BringBackFlutie

I guess I just want to know how much you think of Gettleman, and why.

Same here. I don't think he's done for a few more years. He wasn't any slower last year. He had no where to go most plays. It was horrible.

NYJ? Uh. Probably play for the Pats?

Ah. So it's roughly translated. Got it.

Um, what?

Totally agree here. This reminds me of "move Glenn to G!!" I do think Dawkins is different, though. He's an above average-to-good LT, but he'd be a perennial all pro at G. Glenn showed flashes of elite LT play in his rookie year and continued that trend. It never made sense to make Glenn a G, because he was just as good at LT, and we couldn't have gotten better there. It's the same with Edmunds, to me- he's an elite talent at MLB. It's hard to replace that.

They did go after a marquee guy. His name is Mitch Morse. They needed a C. They went after the best one. They landed him Day One. They also threw their hat in the ring to TRADE for a WR- another position of need, and pulled out when they decided he was way too expensive and a nut job. I guess I don't really get the whole narrative. Obviously no one really wants to live in Buffalo, but we sign guys- marquee or otherwise- all the time. I think the argument SHOULD be sort of the converse: the Bills can't sign the free agents that they truly want. The Bills have repeatedly proven that they can sign free agents that they want.

All I can think, after reading this, is that you're right that the Falcons haven't been good since the super bowl, and that exciting win two years ago didn't really mean anything. ?

Kev, all I do is scratch my ass in front of people, and they love it. Co-workers, girlfriends- you name it.

I told an ex this exact same thing. She couldn't understand why you wouldn't want to put bumper stickers on a Ferrari. ?

I really wanted to know everyone's results, but I can't find the thread.

I also know the same exact situation. Maybe it's the same person.

The real question I'm repeatedly asking myself is...who will kill Tom Brady to make sure he doesn't do it too?

Yeah, and I bet that two months made all the difference in your Jason Taylor knowledge. M-E-G-A B-L-O-C-K-S. Get it right. I'm certainly MAKING a living, but, considering my time dedicated to this witty response, "earning" is probably a strong term.

All I have to say to you is that I KNOW you don't watch enough of Jason Taylor to make a comparison. I effing know it.

That's what I always did.

I think there are all sorts of factors that go into difficulty. For me, the two big ones are the depth of concepts taught in a course, and the difficulty of the courses (i.e. testing). I went to a very difficult private school in Western PA for engineering. At the other 3 colleges I went to, the concepts were as deep as the text books. At this school, the text was a requirement from a curriculum standpoint, but 90% of what we learned and tested on was whatever the hell interested that professor. Tests weren't standardized- they were just made to be difficult. Some professors really liked confusing word problems that combined multiple concepts (from the text and their heads) AND various thought patterns/outside concepts ("well, I figured this Calc 2 problem would be easy, since you know this play on words from your summer reading in 9th grade English!"). Others would give you so many problems that you couldn't finish the test in 50 minutes, and people would have to practice speed just to get a passing grade. There was rarely a curve, and if you got a C, you were told "well, I understand you're upset with your grade, but you should be happy. C is average." To get good grades you had to know the material like the back of your hand, know everything else you've ever learned anywhere, know the professor and how they thought, and have a little bit of luck. This place was full of 4.0ers and 1600 SATers. They graduated with 2.9s and were extremely happy to have survived. I used to talk to my friend who was in the same major at Cornell. While she and I were taking classes that were teaching concepts at about the same difficulty, the testing was straightforward, and there was far less incentive to learn the base concepts at Cornell. They'd pass 75% of the kids no matter what their test scores were. Curves are outrageous at Ivy League. At my school, professors didn't care what your SAT was, and repeatedly told the guys with 4.0s that it's nice they're so good at school, but when they get to work, their boss wouldn't care about their grades, and would care that they could solve problems they'd never seen before and keep to deadlines. At her school, if you got in with a 4.0, they wanted to make sure you kept that status, so that you left their school looking "smart." So I entirely understand the OP in that regard. Long story short, the difficulty depends on the school you go to, and it's absolutely true that the freedom to make courses difficult at the professor's discretion is not there at Ivy League schools, since they want their students to pass. There's also a dilution due to diversity quotas that Ivy Leagues are required to meet.

Yes! I love eggs. I really like them poached on a Benedict, over easy with toast/on a burger, or a ham, cheese, and onion omelet with salsa. There's a restaurant up the street that has awesome deviled eggs, with water chestnut in them to make them a little crunchy. What I generally end up doing is making an omelet or scramble on Saturday morning with whatever leftovers I have in the fridge (chopped up) and whatever cheese is appropriate for the other ingredients over top. It's best if I went out for steak the night before, or if I had chili- any excuse to put sour cream on something is worth it. Lastly (and also served at that restaurant I mentioned): bubble 'n squeak. Holy *****. It's an open-faced biscuit with fried chicken on-top, with a poached egg on-top of that, with sausage gravy over that.

I'm just happy to be here.

They probably don't know the difference between accuracy and precision. Seems to be a thing around here.

You are a bright little gem that needs to be nurtured.

I'd look for young guys that aren't gonna break the bank, yet are still upgrades to our huge gaps. We should be fine if we just bring the roster to a competent level in areas of glaring need, and use the draft to pick up more stars.

I'm not sure that we need top 1/3rd. In a few cases, we could do with mildly competent.

Same here. But I also haven't eaten BK in like, 15 years.

Well. Obviously he wasn't surprised, so I don't think you threw a wrench in his day or anything.