Leonidas

+1

Give me a !@#$ing break. Hold on to the ball during the most crucial part of the game and I'll cheer for you. Until then, suffer through the boos and go out there like the professional you are and do your god damned job.

You're !@#$ing joking, right???

Well I'm certainly glad you took the half hour out of your life to construct that literary masterpiece. We'll all sleep a lot better now, I'm sure. Want a hug?

Can we delete this thread already???

I'm trying not to call people names here, but you sir are an idiot. McKelvin fumbled; should we not return any more kicks at all? Just because it didn't work didn't mean it was the wrong call. C.Biscuit was right; Bills fans are idiots. People bash Jauron for being too conservative (Browns game '08, Cowboys MNF), but now it's Jauron/April/McKelvin who's too risky. Statistically its way more likely to return a kickoff without fumbling than to get a first down on a Bill Belichick-led defense with under two minutes to go. But don't let those silly facts get in your way. I'm going to bed. This is a waste of time.

So because event (a) happened then the odds weren't that strong against event (a) happening? That's your argument? Sound logic. Is picking up an extra first down (not just one, but two now apparently) against a defensive mastermind statistically easier than not fumbling the kickoff? Again, I yield to you, sir. Keep in mind, this is a situation in which you have to drain the opponents three remaining timeouts, so your options are either to run the ball or make very safe passes. There's a big difference between Tom Brady having 1 timeout vs. no timeouts. If you don't get it you just don't get it.

Except when you don't get that first down then what? Instead of having no timeouts Brady has 1. You think that timeout doesn't matter? You've got to be joking. It's not a coaching mistake to take it out of the endzone there, anyone who knows football knows that. Just hold onto it. You people are seriously making Dick Jauron look like Mike Martz.

You're just wrong here. It's these little nuances that win or lose football games. McKelvin holds on, and the chances of winning now that the clock is under 2:00 improves dramatically. Amen. That...doesn't make any sense. Well, I agree with the second part of that statement...

Schobel paid off Father Time for tonight's game. I haven't seen him play like that in a long time. Maybin looked terrible, though. First game, I know, but they just kind of tossed him upfield and made him irrelevant. Lot of good that "fast first step" did him.

Derrick Brooks is 36 and Benjamin Watson runs a 4.4. 40. Please just stop talking.

If you think Derrick Brooks a) wants to come play in Buffalo and b) can cover Benjamin Watson 1-on-1 at this stage of his career then you're the dumbest person on the board. And that says a LOT.

I believe the clock starts as soon as he leaves the endzone with it. I thought of that too, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. Gotta take your chances if you want the clock to start running...

any more threads you want to post this in???

That was because Brady was picking apart the blitz. I just wish they'd realize Keith Ellison is going to get beaten by Benjamin Watson 100 out of 100 times. Most LB's are. And as it was said in the other threads, with 2:06 he has to take it out. He just has to hold onto it. Both times.

Simon's right. You have to get it under 2:00. Taking it out is the right call. You just have to protect it. The extra yardage is pointless - slide before contact if you have to - just make sure it's under 2:00 and you still have !@#$ing possession. Then force NE to use their timeouts and get a first down or punt the !@#$ing thing a mile with your two-time pro bowl punter.

I hope the Patriots suffer a painful, fiery death. Tonight. Hopefully somehow it'll involve Jerry Jones as well.

that did a lot of good...

pssst....Thurman...you're the only one posting on this thread anymore. I disagree, but this can't be resolved here or now. We'll just see how Clements plays this year. Every contract is overblown. You say 7/$64M is more palatable, but realistically if you took off the last year of everyone's contract they would all come down and 7/$64M wouldn't sound like such a good deal. You have to compare apples to apples here. I watched him play in Buffalo and while impressed, I didn't think he was a top five corner then or now. Not even close. Solid corner, definitely. #1 CB material? Certainly. But that only puts him in the top 32. Top 15 might be more appropriate. Concerning Winfield, I haven't watched him play much since he left Buffalo, and he was always nasty against the run and against the screen with us, but I remember watching Terrell Owens literally abuse him a few years ago. Now of course Owens has abused many corners, but the size difference was startling. Imagine 5'8" Winfield against 6'4" Moss? 6'4" Brandon Marshall? 6'3" Braylon Edwards? 6'6" Burress (pre-prison)? Whether due to the new rules restricting contact or not, it's nearly impossible for a corner to "use his body" to make up that kind of difference. Again, I love the guy, but outside from sitting in a cover 2 zone, he's a huge liability in pass coverage.

+1

Even if you call it 7/$64M, you have to acknowledge that 1/8th of his signing bonus (whatever it was) will go as a cap hit...assuming there's a cap then, of course. At that price he's still overpaid anyway. Calling Clements a top five CB is absurd. Calling him a top ten is even too much. Is he a solid corner? Of course. But you don't pay a solid corner obscene amounts of money. Look, I love Antoine Winfield. I love his attitude, I love the way he plays. But I don't want anything to do with having him in coverage against guys eight inches taller than him, sorry. As much of a stud as he is against the run, he's a huge liability with his size against the pass. You can hide his height if he's sitting in a cover 2 zone, but the moment you have him man up or drop deep into a cover 3 or cover 4 he's a huge liability.

My only question here is how many people opened this thread, typed out "why the !@#$ did you start a thread about your own class schedule" and deleted it as to not bump this thread to the top??

So because the Saints put up a million points on...the Lions...and the Patriots haven't played a down yet of meaningful football...wait, what's the point here again???

The worst part about fantasy football - and there are plenty of things to comment on - is that everyone thinks you should give a sh-- about the players on their team. It doesn't matter who's covering if you can't manage any sort of pass rush whatsoever.

Why, cause the Raiders cut him? They've certainly been the team to make sound decisions over the last decade. Look at his numbers from last year. 2 INT's, 8 passes defensed in 7 games with Washington, learning on the fly. Clements: 2 INT's, 9 passes defensed in, I believe, a complete season with the 49ers. But thanks for telling me since I believe they on "at least the same level" that I lose all credibility, that makes a lot of sense.