ATBNG

Agreed onboth counts Bill, but selling shirts puts money in the pocket of NFL properties, of which Wilson gets 1/32...it doesn't make any sense that Donahoe is drafting WR and RB with the idea to sell shirts to help the desperate bottom line, which seemed like newbie's point unless I'm really confused. Winning is the ultimate promotion for ticket sales. I expect TD understands that. Has he devoted too many of his resources to skill players? Yes, but not to sell shirts or create excitement, but because he has made mistakes as the GM (either philosophically or with the particular players he has acquired or both - let 70 other threads go through the particulars of which).

I don't think so. Urlacher had the top selling shirt in the NFL at last check. Plus, those revenues are shared leaguewide.

Is your thought that TD's convinced that Buffalo fans will only be compelled to come to the stadium if they can recreate the Bills of the early 90's? I kind of doubt it. Ticket sales were solid last year even though they were a team based on special teams and defense. W's should be his prime focus if he wants good box office - I think ultimately that's what brings fans to the stadium. If a team with say a good offensive line were in place, the skill position players around them will be that much better and the fantasy football type fans wouldn't know the difference and find it just as exciting.

Wow - I disagree. I liked the way those guys called a game. Johnson especially is great at raising the excitement level. I'm disappointed by this. Not to pick on you, but who do you like? It's easy to say they all stink, but which commentators do you enjoy or think are competent?

I think that the Patriots would not have won a Super Bowl in 2001 if not for the hit. They weren't that talented a team at that point and they had a lot of breaks (primarily they needed about seven games to go their way in the last two weeks of the season to get a bye and they all did). Bledsoe is never getting a ring as a starter - I believe that with all of my heart. I still think that they would have won in 2003 and 2004, and that Brady would have been the QB. Belichick and Pioli have done the best job of any team in the league in terms of acquiring and coaching players, and I think it's impossible to imagine the Pats not winning two Super Bowls in that time considering how well they revamped the roster in their first three years (and they continue to do quite well with some productive rookies this year, although the Andre Davis trade is a clear loss now that he's been released).

No, Kelso is right...the list is not exhaustive. There are at least two other teams (SF and Washington) that had losing records since the start of 2001, and there are probably a few more.

I have the 49ers in there at 32-35, as well as the Redskins at 28-38. List doesn't appear to be exhaustive - seems like the poster just went through "bad teams" in his mind and figured out their records.

I've always taken the tack that you can't go back and look at a draft and pick one or two players that ended up being steals and make valid arguments about the job that a GM did. Every team in the league should have taken Brady and Terrell Davis before the sixth round - there are always going to be steals and busts in every draft. So, with McGahee, I think that it is reasonable to look at the 10-15 players taken just after him and conclude that it wasn't exactly a bountiful collection at Donahoe's disposal. 2003 NFL DRAFT FIRST-ROUND PICKS Pick Team Name 23 Buffalo WILLIS MCGAHEE 24 Indianapolis DALLAS CLARK 25 New York WILLIAM JOSEPH 26 San Francisco KWAME HARRIS 27 Kansas City LARRY JOHNSON 28 Tennessee ANDRE WOOLFOLK 29 Green Bay NICK BARNETT 30 San Diego SAMMY DAVIS 31 Oakland NNAMDI ASOMUGHA 32 Oakland TYLER BRAYTON I think Steinbach looks like a nice player on paper (I think Clark is more difficult to evaluate because of the offense he plays in and because he also has had injury problems in his career - would he have been an effective Bill these last three years? I have real doubts about that.). As far as everyone else goes, you have a lot of disappointing players. Harris is a bust thus far. Woolfolk hasn't be productive or healthy. Davis is an end of the roster guy. Joseph finally became a starter this year. Asomugha seems to get picked on whenever I see him. Barnett is popular but overrated. In context, while I think it was reasonable to suggest that the pick was risky when it was made, McGahee has worked out well for Buffalo. Among those ten players, I doubt there would be many knowledgable NFL people who would rate McGahee's professional career so far lower than second on that list of ten. Steinbach might get some sentiment as 1. Plus, it's nice to see a guy come back from ripping all three ligaments in his knee anytime, but especially this week. Point is though that medical technology has come a million miles in the last decade in this regard, and that significantly mitigated the "risk" on this selection.

It is indeed a pick 'em right now. I like the Bills and the under. I see turnovers everywhere in this ballgame.

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.

I don't think it is that simple. The first thought is that JP had a year to learn how the game is played already. How many years is he supposed to intern? He either can play or he can't play. 1 year seems to be prudent for a lot of these guys, but two? He's making first round money. The second thought is that Drew makes substantial money, and you have a team that is at the precipice of the salary cap now. If you keep him, that's less money that could go to the offensive line. To do what you've proposed, they would need to cut other resources (the defense or other offensive skill positions). I think the bottom line is that Drew is not leading you (or anyone) to the promised land. He had big numbers yesterday, but he also threw one of his patented picks for a touchdown. He can look great in September when the weather isn't a factor and when he hasn't taken the physical pounding that is typical with him by the end of the season. When Donahoe drafted Losman, that was the absolute indication that Drew and Buffalo were headed for splitsville. It was far better for the franchise to cut the ties last offseason. It doesn't mean that Losman is the guy to lead you deep in the playoffs, but wouldn't you rather find out now than have him intern for two (three???) years (at big bucks on the cap), and then find out in 2006 or 2007 that he can't play if that turns out to be the case?

It was third down when the Pats kicked the field goal. Pitt could have called timeout, but surely New England would have then just run the ball to the right and kicked the FG on 4th down. Cowher should use the time out - I agree there - but it's preposterous to suggest that that was where the "game was lost."

Anyone who considers this to be a breach of etiquette is in my mind not a poker player, but someone who wants to play some other inferior game which is simplified in order to protect himself from others who are smarter or better than he is. The check/raise is an essential part of poker strategy.

It should be a great game this week - a lot will depend on the Pats injury situation. They're looking a little thin at corner especially since Gay is certainly out, and Scott and Poole were unable to play last week and have not yet practiced. They usually bring Wilson in at corner at these spots but his backup (Sanders) is also injured and not practicing. The entire AFC East bought themselves a much more difficult schedule this year by swapping the NFC West for the NFC South, and to a lesser degree the AFC North for the AFC West, and with Wannstedt no longer fumbling around in Miami. 14-2 for a third straight year seemed like a tall order. Myself, I kind of see them going 7-1 at home and 4-4 on the road when all is said and done. They've dealt with turnover in their personnel before. Besides the four linebackers, they only had four of the same starters in the 2001 and 2004 Super Bowls (Brady, Light, Seymour, and Andruzzi). I think Mangini will be fine as the DC. The coaching on offense has also suffered a bit beyond Weis as Ivan Fears (the RB coach) was ill through much of training camp. Matt Light is probably only 80%, and Neal (his neighbor on the line) was injured last week. The two rookies on the line look good, but rookie OL are going to make mistakes, and Mankisn and Kazcur had a few costly lapses last Sunday. As HD noted, the special teams have been atrocious so far, and they took a ton of penalties in week 2. Brady and the wideouts had a really bad game as well with drops and overthrown passes. They haven't lost two straight since 2002, and they've had a tendency to come back big from their losses in the last two years. I'm pretty excited for the game Sunday. Should be a great test.

Antowain was still around in 2000 as well - that was the year where he and Dougie finished with that "audition" game (against Seattle???), right?

That was one of the vagaries of the old schedule, and reasons why they changed it. Now every team in the league will be seen by a season ticket holder over the course of 8 years (each NFC team exactly once in 8 years). There probably is some NFC North team that has played an unusual amount of games over the years in Buffalo to compensate.

The league is too tough to play your primary running back on all three downs. Think about how much adverse contact a tailback would get in a game between being tackled on rushing downs and blitz protection. They can always use McGahee on third down (he has above average blocking and receiving skills) in a tight game or situation, but you're taking a huge risk playing him every down - that's bound to catch up to you down the road.

Buffalo 23 Tampa 10 I expected Tampa to win last week - Gruden is a much better coach than Tice, and there has been a severe overestimation of how good the Vikings are this offseason. Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver of all time, but Randy Moss is the most freakish talent of all time to play the position. The Vikings entire offense (with good reason) was built around Moss, and he drew so many doubles that Burleson was able to lead the league in YAC. They also lost (arguably) their best running back and offensive coordinator. They're poorly coached, and they have a defense that has some new names that look OK on paper but still is well below average by NFL standards. I wouldn't put too much stock into Tampa's win - they should have beaten them. Tampa is a decent NFC team, which means that they are in trouble against a good AFC team. Are the Bucs better than the Seahawks? Buffalo jacked them last year in a road game. I like the special teams matchup, and I like the blitz matchup against Tampa's protection (middling offensive line with a rookie getting most of the snaps at tailback - Cadillac probably can't be worse than Dominick Davis but rooks almost always struggle early in this regard even if they eventually turn out to be OK). I don't think the oddsmakers are factoring in the AFC/NFC disparity yet. I see Buffalo, New England, and Cincinnati (especially Cincy...they're going to rout Minny) as great plays come Sunday presuming the lines stay around where they are. I can't yet advocate taking Cleveland on the road getting less than a TD (though I would take them in the game forced to choose), but the other three games look live to me. I'm surprised at a lot of the negativity from you guys considering how the Bills routed their opponents in all four NFC matchups last year. Reverse jinxing?

From everything I read, this is the wave of the future.

Seymour is 93; McGinest is 55. Gallery and Ty Warren (94) seemed to be squaring off most of the game. The Pats had a huge third quarter on defense and especially up front when they switched to a 4-3.

I think that is 100% dead-on accurate from start to finish. Well said.

It also looked like Watson was the one who whiffed his blocking responsibilty on the blocked punt. They had to throw to Watson in the double digits in the Green Bay game - it always looks like there is somewhere to throw the ball with him due to his size and speed even if there is decent coverage. He's definitely a tantalizing prospect. He has a long way to go before he can be mentioned in the same breath as Coates. That guy was a warrior - Drew hung him out to dry five, six times a game. Meanwhile, the Oakland tight end (Anderson) did have two touchdowns among his three catches. Ronald Curry had no catches and was not mentioned all night. One thing that I haven't heard mentioned about New England's D is the play of the outside linebackers. Everyone is focusing on the ILB's because of the new personnel, but I thought Colvin and Vrabel struggled a bit (Vrabel played much better in the second half) and were part of the reason they played more 4-3 in the second half. It also probably was Harrison's worst game yet for New England - he had some responsibility on both of the first two TD's and only one unassisted tackle on defense. All and all - a sloppy game (much like last year's Thursday game).

I really like Jacksonville -3 vs. Seattle - I don't think the AFC's position of dominance league wide over the NFC has gone away merely due to the offseason. The Seahawks were brutal down the stretch last year, got waxed at home in the playoffs by an 8-8 team, and barely eked out a 1-3 record against the AFC last year when they won a tight home game against the Dolphins. The Jags should be spotting them six easy, but I think the bettors get a bargain here due to Mike Holmgren's Super Bowl ring.

Pat Robertson never won the NH Republican presidential primary. I suspect you mean Pat Buchanan? Your overall point probably is still valid.