StupidNation

A great CB is more important than a FS. Good corners become FS late in their career, not vice versa. Second, you would not want him as a WR. Let me excel at what he does, and if he gets better that's great. I can't see him becoming a WR.

It really shows you little you know if you think pulling a veteran who can't "learn" from growing pains, to a 2nd year guy in a his first year of starting the season who needs to learn. Did you watch McNabb when he first came into the league? Why didn't they bench McNabb in his 5th season when he didn't have one game over 186 yards after his first 7 games and threw more 7 INTs than 3 TDs. He has had stretches throughout his career. The difference is the team believed he was their future and their present and couple pull himself out after 5 years because he showed enough promise. Trent has done the same throwing for over 200 yards well over half of every game he played this year with a horrible supporting cast at WR. Give Trent the same weapons on offense most teams have at WR and he would instantly improve. Hell, even the Cowboys 4th WR, Austin, would be #2 on this offense.

All we need is better stability from the run game. Trent is a solid QB, and will never be the gun-slinger Warner is. Still, he's a keeper and will get better.

Everyone has except us.

Genius, he's a rookie. These things take time, same with the QB position and Trent.

It means something, and learn to spell such a simple word. KC has looked good of recent.

Funny you say that as I agree with you, but I also really like to watch Greer play on D. Hopefully we can add McKelvin to the list if he continues to play like this.

I'll take our Edwards to their Edwards.

I don't think so. I think so far all of you are saying it's not possible based on physicality, but are you saying that Joe Montana in his prime wouldn't succeed today? The same for Steve Young? Last time I checked those guys lined up across Bruce, Reggie, et al. and did just fine. My point was by throwing the softer the passes over the top it take away the issues of LBs in the middle of the field and it makes the safeties on the Defense more responsible for over the top plays, thereby taking them out of the box for running plays.

I didn't see a huge difference in speed from 1993 to now. I also think Warner in 1999 was the most accurate I've ever seen for one year, but Young was extremely accurate and probably the most accurate for his career. That said part of his accuracy was the speed of the ball where WRs could place themselves with a cushion to catch the ball. I watched the NFC Championship game of the Cowpukes vs. 49ers and Young was extremely accurate, but the ball was slow, even on screens. His pass to Rice for the TD that was called back in the 1st quarter was so slow he easily adjusted to slow down, and then catch it at full stride to streak to a TD. I don't really think you could say Deion Sanders, Woodson, and the other guys would be easily replaced. The speed of the NFL hasn't changed that much in 15 years, and as a matter of fact extremely little. 20 years ago sure, but everyone was pretty much juicing in the 90's on.

He was garbage. He never called a screen to the WR, a slant, never used the TE or the full back. He was better at calling plays for our schemes, but that's like judging goodness by evil.

Those guys threw the ball soft and over people's heads using good routes rather than through D-linemen's arms. There was an arc on most of their passes I've watched on the NFL network and it really stands out to me the speed of the ball. I'm watching the NFL network and I'm wondering why most QBs see the game as a laser-beam contest of hard passes. Even Jimbo thew arc on many passes, even with Thurman coming out of the backfield over the LB's head just like Quinn did with his RB against us where the QB rushes the RB thinking it's a screen and tosses it over their head as the RB accelerates forward. Why can't our QBs learn to do this? Why can't the QBs of today pass more like Marino than Jimbo or Young/Montana? Seems to be a lost art, although Brees does it.

He was 6-20 and he wasn't a classic "rookie" with time in another league.

I couldn't have said it better myself. JP had more chances, and in the games we won it was more about Edwards than the run game. JP isn't a good QB. He's good for a few good bombs but he is what he is and he's not capable of leading a team. JP is 10-31 as a starter. Let's say we start him and he goes 3-3 and we miss the playoffs and he leaves. That accomplishes what? Anyone who wants JP dare to tell me he's going to go 5-1 right now? Anyone put that on the line? If so prove your case. Show that JP can go 5-1 as a starter.

There are not homosexual animals. Go learn what a homosexual is and does as a human and compare acts of domination to homosexuality. Female animals act like males, but it's not homosexuality, it's acts of domination. Homosexuality is not natural, and no animal in the created world hooks up with a member of the same sex to have pleasure. The questioning of someone else doing something out of natural order is a lame-ass excuse for what is in principle against nature. I know logic doesn't fit well for you, but you might want to examine the natural order a little better and ask yourself how in the hell homosexuality is genetic when identical twins have dispelled that myth about "born" that way excuse, and 50% of homosexuals weren't always homosexual, and why 50% of active homosexuals return to heterosexuality. Those are sociological facts.

I'm glad morality and the natural law are predicated on time and not truth. It's is something other than OK and normal.

It's not wisdom, but raw stupidity. Anyone who thinks otherwise falls into those categories. They may have identified a problem, but their answer is worse than the critique. Tell me how well the Soviets did in a true communist regime.

Parcells didn't like him.

Losman comes in, plays his average of 1 win 3 losses, but let's say he goes .500 and we finish at 8-8 and he leaves with Trent less experience to play himself out of a funk. Yeah, great idea.

It's actually pretty simple. After LBJ not everyone jumped on the welfare disability bandwagon. The train got larger and larger. Add to that the issue of government spending on military endeavors in the 80's to topple the Soviets and that helped spiral the issue. Add the major neo-con agenda of war-mongering and there you have it. We created a non-sustainable system unless the population growth from income producers grew to sustain current levels. The people who produce and earn aren't populating to replacement income numbers, which is usually double those below them in the current system. Income producing citizens are shrinking, manufacturing is leaving (and if auto goes we are screwed even more), the drain from war and illegals is choking us, we have millions on welfare and disability who should be productive, and you have an amazing blend of the end of the U.S as a superpower becoming a 2nd world country and soon thereafter a 3rd world nation in 50 years or less. Sad, but true. Many of us clamored for the easy life and voted for no working. They will reap what they have sowed.

Good WRs help more than you realize. Culpepper is a prime example.

I'm glad you've seen him play. He was horrible in his 2nd, 3rd and 4th year. Let's see, can these 4 games 2006 in his 3rd year change your mind? 143 yards 1 TD 2 INTs 230 yards 1 TD 2 INTs 121 yards 0 TD 2 INTs 179 yards 1 TD and 1 INT Nov 5th to Nov 26th 2006 Do you even watch football? The Giants ran for over 2100 yards at an average of 4.7 yards an attempt and Eli sucked that bad, which makes it worse because Edwards doesn't even have that type of support on the ground (except last game). I'm not saying Trent is the answer anymore, he looks shell-shocked big-time, but I'm not saying he's not and we have a better chance of holding the ship with a guy who has shown potential and won games for us with no running game than abandoning the ship and hoping they waive Tom Brady and we pick him up for vet minimum for a 4 year contract next year. He's the best hope we have, and young can QB give you sick stomach, and I like Trent and he's upsetting me with his play, but I still feel he can right the ship with a better #2 and a TE. He has no real threats in the outfield except Evans, who really isn't physical enough to get jump balls, cut to the middle easy outlets, and be physical enough that Trent can throw bail out throws and hope a catch can be made. Evans is what he is, and damn good, but Trent doesn't have the same tools as Eli with the WRs or the running game. And no, Coughlin didn't pull Eli after those 4 games.

Sadly, he's a radical in moderate's clothing. If you study his positions, his beliefs, his theology and philosophy he's not a moderate. Still, he's my president and I have hope in him to do the right thing. When or if he doesn't I hope to be level-headed in my criticisms. My biggest hope is his promise not to have lobbyists run the White House. If he could just pull that off and moderate spending I would be happy considering his background and personal beliefs.

I'll still take Price 2006 to Reed 2008 in passing situations. I was comparing 2nd yr QBs 2005 vs 2008. I would much rather have Moulds 05 to Reed, Parrish, Hardy, or Johnson. JP had Reed in 2006 and Reed was nothing with JP as QB. Look at Reed pre-JP with Bledsoe, look at Reed post-JP.

I agree with you, and if they think the lower and middle class has been hurt by the current GOP, which they have, they will be killed by the liberal policies of big gov't of both parties where it will wipe out the wealth of the entire country to a select few. Recessions have depressions have nothing on hyperinflation. The world will eventually not buy our treasury notes as we become more insolvent. When that day happens I want to hear the cries of more "programs". Programs are parasitic on creative expansions of the economy. All of the welfare fairies and "anyone who applies is disabled" days are over, destroying it for anyone who could have been helped by other means provided before the New Deal, while simultaneously destroying the New Deal with lack of funds. The entire argument against capitalism is a sham, although I admit it has it's faults and cannot be perfect. Today's regulated capitalism is corporatism, which is not a measure of the ideology as it is neo-capitalism not the real deal. If people want to study what capitalism should be look at this country from 1861-1920. We had money and growing economically with savings and production. Now most of our economy is consumption, which is horrific to anyone with any semblance of what that means to a country. We turned to socialism, and this "spreading the wealth" argument against dems is misleading as it applies to liberal Republicans as well. The GOP had it's time to make a mark against socialism, they failed and gave us corporatism and increased socialism. While both seem diametrically opposed they are not, they are brothers of totalitarianism where the one (corporatism) feeds the other (socialism) creating a dependence and eventually destroying liberty. People don't vote on principles, they vote on greed and personal gain. When I voted this year I voted for someone who, in effect, would have done tremendous damage to my business, but it was the true liberty candidate. A guy like Ron Paul has no shot in this country when statesmen are treated like lions: caged or dead.