Captain Caveman

I don't have any problem with you saying you thought he wasn't the best pick for us that year. I don't know or care what you thought before the draft. But to insinuate that he wasn't considered the top tackle in the draft by most of the "experts" is once again bull . I've provided a link from Kiper earlier in the thread where you can read who he considered to be the best OT in the draft, and also where he talks about some very real concerns about McKinnie (some of which have been validated, although McKinnie certainly has had the better career.) Unfortunately, most other draft sites don't keep up their previous archives, but most other sites also had Mike Williams as the top OT in the draft. And regarding the other team's most dangerous DE, I would assume that most teams will roll their best DE to the opposite side when facing up against a lefty QB, since the reason they're usually on the right side to begin with is to go after the QB's blindside. I don't know how much difference there is in rushing from the left or right side, but I doubt it's as big of a change as an OL switching sides. Does anyone have any other input on this?

He played RT because the Texas QB at the time Chris Simms was a lefty. So he was protecting the blind side. http://a.espncdn.com/melkiper/s/2002/0420/1371357.html

Bull revisionist history.

To add to this, it's very rare for a defense to try and substitute when an offense is in no-huddle mode, because most def. coordinators don't want to take the risk.

Not necessarily. It means the threat of a quicker snap. This ties in to the previous post about having a few quick snap plays that can effectively be used to make sure the defense doesn't even try to substitute.

My guess is the gravity his head is creating is completely throwing off the ball's trajectory, kind of like a tractor beam.

Two Words: Contract Year

This is hilarious.

The man was real fast. He's spent two years without NFL nutrition / workouts / training, and is getting close to 30.

I'm thinking that Hairston definitely should since I'm assuming he was under contract when he got hurt in this year's camp. I'm not so sure about DiGiorgio since it was a pre-existing injury. Seems unfair that either of these guys would not be paid this year, but I'm not sure how it works.

+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.