Tortured Soul

To rain on Lee's parade: 1. He is closer to being 13th in receiving than 6th, despite playing one more game than some people on that list. 2. He has a higher percentage of passes thrown his way than nearly anyone else in the league. They gave this stat on NFL Countdown last week, when they noted Owens was fourth, Lee was one of the three ahead of him. 3. His YPC are the lowest of the top 20 receivers, and five yards below his career average. 4. He only has one touchdown. That said, I think Lee is on his way to being one of the best in the league - he plays like Steve Smith, and once he learns to use his speed to get separation, he will be Steve Smith. But he's not there yet.

OK, Colt McCoy.

Tim Tebow

Kzoo, Good stuff. That was my first question. Reading through the gamebook, there were a lot of deep passes going incomplete and a lot of short ones completed. On the sacks though, were they coverage or bad blocking? And why is Evans getting 10 yards a catch? What is there to do, other than get more receivers?

They're also tops in the power rankings. They've noticed.

I'll grant you there isn't much evidence, but it's not fair to jump to the conclusion that I'm "only saying it because..." Here is my case: The Giants only two losses have been vs. Indy and at Sea, while beating Washington and Philly. Dallas beat Washington and Tennessee, while losing to Jacksonville and Philly. So, it's a little circular, but against common opponents, the Giants are 2-0, Dallas is 1-1, and the Giants have played better competition (Indy beat Jax). On a neutral field, I would take the Giants. Edit: over the Cowboys and Eagles.

The Eagles have beaten the Cowboys and Packers at home, the Texans and Niners on the road. They lost to the Giants, the best team they've played so far, at home. They'll be no worse than 7-3, but their last six are killers. Second best? The winner of Indy at Denver in three weeks.

Ain't that the truth. Looking back on 3rd and 1's, it feels like they blow all the big ones. I don't know if that's true, or if they have been any better or worse than you'd expect from a team with their record. It's just that if you let your hopes turn into expectations, then you remember the instances where your expectations are not met much more than when they are.

Riught usage, surprisingly. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/diction...a/d0013452.html

I think you're cherry-picking a bit here. No one was saying the TB game last year was a tough game. In hindsight, TB was a division champ, but we were 2 1/2 point favorites going in. What about this season's opener? That was a tough game. We were 9-10 point underdogs, and we lost by two. You only have to go back four games to find the Bills winning as a touchdown underdog on the road. You only have to go back seven games to find the Bills winning as a two touchdown underdog on the road. I don't think that's bad at all. The fact is, you usually lose those games. Just to use a definition of "tough game" as anytime we are 5+ point dogs on the road, here is our record ATS. 2006: 2-1 (1-2 outright) 2005: 3-2 (1-4) 2004: 1-1 (0-2) 2003: 1-2 (0-3) 2002: 2-1 (1-2) I think, overall, we've come to play. The fact is there was a reason those were tough games, and I don't think we've done worse than the league average in those games.

That's as good a 90 second history of the Middle East as I've ever sseen.

Unfortunately, no. I finished Ann Arbor, but I'm making the trip up to Buffalo for the Pats.

Just checked ebay. Tickets are going for half-price. Hope you'll be able to make it.

I don't really see it as an advantage. I'm pretty sure the Bears could just send us the defensive game plan, and I don't think it would make a difference. What does make a difference - the Bears have phenominally skilled defensive players, and they have have been running the same system with the same players for a few years now. In the West Coast offense heyday in San Francisco, do you think there was anyone who didn't know exactly what to expect?

The last time the Bills won a game by a field goal or less, the year was 2001 and the QB was Alex van Pelt. Therefore, I'm going 20-13, with one TD coming from defense or special teams.

Just eyeballing it, do you think Crowell has the same impact on the field that Spikes has? Spikes is probably the first player the QB looks for when he breaks the huddle. I don't know about if Crowell is at that level.

1. Yes 2. Yes But I haven't even said Maroney is better than McGahee. My only issue is that someone on this board has said that McGahee is better than Maroney - and it's not even close, and has also said (by association) that Willis is the best in the league. There are factors that work against McGahee, but Bill, would you say McGahee is clearly better than a guy who is gaining a yard more per carry and has more TDs? I haven't said Maroney is clearly better (or even better at all) or that he is the best in the league. I've only been arguing against someone else's claim.

The object of the game of football is to score points. If the object was to advance the ball down the field, we would've won the Jets game, wouldn't we? Touchdowns: Maroney: 3 McGahee: 1, in 39 more carries Minnesota has faced the 6th, 13th, and 21st-best rushing teams - hardly "flat out great" Miami has faced the 11th, 27th, and 30th-best runnning teams, or did you neglect Houston and Tennessee? New Engand has faced the 4th and 14th-best. They are the lone impressive run defense the Bills have faced (and when McGahee had the fewest yards. Again, it's not hard to lead the league in rushing when you lead the league in carries. Why are you ignoring the 39 extra carries Willis has, and why do you think that makes him better than Maroney?

Here's my own logic (which seems to be superior to yours): Every time Maroney touches the ball, he goes a full yard further than McGahee. Refute that. You want to chalk that up to the defenses they played? Fine. Do what you like. But if you want to extend it to the numbers of the defenses that they played, you also have to extend that to the offenses that those defenses have faced. According to your post, at best, you could argue Willis is doing worse against better teams. I'm still not sure where you get the idea he is doing better. If you had to guess who was leading the league in rushing, starting with the league leader in carries would be wise. Jumping from there to the best runnning back in the league - that's just not logical.

Kevin Detriot, MI: Mort, the Lions have one of the easiest schedules but they are still not int the win column, do you see any improvement or is still the same old lions. Go Tigers!!!!!1 Chris Mortensen: (11:39 AM ET ) I see the offensse improving but the defense sliding some and I'm not sure why except that everything is new. I honestly believe there is hope for the Lions but it has to be frustrating for all the great fans up there. I believe in Marinelli. I think the personnel department should go out and hire another guy (Tom Donohoe comes to mind).

Of course not, but no stat can be separated from any other stat. Case in point: you can't separate McGahee's league-leading yardage total from his league-leading carries total. So could you use the yards number to say McGahee is clearly doing better than Maroney?

Maroney: 4.9 YPC McGahee: 3.9 YPC Glad it's clear to you.

A grapefruit-sized asterisk: They allowed 29 in their home playoff game against Carolina.

I got to read an advanced copy of his new book and thought it ws awful. It had absolutely no insight into football, and unlike moneyball, didn't tell you anything you might not have already known. He really phoned this one in.

But being 13th in the league in YPA is not bad at all.