daquixers_is_back

Are you sure? I heard that he visited Bowden and WVU, but he also had visited Alabama within the past couple of weeks also. edit: looks like your right

Any word on Noel Devine? The kid looked amazing in HS. ESPN analyst Michael Irvin, "Noel is a rare talent. He reminds me of a young Barry Sanders." Edit: I just learned he had over 1,000 all purpose yards in his first 4 games his senior year.

Uhm ... Vince Young's team beat us (The Bills) by ONE point in our home park after Jauron decided to go for fourth down instead of kicking a field goal to possibly win the game. Is that what you meant by getting our "asses kicked" ??? P.S. Vince Young is only in the pro-bowl because Philip Rivers got injured!

And yet you still continue to reply to it, thus feeding it. Who owns the problem?

Rochester?

Pro-Bowl is a popularity contest ... and as pointed out, Marino never won a SB. If you think his 2,000 yards, 12 TD's, 13 INT's, and SUB-70 QB rating got him into the pro-bowl then you are sadly mistaken. Don't get me wrong. Maybe Vince Young will become a superstar. Yet I see him more like a mix between Steve McNair and Mike Vick. Once d-coordinators figure out how to stop him ........

Even if this were true, I would have no problem with it. I would love Golisano to own the Bills.

To be completely honest, I have no idea. Even after one full season, I have no clue what type of offensive identitiy this coaching staff is trying to put together. We run 30+ times one game and then 10 times the next game.

And then I said that in his past 10 playoff games, he has had 2 bad games ... and you responded to that also. I also was not trying to make you out to be a "spin-doctor" ... whatever you think that is.

Once again, I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that the referees called such a bad game that it influenced the NFL to reinforce the rule.

A few years ago I tended to think that Manning simply had a great 0-line. Then I started watching all of Indianapolis's games. He has AMAZING pocket presence. He knows exactly when to roll out of the pocket and buy a few more seconds. He RARELY gets blindsided, as he tends to feel the pressure coming. Case in point: The Colts first TD yesterday (the long pass to Wayne). The Colts line broke down, and Manning escaped a few would-be-sackers and threw a long TD while being hit. As far as the original posters questions, I would really only want (at this point), one of two QB's on the team rather than Losman. Manning or Brady. And that choice would be extremely tough. They both have their upsides, but the way Manning has finally proven he is a leader, and one that can win a SB, I would have to pick Manning. I always considered Manning the better QB, and Brady the more natural winner. Now that the latter part is a little more even, I would have to take Manning. Nothing against Brady though. He (IMO) is still in the top 3 QB's today and a sure future HOF'er. Yet I like that Manning has an insanely strong arm. I like that Manning continues to impress his critics (I especially liked that he did it in the RAIN yesterday, instead of perfect weather).

No kidding.

... and if I was taking out 5 of his 10 playoff games, then you would have a point. Yet I am only taking out TWO of his playoff games. My point being that EVERYONE, has a bad game once in a while. 2 bad playoff games out of 10 is not a bad number, in my personal opinion. But hey, lets look at it in your way for a minute. Lets throw in his 2 worst games ... so now we have his COMPLETE last 10 playoff games, bad and good, and he STILL comes out to somewhere around a 91 or 92 passer rating.

I'm not sure what your getting at, considering I agree with everything you put in your post. I was simply talking about ONE post-season game, the year before the 5 yard chuck rule was reinforced, that TY Law and Co. were all over Harrison and Co. making it harder for Manning to complete passes downfield. Thats all I was saying. I never brought up every postseason game or anything to that point.

I believe most of his truly poor playoff games were from 1999-2002. Since then he has thrown 2937 yards, 17 TD's and 13 INT's. In those next 10 playoff games, he had two truly bad games. This year against Baltimore and in 2003 against NE. He combined for 1 TD and 6 INT in those TWO games. In the other EIGHT games he had 16 TD's, and 7 INT's.

One of the few things we seem to agree on. Peyton was and is a spectacular player. He was? Year after year, he had a terrible playoff defense and the secondaries of other teams were raping his receivers. I cant remember what year it was, but it was the playoffs before they started to reinforce the 5-yard chuck rule. Ty Law and company was all over Harrison and Co, 20-30 yards down field, and yet everyone was wondering why Manning was doing so poorly?

I use to think this also (along with TOMCAT), I since have changed my mind. I do still believe that Manning is the better QB though, but we have already had that debate. I love the "he has done it with nobody" arguement, that every Patriot fan brings up. It is simply funny. As if Charlie Weiss, Bill Belichick, Dillon, Branch, Givens, Graham, Watson ... etc are just nobody's. Let me just re-post something I posted in another topic related to this: I see Tom Brady as a player who gets some credit he does not deserve and some people don't give Manning the credit he DOES deserve. Lets be honest ... how well does anyone think Brady would do in a long-rage full field type of offense? The type of offense Manning has mastered. Looking at his porous stats in the long passing game, I would guess he would not do as well. At the same time, we have seen Manning master the long game and also do well in the short game. A lot of people talk about Brady's 2 minute drill and how he can take a team down the field. Has anyone seen Manning in a two-minute drill? The guy is amazing and personally, I cant help but think that he is an even better 2 minute QB than Brady. In fact a buddy made a comment towards the end of the 1st half of the Pats-Colts game when Manning started to do well with only a few minutes left before halftime... he said "Jeez, the Colts coaches should just tell Manning that there is only 2 minutes to go every time he touches the ball" ... the difference is that Brady has done his 2-minute drill bit in the SB and AFC championship games and that obviously gets more exposure than Manning's regular season, game by game by game 2 minute drill that is fantastic. That is NOT a knock against Brady. I'm just saying that Manning is just as good at it, if not better. A lot of people refer to the fact that the Colts struggled against the Pats in the playoffs in the first 1/2 of Manning's career. I don't think I'm one to usually complain about the refs but what Ty Law and Co. did to the Colts receivers a few years ago without any penalties called was AMAZING! The Colts receivers were being mugged downfield, and yet everyone was wondering why Manning was picked off a lot. Well duh! When your receivers are being pushed/shoved 20 yards downfield, of course they are not going to be able to run their routes! Again. NOT a knock against Brady. A knock against the Refs/Pats defense. Next people bring up the subject of SB rings, and that Brady is the superior QB because he has the SB rings. Personally I NEVER understood, even BEFORE Manning/Brady debate came around. I don't understand how ONE player is better, because his TEAM won a game and another players TEAM didn't. Last time I checked, Football is a TEAM game. One player could be an all-star, but if the whole team is not up to a good enough level than that ONE all-star player is not going to get a ring. Example: Is Trent Dilfer better than Dan Marino because Dilfer has a ring and Marino does not? Put it this way. I *personally* believe if Manning and Brady were on completely different teams since 2000, Manning would have the 3 SB rings, Brady would have 0, and Manning would STILL be in next weeks Super Bowl. Thats my opinion. Its seems now-a-days whenever you bring up Brady or Manning in a good way, it must mean that you are discrediting the other player.

OK, so the Dolphins, Broncos, and Bengals were "contending" this past season. None of them made the post-season. Well hey, atleast your theory makes sense. I will always have a big deal of respect for the Patriots as long as Brady and Belichick are roaming the sidelines and on the field, but the Patriots have won a large majority of games in the past 6 years decided by 7 points or less, and sooner or later they will begin to lose a few of those games. The Patriots use to OWN the Colts. Why have they lost to them 3 straight times now? and by an average of 10 pts/game? When was the last time the Patriots lost to the Jets before this season? I believe it was 2002.

I don't think they will fade away but they are surely not what they were in 2003 or 2004. You say they were a "third and three completion away from sitting on the ball, kicking the field goal and going to the Bowl" ... well they were also a Philip Rivers interception away from not being in the AFC Championship at all. It goes both ways. The teams of '03 and '04, were a team you feared. They were almost guaranteed to make the SB. Its not like that now. It looks as if half the crowd is all over the Patsies Balls and the other half wants to live in an illusion. P.S. The Bills were one non JP safety away from beating the Patsies.

I dont necessarily agree with the poster you were debating, but do you honestly think the Pats of the past 2 years are anywhere NEAR the Pats of 2003/2004? I still think the Pats are the team to beat in the AFC East and will continue to be a very good team, but its more than obvious to see that they have been struggling much more since 2004. Some say its because of Weiss, Crenell, or Branch or blah blah blah. It does'nt matter to me. All I know is that they have been sliding. Maybe they will jump back up to a 14-2, incredible team next year. I dont know. Are you serious? And you know this how? Does 'contend for a title' to you mean that they simply make the playoffs? If so, then I would say that is a fair thing to say. Yet to me 'contend for a title' means your either in the AFC Championship game or Super Bowl, because those are the only games that can get you a title.

I know you were replying to AKC, but I figured I would throw my opinion in the mix. I really don't hate Tom Brady, although I do STRONGLY dislike him due to the fact that he plays on the Patriots. Yet, when I evaluate a player, I don't just look at what team he plays for. I look at the overall. Meaning, if Tom Brady was on the Cardinals instead, I wouldn't strongly dislike him because of the team, but I would still feel the same way of him as a player. I hope that made sense? Maybe not. I see Tom Brady as a player who gets some credit he does not deserve and some people don't give Manning the credit he DOES deserve. Lets be honest ... how well does anyone think Brady would do in a long-rage full field type of offense? The type of offense Manning has mastered. Looking at his porous stats in the long passing game, I would guess he would not do as well. At the same time, we have seen Manning master the long game and also do well in the short game. A lot of people talk about Brady's 2 minute drill and how he can take a team down the field. Has anyone seen Manning in a two-minute drill? The guy is amazing and personally, I cant help but think that he is an even better 2 minute QB than Brady. In fact a buddy made a comment towards the end of the 1st half of the Pats-Colts game when Manning started to do well with only a few minutes left before halftime... he said "Jeez, the Colts coaches should just tell Manning that there is only 2 minutes to go every time he touches the ball" ... the difference is that Brady has done his 2-minute drill bit in the SB and AFC championship games and that obviously gets more exposure than Manning's regular season, game by game by game 2 minute drill that is fantastic. That is NOT a knock against Brady. I'm just saying that Manning is just as good at it, if not better. A lot of people refer to the fact that the Colts struggled against the Pats in the playoffs in the first 1/2 of Manning's career. I don't think I'm one to usually complain about the refs but what Ty Law and Co. did to the Colts receivers a few years ago without any penalties called was AMAZING! The Colts receivers were being mugged downfield, and yet everyone was wondering why Manning was picked off a lot. Well duh! When your receivers are being pushed/shoved 20 yards downfield, of course they are not going to be able to run their routes! Again. NOT a knock against Brady. A knock against the Refs/Pats defense. Next people bring up the subject of SB rings, and that Brady is the superior QB because he has the SB rings. Personally I NEVER understood, even BEFORE Manning/Brady debate came around. I don't understand how ONE player is better, because his TEAM won a game and another players TEAM didn't. Last time I checked, Football is a TEAM game. One player could be an all-star, but if the whole team is not up to a good enough level than that ONE all-star player is not going to get a ring. Example: Is Trent Dilfer better than Dan Marino because Dilfer has a ring and Marino does not? Put it this way. I *personally* believe if Manning and Brady were on completely different teams since 2000, Manning would have the 3 SB rings, Brady would have 0, and Manning would STILL be in next weeks Super Bowl. Thats my opinion. Its seems now-a-days whenever you bring up Brady or Manning in a good way, it must mean that you are discrediting the other player. That is NOT the way it is for me. I just see it the way I posted above.

If we take our chances with franchising him yet again, and NOT getting a team to give up a couple first rounders, and were stuck with ANOTHER 1 year contract, we are going to be in even worse shape than now. Clements will be furious. We will be paying higher than we would have if we just signed him, and at the end of next season, he leaves anyway. Just straight up, SIGN him.

I heard this concept on ESPN and I simply don't understand it. Why is everyone so high on the Bears? Grossman only needs to play Mediocre to win? I don't believe so. The Indianapolis Defense has been playing well in their past 3-4 games. Grossman is no Tom Brady, and Thomas Jones/Cedric Benson (in my opinion) are a step lower than Laurence Maroney and Corey Dillon. Not only that but the way the Patriots secondary played for the first 3/4 of the game Sunday was remarkable. I don't believe the Bears defense can do much better than the Patriots secondary, did for the most part Sunday. Add that to the fact that Manning has not been playing up to his caliber two out of the three playoff games and the Colts still won. The Baltimore defense was the #1 ranked defense in the league. Chicago was #5. Yet Manning only needed a 170 yard, 0 TD and 2 INT game to beat Baltimore by 9 points. During the regular season Baltimore's offense was nearly equal with Chicago's in terms of yards (Chi had about 8 more yds/per game). Baltimore had a better 3rd down%. Baltimore had a better 4th down%. Baltimore had less penalties than Chicago's offense, and Baltimore had a better avg time of possession per game than Chicago's. Both teams had equal yds/per play. I guess my point is that I believe Baltimore's offense is on the same level, if not BETTER than Chicago's offense and Indianapolis already beat Baltimore by 9 points ... and that was with an experienced playoff QB.

Yeah its always nice when people act like asses huh?

I guess I'm the only one who enjoys watching the SB games over again. At least it makes me feel good that we actually GOT there, and didn't consistently miss the playoffs during that span. I would take a loss in a SB, over consistent no-playoff years.