wasn't funny and then for him, after a season full of similar garbage (who can forget his trying to poke out Brandon Jacobs' eye as well) gets a slap on the wrist from the Commish after bringing his wife to the meeting. If he played for anyone else he almost certainly would have gotten a suspension at that point (he'd been fined 4 times that year), but, oh, no, can't suspend a Pat* going into the undefeated playoffs. The favoritism shown to that team makes me puke. Remember, too, that was the year Roy Williams was actually suspended a game for his horse collars, much less, IMHO, than what Wilfork had done up to that point.....

Well, our secondary, which is nearly intact from last year's, gave up a whopping 3 more yards per game than yours did, and that's playing behind a weaker D-line and LBs by your own admission. In addition, your O was much better than ours, so our D faced more possessions;/drives by the other teams, which should also go into the mix. Add the fact that the only guy we lost was Jabari Greer, a good corner no doubt, but gained Drayton Florence and Youboty back, as well as Corner and McKelvin's additional year, not to mention adding a decent 2nd round pick in Byrd and I'd say we're a lot better than your secondary, which lost its best corner, its aging starting safety and picked up some aging vets no one else wanted and who, in the case of Springs, can't stay on the field, as well as some young unproven players in Wilhite, Wheatley and Chung.

I agree with the logic here. He wants to go somewhere where he can rack up the stats and try to cash in next year. Despite what some folks here may think, for most players it is all about the money. If the Bills offer him more than Chicago (and by "more" I mean at least 5-10% more, but not necessarily something ridiculous like 30% more) then he'll come here, IMHO.....

At this point in their careers, considering their ages, salaries and potential role on our team of a 2nd back for 3 games and a 3rd back who can come in on 3rd downs hopefully for the rest of the year(which is the relevant question here), yes, I'd say that Rhodes is the better pick for Buffalo. I hate to admit it, but I may agree with Mr. Bruschi above, that Taylor probably fits better for the Pats* as more of a primary runner (i.e., 1st and 2nd down back), as (a) he doesn't have great hands and (b) they have a similarly ancient Kevin Faulk for their 3rd down back and Sammy Morris, only slightly younger at 32 during the year backing all of them and Maroney up. How is it that New England has 3 guys over 32 at a position where most teams have no one of consequence over 30 since skills decline so badly after that age at RB? Does the RB coach share an office (and physician) with their LB and safeties coach? Just wondering......

Just to show that I'm not a complete homer, Maroney looked fantastic at times his first season in the League. In particular, I remember watching him in pre-season that year just absolutely running wild and, mainly, over people. I think that's his problem, by and large. He runs too upright and doesn't shy away from contact as much as he should and his body takes the pounding for it. People worried about the same thing with AD Peterson, but he's managed to stay much more healthy. Maroney, on the other hand, can't seem to stay on the field due to those injuries. Marshawn has a little bit of that, too, but so far has managed to stay relatively healthy, but time will tell. Maroney's injury history seems to have also worn out his Belicheat welcome--I remember in 2007 some kind of verbal sparring between the two. Maybe Maroney learned from Ted Johnson's experience that BB doesn't always have his player's health in the forefront of his mind when he tells you to get in there even though you're hurt.....

FWIW, Orakpo's also almost two years chronologically older than Maybin--turns 23 in July and Maybin turned 21 in April. At 21, Maybin may still have some physical growth in him, unlike Orakpo. My hope (and the Bills' FO, I'm sure) is that Maybin will gain15-20 pounds naturally as he matures physically, while not losing his speed or strength to body size ratio. If so, we may have gotten a steal here. I agree with the other folks above on first year DE's taking a bit to get things. Remember, Mario Williams, probably a Pro Bowler for the next 5-10 years had something like 4 sacks his first year. If Maybin can get 5 or 6 this year in limited playing time, that's a great season, IMHO....

Uhh, the Bills got their number 2 last year (the mighty Josh Reed) the ball 56 times and Reed didn't play almost 4 games. So having a number 2 with TO's talent for hopefully a full season you're saying it's a stretch that he'll catch 70 balls from our number 1 QB (Losman played in a number of the games Reed did while Trent was out)? Now who's displaying "magical homerish thinking"..... Still no answer on where you live and/or grew up, dude.....

Declining skills? I'll take 69 catches and 10 TDs and over 1000 yards any day from a number 2--and that was with his QB out for 3 weeks and Brad Johnson throwing to him. So far, he's done and said all the right things. Not to say that will continue, but so far, no complaints from me. Beats the heck out of Joey Galloway and Greg Lewis, no? Those were your WR additions. Don't look now, but Randy's due for his tight hammy or some other injury costing him 5-6 games and his explosiveness for the rest of the year--I should know, I've had him in my fantasy leagues those seasons he could never quite gets through all of (in Oakland and Minn, in 2004 and 2006). "He plays when he wants to play", you know--and when things go south, he has a tendency to check out mentally. That was the knock on him once upon a time, wasn't it? If he's changed, why not TO? Especially when there's plenty of cash at stake for good behavior in the form of a one-year deal...... And I'll take your ignoring my post about where you come from to confirm my strongly held suspicion that you're a Johnny-come-lately Pats* "fan" with no connection to the city of Boston or the region of New England. I've given you plenty of chances over the last few weeks to come back on that and yet you never have. Funny, isn't it......

Don't worry, he's got that all figured out, too--he'll just go back to being a Cowboys fan or may even be really daring and bandwagon his way onto whoever is the new hot team. Yeah, he's a real Pats* "fan", alright. I'm curious, dude, do you even live in Boston? Or are you like 90% of their fans who grew up and live somewhere else but just magically became Pats* fans over the last nine years. Just curious....

What he was referencing was all-purpose yards, in that Rhodes can catch out of the back field, which has never been Taylor's strong suit. He is correct about that, as Rhodes had about 190 more all purpose yards and an absolute ton more TD's (like 9 to 1 IIRC). Rhodes didn't play in one game last year (the last)--Taylor in the last 3. Rhodes is also 3 years younger--Taylor is a one-year fix at age 33. I won't argue that Taylor career-wise is the better back--that's obvious. However, for the roles being asked by Buffalo--2nd-3rd back, with potential use on 3rd down--I'd honestly take Rhodes over Taylor at this point in their careers, but that's just me.....

Great find. It looks like it's going to come down to us and the Bears. Fewell versus Lovie, all versus $ no doubt. I give us about a 50% chance there, much better than what I'd have thought two days ago.....

I used to read that site, but Florio's become such a front-runner it's ridiculous. Anything teams like the Bills or Bengals or Lions, etc. do is horrible, while anything the Pats* do is immediately praise-worthy, for ex. Now obviously bad teams do some bone-headed things (by definition), but it's such a knee jerk reaction nearly every time, in both directions. It's really nauseating, to the point where I've nearly stopped reading the site. On the Pats* knob gobbling it really started about halfway into Spygate when suddenly Florio started posting pro-Pats* garbage, doing a near 180 from some of his prior positions--all of which at the time made me wonder if someone with the Pats* and/or League (same thing, in my opinion) threatened to cut off his access if he didn't change his tune. I've found the National Football Post, largely written by ex-Bill (if you could call one season largely on IR that) Matt Bowen and some other current and former football folks (front Office, agents, etc.) a much better read, IMHO......

Forget it--logic doesn't work with this guy. He's a "born again" Pats* fan--i.e., post-2001, aka the worst kind of Pats* "fan" and I use that term loosely. He'll be back rooting for the Cowboys in no time once the Pats* slide starts.....

How is calling out an arrogant jerk for being an arrogant jerk a "loser mentality"? He opened his mouth both at the SB and in that Esquire interview and sounded like a prima donna a-hole who thought he was better than he was. "17 points, huh? Is Plax going to play defense?" That's literally what he said--if anyone else had said that they'd get ripped a new one by the media, like Plax did just for predicting his team would win the game. That Esquire article last summer was almost as bad. He came off like one of the rich and mean pretty boys you'd see in a John Hughes movie in the '80s, the ones who ultimately get their comeuppance, which last season karma provided in the form of Bernard Pollard. Funny how you didn't respond to the substance of my post....

Great video link--Brady seems to get a pass from the media on things like that. People made a big deal out of Burress's prediction of a Giant win as "smack talk" that he wouldn't be able to back up, but nobody said squat about Brady's diss of Plax (and the Giant D) before the game even though, IMHO, his statements were a lot more "bulletin board material" than Plax's were. Of course, we all saw how that played out, fortunately. Another great example was his Esquire interview last summer, when he came across yet again as a pompous, egotistical arse who enjoyed running up the score, including on the Bills. He must have some real great PR spin-meisters (no sh*t, huh) both inside and outside NFL HQ to keep his popularity up despite sounding like a jerk quite often when he opens his mouth. And before I get called a "Brady hater", I actually thought he had been (or seemed) pretty humble earlier in his career and was able to poke fun at himself (his SNL appearance a few years ago being a good example of that)....

For the umpteenth time here's something a little more relevant than quoting stuff from 30 years ago to show that "everyone cheats"--a NYT article from two years ago in which members of the NFL competition committee basically say New England was the main and, in some ways, only team that almost eveyone complained about when it came to pushing the envelope. A little more relevant, don't you think? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/f...ttee&st=cse My favorites: In discussions of changes since 2000, one team, the New England Patriots, has surfaced more than any other, according to a longtime N.F.L. team executive with direct knowledge of the meetings. The committee heard accusations that the Patriots had taped opposing coaches’ signals, placed microphones on defensive players to steal quarterbacks’ audible signals and manipulated clocks and coach-to-quarterback radio systems. The N.F.L. team executive said the Patriots were the subject of most of the accusations discussed in the rules committee’s deliberations. The team’s recent success and tight-lipped approach, as personified by Belichick, has played a role. “They were the only team, really,” the executive said. “Clearly, they were the team mentioned far more than anybody else.” The Jacksonville Jaguars lodged a complaint against the Patriots about the failure of a coach-to-quarterback radio system during a January 2006 playoff game, a former Jaguars executive said. Funny how none of you Pats* fans really have a comeback for this one.....

BTW, whether you believe him or not, Stroud had a decent excuse for why he tested positive (an illegal substance in a supplement he took while rehabbing from an ankle injury, but allegedly didn't know had the illegal substance). That is at least potentially plausible. No such luck for Rodney, who out and out admitted that he ordered HGH knowing full well what he was doing, but then again, since he used his own name and address on the order form he really had no other alibi, otherwise, I'm sure he and Kraft would have used it. HGH is what it is and there was no masking or mistaking that. In your heart you, too, know that a bunch of your other boys are probably on that juice as well, starting with the guys I named, not to mention your other buddy, Nick Kaczur, who had enough Oxy on him to knock out a tribe of elephants when caught, yet suffered no punishment from the League (imagine that) and no inquiry as to who else he may have been buying for, since he admitted to buying what law enforcement would view as dealer quantities. I mean, if you literally did the math from what he admitted, he had a $400,000 per year habit. He did that all on his own, huh...

You, sir, are a joke. Haven't you read ANY of this thread? "Nothing of substance to attack"? Is that a f-ing joke? Being caught red-handed cheating (after being warned only two months earlier by the League of the EXACT SAME THING YOU GOT CAUGHT DOING) is more than a little "substance", don't you think? We don't even have to go into any of the shady officiating in your games (and believe me, that's one you don't want to start on this board or, frankly, any other in the League as a Pats* fan) or the fact that you've had a bunch of well past their prime players suddenly regain a step well into their 30s in New England and, oh yeah, a guy who got caught using HGH in the only way possible the League could catch you, since they don't test for it. Being dumb enough to use your own name in ordering the stuff. It's also funny that many of those guys who people suspect of using it (Seau, Vrabel and Bruschi all come to mind) all have melons that are so large that they have their own gravitational fields (another sign called the "bloat" of HGF and steroid use, BTW). You really do live in your own Bizarro World alternate universe, don't you. I've also got some news for you that if you think it's just "jealous Bills fans" that have this view of "your team", and I use that loosely, I challenge you to go to other team's boards, where you'll find the fans all hold you in about the same opinion that folks in this thread do...

Your reference to him not stopping cheating reminds me of a great post from one of our resident Pats* trolls a couple weeks back posting a link from right before the 2007 season that he was trying to use to support his position that everyone cheats, but which actually said that the potential for cheating via videocamera had gotten so bad due to suspicions that New England was doing it that the League had sent teams a warning memo about it. This was in July 2007. It hit me then how arrogant someone must be to be warned about cheating so publicly and specifically and still having no problem going ahead and actually doing it anyways. My suspicions are that someone who's as one-track minded as that would do much worse than videotaping. I honestly believe that in 20 years or so we'll finally find out the full extent of what the Pats* did under BB and it will be pretty scandalous, but of course, he'll be dead or senile by then, as will most of the others involved, which is why I expect the full truth to take a while to come out, but that's just me.

Really, who was it before 2001? The 'Pokes? Maybe the Giants? We all know for sure it wasn't the Pats* you rooted for before they began winning. That's the part I "love" the best about the New England fanbase--how almost none of them were there in 1992 when they sold 19,000 season tickets. That's right, 19,000, in a city 5 times the size of Buffalo. The Bills could go 0-16 and still sell twice that many. Pat*hetic if you ask me, but that best sums up their "fanbase". You go on a Pats* board and see all these posters from all over the country and you just know that they are almost all bandwagonistas, with a slight sprinkling of real Boston fans (who I can commiserate with and respect.) I also remember the absolutely hysterical threads last fall when Bills fans were winning shot bets in bars with Pats* "fans" about Pats* trivia that these "fans" couldn't get about their own team, yet anyone with any football knowledge would get. Like "fans" who literally didn't realize that the Pats* had lost two SB before they'd won any (funny, AFCEastFan isn't it, that your team doesn't actually have a winning record in the big game, unlike, say, the Steelers or Colts or Niners) or who couldn't name their starting QB in that Bears loss, yet Bills fans knew the answers to all those questions. Pat*hetic......

I've got a deal for you, pal--you can go back to being a Cowboys fan, no questions asked, once the Pats*' winning seasons end (I'd estimate about 1-2 more years) and I'll go back to watching for the umpteenth time the Giants absolutely hammer your team in the SB last year--I especially love the parts where Brady gets planted on his arse by a rookie D-lineman at the end and BB goes crying off the field......