Hollywood Donahoe

From what I've seen (not much, just numbers) it seems that McGahee's been real good in 2 of the first 3 games this year. If he continues on this pace, I'll give him his props. I was just hesitant about dubbing him an all-pro after a 4.0 YPC performance in 10-some-odd starts last year. That said, the decision to draft him will always be a head-scratcher to me, given what was known at the time. Sure, you can point out what's happened since with Henry, but that's always seemed somewhat self-fulfilling to me.

I bet Dillon will see more balls thrown his way now that Faulk is out 6-8 weeks. !@#$ing injuries!

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.

"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.

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."

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.

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.

...14 minutes from now.

They would have won regardless. Brady had the Pats in FG range with 57 seconds left: 1-10-PIT45 (1:06) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass to P.Pass ran ob at PIT 31 for 14 yards. Penalty on PIT-D.Townsend, Illegal Contact, declined. 1-10-PIT31 (:57) C.Dillon up the middle to PIT 31 for no gain (C.Haggans, C.Hampton). But all the same, I'm sure it was a a conspiracy by the Steeler's Nostradamus-like, traitorous clock operator, who foresaw the future events and decided to hurt the team that pays him.

You guys have my condolences. Losing a great player sucks, and it happened to your team and my team this week. Here's hoping our fill-ins (Crowell for the Bills and Guss Scott for the Pats) can hold down the positions. Hell, those guys could be future stars some day, you just never know.

So 3 Super Bowl rings doesn't get him props, but 4 will? As for the topic, that was a heck of a kick by Vinatieri. The value of guys who are at their best when the game is on the line cannot be underestimated.

I have my moments. Watching the Pats game, I needed something to calm me down. Special thanks to this board for giving me an opportunity to be rational. Scott hurt, Pats down to one safety.

1-2 in your first 3 starts is not bad at all, and he even played a good game in the win. Most QBs need at least 3/4 of a season or so before they start to settle in. That's why I kind of think that big winning streak you guys had last year was a detriment in the long run. Losman was obviously going to be the starter in '06, and the streak just set back his development. Give the kid some time.

Keep in mind that he sat out much of training camp, and half of the preseason, with a shoulder injury. That's why I'm confident the passing game will come around, provided Brady shakes of the rust on his shoulder.

And this is surely the first two-game stretch in which a QB hasn't completed a deep pass, yes?

You mean he "hasn't."

And?

The Patriots have no player by that name. Check your roster.

Two of those TDs came on drives of 13 and 12 yards. Why such good field position? A 76-yard punt return and a turnover on offense.

Your cousin isn't watching the same team I'm watching. The defense is not the problem. Horrible ST play and no run-blocking whatsoever have something more to do with Sunday's loss (and the bad parts of the Oakland game as well). The ST puts the defense in bad spots by giving up huge returns, and the offense is consistently in 3rd-and-longs because the running game goes nowhere. The defense held Delhomme to 154 yards and a 42% completion rate, and the Carolina runners to under 3.0 YPC. They even scored a TD! What more could they have done?

That must be why the competition committee placed on emphasis on certain rules with the sole purpose of trying to hurt Belichick's team.

You may be thinking of someone else. McGinest, perhaps? Seymour almost never drops into coverage.

That hardly seems an appropriate or worthwhile use of your unique abilities as a human communicator.