TheMadCap Posted September 27, 2005 Author Share Posted September 27, 2005 I'm getting to like your avatar more and more every day. I can't wait until the day they run that turd out of town. By the way, why DO you have a thing about TD? Did he kick your dog or something??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I think the time clock error thing would be a much bigger deal, if it had happened later in the game. I didn't get to watch the game as closely at the end as I would have liked, but it seemed like both the Pats and the Steelers spent a considerable part of the 4th quarter trying to run time off of the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 By the way, why DO you have a thing about TD? Did he kick your dog or something??? It was an in-joke with the guy who turned me on to this board. He posted at my Pats board, and after the McGahee pick, I told him that since the Bills had a RB coming of a 1,400 yard Pro Bowl season, the pick was nothing more than a publicity grab. From then on, I started referring to him as Tom "Hollywood" Donahoe; and when I registered here, I wanted to pick a name that would get a laugh out of him (and sure enough, it did). As for the avatars, ever since I photoshopped Donahoe and McGahee together into an emotional pose, various members have been requesting that I top myself. It's getting tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 It was an in-joke with the guy who turned me on to this board. He posted at my Pats board, and after the McGahee pick, I told him that since the Bills had a RB coming of a 1,400 yard Pro Bowl season, the pick was nothing more than a publicity grab. From then on, I started referring to him as Tom "Hollywood" Donahoe; and when I registered here, I wanted to pick a name that would get a laugh out of him (and sure enough, it did). As for the avatars, ever since I photoshopped Donahoe and McGahee together into an emotional pose, various members have been requesting that I top myself. It's getting tough. 456969[/snapback] So you are saying that your entire existance here is due to TD choosing Willis McGahee as a "publicity" pick? A bit off on that one I guess, but fair enough. For the record, I think TD is a snake-oil salesman, I hated the choice when they brought him in and can't wait till they send him packing. I like the current avatar much better than that other one. You can bash TD all you want as far as I am concerned, but you better leave Willis out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 So you are saying that your entire existance here is due to TD choosing Willis McGahee as a "publicity" pick? No, my screen name is due to that pick. My existence here is due to the fact that I was invited, and I liked it enough to stay. A bit off on that one I guess... That will never be known. If the Bills had taken a player able to contribute in '03, the entire season could've been different. In today's parity-filled NFL, even the smallest of variables can cause a significant swing in the W/L column. For all we know, the McGahee pick could've been a catalyst to the Bills' 15-17 stretch in '03-'04. But we will never know for sure. I still say it's bad business to draft players who will be out a year, especially when they play the same position as one of your most productive players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 No, my screen name is due to that pick. My existence here is due to the fact that I was invited, and I liked it enough to stay.That will never be known. If the Bills had taken a player able to contribute in '03, the entire season could've been different. In today's parity-filled NFL, even the smallest of variables can cause a significant swing in the W/L column. For all we know, the McGahee pick could've been a catalyst to the Bills' 15-17 stretch in '03-'04. But we will never know for sure. I still say it's bad business to draft players who will be out a year, especially when they play the same position as one of your most productive players. 457279[/snapback] And by the same token, I suppose one could say that if Bledsoe hadn't been injured, maybe Brady doesn't have three rings right now? Perhaps an imperfect analogy, it is true, since DB was in somewhat of a decline, and given his fan club in these parts ( ). However, the point is that these things DID happen so we could debate the what ifs forever. While I would agree that it is generally a bad idea to take someone who will not play immediately, I must admit (and you must agree) that the Bills ended up in good shape from that "stretch" pick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I think the time clock error thing would be a much bigger deal, if it had happened later in the game. I didn't get to watch the game as closely at the end as I would have liked, but it seemed like both the Pats and the Steelers spent a considerable part of the 4th quarter trying to run time off of the clock. 456600[/snapback] Agreed. There was plenty of time left when the mistake was made for both teams to adapt accordingly if necessary... not a true factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 While I would agree that it is generally a bad idea to take someone who will not play immediately, I must admit (and you must agree) that the Bills ended up in good shape from that "stretch" pick... I'm not terribly sure I agree with that. The Bills were coming off a .500 season when they drafted McGahee, and have posted a winning percentage of .457 (16-19) since. I'm not saying that it's McGahee's fault or that the player drafted instead of him would've changed that number, but I'd hardly refer to the Bills as "in good shape." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I'm not terribly sure I agree with that. The Bills were coming off a .500 season when they drafted McGahee, and have posted a winning percentage of .457 (16-19) since. I'm not saying that it's McGahee's fault or that the player drafted instead of him would've changed that number, but I'd hardly refer to the Bills as "in good shape." 457353[/snapback] There haven't been any superstars that have developed that were taken after McGahee. You could argue Larry Johnson, but he played about as much as Willis in 2003, and hasn't yet remotely approached doing what McGahee has done so far (and he has a better situation as a running back for sure). The Losman for Marcus Spears and Julius Jones trade is probably one that will be talked about a lot here if Losman continues to struggle. Spears looked pretty good from what I saw of him on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 And by the same token, I suppose one could say that if Bledsoe hadn't been injured, maybe Brady doesn't have three rings right now? Perhaps an imperfect analogy, it is true, since DB was in somewhat of a decline, and given his fan club in these parts ( ). However, the point is that these things DID happen so we could debate the what ifs forever. 457310[/snapback] I was watching an ESPN SPOTSCENTURY about Tom Brady yesterday. Somebody (can't remember who, I think a Boston writer) baught up something I had never heard voiced before, it stuck with me. I am paraphrasing, but it was something to the effect of "Football is strange, if that "tuck ball" rule had gone the other way, the Raiders would have won, and Tom Brady doesn't happen. Everyone would say, "well the Pats surprised everyone with an nice 11-5 season. Who knows, if that call had not gone the Pats way, maybe Bledsoe never goes to Buffalo, and we never find out how great Brady would be..." If the Pats hadn't won it all with Brady, you have to wonder if management would have taken the opinion that "hey we did pretty good with Brady, we can do better with Drew" Of course, hindsight is 20-20, and it looks like the Pats made a wise decision. I know, as well, that Belichek was never a huge Drew fan, but he might have had a tougher time in selling Krafts on the idea of giving the Bledsoe the boot.... It was then pointed out that Brady was a very good game managing QB for the Pats in 2001, but it was that Super Bowl that elevated his game to the next level....kind of an interesting perspective. Just points out how random things happen, and makes you wonder how many great players spent their careers on the bench, because they never got a chance to play....here is hoping fate has something nice in store for Angelo Crowell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 There haven't been any superstars that have developed that were taken after McGahee. "Superstar" status doesn't really concern me. It's about wins, and I think that a guard (Eric Steinbach?) or a TE (Dallas Clark?) would've actually filled a need and contributed in '03, possibly leading to more wins. An injured RB who was chosen to eventually replace a guy whose production he's not yet matched does none of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 "Superstar" status doesn't really concern me. It's about wins, and I think that a guard (Eric Steinbach?) or a TE (Dallas Clark?) would've actually filled a need and contributed in '03, possibly leading to more wins. An injured RB who was chosen to eventually replace a guy whose production he's not yet matched does none of those things. 457910[/snapback] Still holding tight to your Henry vs. McGahee take I see The last time we chatted about that it was only the YPC you were concerned with about him, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Still holding tight to your Henry vs. McGahee take I see It was always more about McGahee vs. the hype that's heaped upon him. I've never contended that he's a bad back. With Dillon looking every bit of over 30, I'd glady take him on the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 It was always more about McGahee vs. the hype that's heaped upon him. I've never contended that he's a bad back. With Dillon looking every bit of over 30, I'd glady take him on the Pats. 458006[/snapback] Dillon picked it up in the 4th, though. I think he'll remain servicable this season. His hands are good - I wonder if they will toss him the ball a bit more. When he was CIN, he was supurb at coming back to help a qb under pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 I'm not terribly sure I agree with that. The Bills were coming off a .500 season when they drafted McGahee, and have posted a winning percentage of .457 (16-19) since. I'm not saying that it's McGahee's fault or that the player drafted instead of him would've changed that number, but I'd hardly refer to the Bills as "in good shape." 457353[/snapback] By good shape, I meant of course that the Bills are in good shape with respect to the RB position at present... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 An injured RB who was chosen to eventually replace a guy whose production he's not yet matched does none of those things. 457910[/snapback] At the time of the WM pick I wan't a big fan of it either, but arguing against it at this point is kind of idiotic. You say wins are what matter? Bills record with Henry as the starting HB: 16-28 Bills record with McGahee as the starting HB: 10-4 You say that Henry was more productive than McGahee? 100 yard games is an arbitrary number but its as good as any to illustrate production. Henry: 13/49 (13 100yrd games in 49 starts for the Bills) McGahee: 9/14 (9 100yrd games in 14 starts for the Bills) Sure you can always argue the "you never know" arguement in terms of what would happen if the Bills had picked someone different, but why play guessing games when you can look at the cold hard facts in terms of wins and production? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 At the time of the WM pick I wan't a big fan of it either, but arguing against it at this point is kind of idiotic. You say wins are what matter? Bills record with Henry as the starting HB: 16-28 Bills record with McGahee as the starting HB: 10-4 You say that Henry was more productive than McGahee? 100 yard games is an arbitrary number but its as good as any to illustrate production. Henry: 13/49 (13 100yrd games in 49 starts for the Bills) McGahee: 9/14 (9 100yrd games in 14 starts for the Bills) Sure you can always argue the "you never know" arguement in terms of what would happen if the Bills had picked someone different, but why play guessing games when you can look at the cold hard facts in terms of wins and production? 458094[/snapback] Thanks, I was trying to make this point, but was too lazy to actually look the stats up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Sure you can always argue the "you never know" arguement in terms of what would happen if the Bills had picked someone different, but why play guessing games when you can look at the cold hard facts in terms of wins and production? 458094[/snapback] Because it doesn't matter. You see, you are arguing with a "Pats Fan". As we all know, the "Pats Fan" is the most knowledgable football fan out there, and they are quick to point that out every chance they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Dillon picked it up in the 4th, though. I think he'll remain servicable this season. His hands are good - I wonder if they will toss him the ball a bit more. When he was CIN, he was supurb at coming back to help a qb under pressure. I bet Dillon will see more balls thrown his way now that Faulk is out 6-8 weeks. !@#$ing injuries! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I bet Dillon will see more balls thrown his way now that Faulk is out 6-8 weeks. !@#$ing injuries! 458147[/snapback] That's news to me..what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts