todd

And you know what? Drew ran it really well. the thing that bothers me about everyone being very critical of the game is that you KNOW that mularkey is a guy that will use plays in one game to set up plays in antoher. Look at his plans in pittsburgh. For example, the play where Drew faked to Traves but threw to McGahee. I guarantee he's got about 15 different variations of that particular play, and we're going to see many of them before the season ends. That's the kind of stuff that wins games, folks. I thought the playcalling on Sunday was great. Lots of people B word about the passes on 4rd and short, but I just about busted a nut when they ran a draw on 3rd and short and gained about 10 yards. Perspective, folks. Perspective.

No, I actually meant '67. Buddy of mine had it in college.

In order of coolness 1972 Volkkswagon Superbeetle convertable 1962 Ford Mustang w/ straight 6 1968 Dodge Charger w/ hemi 1972 GTO 1965 (?) Corvette 1984 Chevy Chevette

this is one of the most stupid suggestions I've ever read.

I know someone who has had a saturn since 1991 with very few problems. Does saturn make the Ion, or is it made for them?

Whatever. Now where is that ignore button?

Maybe where the sun don't shine?

Lindell has proven to be of little worth. A good kicker needs to be almost automatic from up to 45 yards. 42 yards should be done without a glimmer of doubt.

I bet Joe just gave him a list of stuff to get done, then GW made some supporting lists. On his list was to hi-five players after a good play, that's why he did it.

I guess it would depend on the players he's given. Mularkey didn't walk into a team that was just torn apart because of a salary cap emergency, the way GW did. So I'd give Mularkey 2 years. If the Bills aren't in the playoffs by next year and it's clear that it's his fault, then he's gone.

I'm not happy with the loss, and I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Any phase of the game could have been better and we would have come away with a win. That said, I think we should all remember that this was the first game in a new offensive system. I certainly wouldn't make judgements about that right now. The players and o-line can only get better as everything starts to come together. I think Mularkey purposely called things simply because the team lacks the gametime experience in this O to do everything they want to do. I'm not making excuses for anyone, because they really should have won, but let's realize this as we go forward. There's a learning curve that will become apparent as things go forward.

That will probably be next year. I'll buy that as well. I'm addicted.

I can feel for you, man, but the truth is that the Pats ARE dominant. They win. As much as I think they get lucky sometimes, the fact is that they put themselves in a position so that a few good bounces would help them win. Other teams get good bounces, as well, however since they aren't in a position to win, it doesn't matter. The exeption to this is the playoff game against Indy last year, in which I feel the Pats were given the advantage by the refs, and the tuck rule game. However, You just can't argue with their record. I hate the pats, but luck only gets you so far. They're good.

Crap. I must not be here enough. I'll make a note and visit more often. Especially while I'm at work!

3rd picture down

I really think it's awesome when this is the most popular thread of the day. That's why this place rocks! This one is classic, and needs to be archived. SDS ... can you pin this one to the top for a while?

I used that player as an example. You like to talk about busts. Is jennings a bust? What was the defense AS A WHOLE ranked last year? Dude, you might want to stop this argument right now, because you're getting creamed.

Woohoo! I was waiting for a silly answer like that! You're making this discussion easy. Moulds was considered a bust by many fools until his 4th year. Funny, that. Josh reed is not a bust. He's only entering his 3rd year. Sorry, man, a 2nd rounder can't be called a bust after two years. Ryan denney? Brilliant. Isn't he going to split time with Kelsay this year as a STARTER? McGahee? The guy hasn't played a down of football and you are projecting a bust? I might just click the ignore button based on that single line. Angelo Crowell. Wow. How many starters? 1. Reed 2. Henry 3. Williams 4. Jennings 5. Clements 6. Schoebel 7. Kelsay/Denney That's pretty damn good, especially considering that you also build on FA, which you conveniently ignore. Not to mention Evans, who would start in 3-wr lineups, the fact that rookies don't normally start, etc. Oh yeah, then there's our nickel corners, and rotation on the DL. Nice try, man. You came up with 4 names that are "busts", two of them is starting, another hasn't played a down in the NFL yet he's still a bust somehow?! Please, this is getting silly. Step back and take a look at things objectively.

You spoke of busts. Are you going to recant or name some?

Again, my request was to name the busts. I haven't seen an answer yet. I'm sure there are some, because it happens to every team, but support that "bust" comment with facts, please. How many sacks did Jennings give up last year? What round was he drafted in? Has he produced appropriate value to be drafted that high? These are the types of questions you need to ask when evaluating a draft. Not just by throwing around the term "bust".

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think careers are long. Additionally, you must take into consideration circumstance, such as sacrificing his first season by fixing the salary cap. Additionally, his 8-8 season after that was pretty good. Last year was really the only failure. If sullivan would like to prove his point by taking a look at convenient stats, that's fine. But he's doing an injustice to factual reporting and editorializing. He has an agenda, and whatever it is, it has nothing to do with writing with his head based in reality. It's important to have long-term perspective. If you'd like to ignore that, so be it. I prefer to look at an entire picture. I dont' think that anyone can point to the hiring of GW as a good thing, but Donahoe has drafted well, and I think has assembled a pretty good staff right now. He's also brought in some darn good FAs.

Ask Jerry Sullivan. He can usually be found licking a toilet bowl clean.

Bust draft picks, eh? That's a hackneyed theme. And not supportable. Go for it, man. Name all the busts. Good ones like Travis Henry, Clements, Jennings, Wire, etc. You can't argue that point. Donahoe has hit some home runs, and if you'd like to bring up bust draft picks, you might want to look at the entire picture or else you may look like a fool. Gilbride? Well, he looked good at first, but then sucked. What is debatable is when he should have been fired by Williams, and the reprocussions if Donahoe forced Williams' hand, especially if he knew the season was shot. You want to take a shot at answering either of these points? Or are you going to fellate the opinions of moron Sullivan.

Nope. I'm right. You example of sample size is perfect. It's easy to choose the past 5 years because it omits the success that donahoe has had in the past. I'd even call the 2002 season a success because it was in line with what could be expected after a miserable first season under Williams. Jerry sullivan brought up the past 5 years because it was convenient for his idiotic, venom-spewing opinions. That in itself is a HALF TRUTH! It's as plain as day! If he took into consideration all situations, and the past 10 years, you'd see a different picture. But that's not the picture Sulliprick wants to paint. He doesn't want to be objective. I don't mind someone being negative when it warrants it, as long as you are objective. The wanker sure isn't objective, and that's what bothers me. To call out Donahoe as a failure is really, really stupid, and not supportable by rational thought process. Screw sullivan.

You're missing the point. It is idiotic to take as fact opinions based on half-truths and factual omissions. That's what Sullivan is a master of. If you take Donahoe's record as a whole, you will find that while he is not faultless, he's done a good job of assembling a good team. Sullivan takes the stance that Donahoe is an overrated fool. Psychology majors might call this projection.