Mickey

What was Jauron, our Head Coach, doing while everyone else was screwing up the offense? Playing free cell? And it wasn't just a struggling offense, a young offense or a screw up in the red zone offense. It was the worst offense in the 48 year history of the franchise. By all means, give the top guy a pass. After all, what is a poor Head Coach to do? Not like he is the boss or anything....

Gee, and whose fault is that? We did have an all pro LT, a top FA guard, a top tier WR and a top flight rookie RB. That is a lot more to work with than the Bills of the Dennis Shaw, Vince Ferragomo and Gary Marangi eras, yet even those pathetic offenses out performed Jauron's Juggernaut.

I don't think we give him anything. He should be the starter for as long as he deserves to be. I am not a fan of the idea that we should use the regular season as just one long practice session to season our QB for the better days ahead. Whoever the coaches think gives us the best chance of winning each Sunday should be the starter. It is their judgment to make and if they are wrong, we will justifiably criticize them. Half way through the season, if we are out of the playoffs, Jauron better update his resume. I am also not buying this stuff about being patient and all because our offense is so young. That is BS. Lee Evans is not a rookie and Peters is an all pro. Dockery is a vet who is getting paid like an all pro. Edwards saw tons of playing time last year in both preseason and in the regular season. Lynch is a veteran now. There is enough experience and talent on that offense to produce now. No more excuses.

Y Certainly Dick sees more than we do but you could say that about every coach we have ever had and every player. If because of that we aren't allowed to question, criticize and give our own opinions, we might as well shut this site down. Besides, given that Jauron fielded the worst offense in the history of the franchise, I am not yet inclined to defer to his judgment on all things under all circumstances.

Its the fee market at its best. Of course that contract doesn't mean anything. Take Peters, the guy made the pro bowl on a team desperate for offensive talent. He is so far under paid, its ridiculous. Lets say we held him to his contract, what is to stop him from showing up, going through the motions and cashing his check? Do you think he would be eager to sign up with us when his current deal is up? Not a chance. So, if we want a ticked off pro bowler on our hands with no motivation other than to stay healthy and get out of here, all we have to do is hold him to his contract. I say we stop pretending we have any leverage here at all and simply pay him. Get him into camp all smiles, ready to do some damage on the field and eager to be our rep at the pro bowl for the next 8 years.

This 2007 article would argue that the notion that family businesses and farms are hit hard by the inheritance tax is an utter myth: Despite oft-repeated claims that the estate tax has dire consequences for family farms and small businesses, there is in fact very little evidence that it has an outsize impact on these groups. Indeed, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes. Most recently, an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that exceedingly few family farms and small businesses face the estate tax (http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-05tax.htm and http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/65xx/ doc6512/07-06-EstateTax.pdf). The CBO report found that if the current exemption level of $2.0 million had been in place in 2000, only 123 farm estates and only 135 family-owned businesses nationwide would have owed any estate tax. The number of taxable farm estates would have dropped to 65 nationwide at a $3.5 million exemption level, the level that takes effect in 2009. The number of taxable family-owned business estates would have fallen to just 94 under the $3.5 million exemption. The CBO report also found that of the few farm and family business estates that would owe any estate tax, the vast majority would have sufficient liquid assets (such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and insurance) in the estate to pay the tax without having to touch the farm or business. For instance, of the 65 farm estates that would have owed tax under a $3.5 million exemption, just 13 would have faced liquidity constraints.

Everybody, regardless of political stripe is against wasteful spending yet it goes on and on, why? My own worthless opinion is that the money spent to benefit you is sound policy while the money spent that doesn't benefit you is wasteful pork. So if you are a military contractor, you really love the size of the defense budget, thousand dollar toilet seats and all and are probably easy to convince that it is other people, especially those "welfare queens" who are responsible for our budgetary woes. If you are a single mother who can't feed her kids, you are probably a big fan of food stamps and are probably easy to convince that we could get by with one less army base in Senator Pig's state. If you are retired, you probably think very highly of Social Security and Medicare but are probably not such a big fan of the top secret Space Death Ray Research Program. The notion that we are going to ever have the political will to sacrifice our own sacred cows is a political fantasy. Even if you could wish away those programs, the problems they were created to address aren't going away. As a body politic, we have decided to have these programs and outsized budgets, they weren't foisted on us at the point of a gun. Chances are lots and lots of us had no complaints when we needed guaranteed student loans to pay our college tuitions, or our parents needed Social Security and Medicare to keep from having to live in our basements or when we bought our first home with an FHA loan. Maybe some of us refuse to use national parks out of principle but I am willing to bet not many. I couldn't tell you for the life of me what the Coast Guard does when they aren't picking up a few passengers from a sinking yacht but I bet the people who make their living fishing or doing other work on our coasts could. Maybe I just have a soft spot for scientists trying to end human suffering but I have to admit, the CDC and the NIH make me feel all warm and fuzzy. It is very attractive to us to hear politicians tell us what we want to hear. That everything the government spends our money on is a total waste and jeez, if we just stopped all of that pork everything would be grand. We would all pay lower taxes and it wouldn't cost us a thing. We can have a lower tax bill and the CDC too! We can cut this tax and that tax and still have a Coast Guard, silly! The problem isn't that we need things and want things that cost money, the problem is, *cue drum roll with ominous music in the background* big, bad, nasty corruption. So all we need to do is end corruption and we will be all set because that 250 billion dollar shortfall is all made up of metaphorical $1,000 toilet seats. At $1,000 per, that is what, 250 million toilet seats? I looked up the budget in the US statistical abstract the other day and frankly, it was pretty hard to ID enough real fat to make a difference. The only thing that makes sense to me is to cut everything across the board about 9% which would be enough to balance the budet. Sounds fair right? No way it would happen. That would just tick everyone off and mobilize every political consitutency in the country against it. If we can't cut, the responsible thing to do is to raise taxes to pay for it. Lots of luck there.

3.5 million bucks is "meager"??? I want to be in the author's tax bracket. I thought the problem in Pittsburgh is actually over greed. One brother wants to buy the others out but they think they can get more $ for their shares on the open market than from the one brother so they want to put it up for sale.

I think it would be even worse for those three cities if he did.

I can't disagree with any of that. Peters had a pro bowl year. As highly as I think of Lee Evans, he did not have a pro bowl year, far from it. I don't think it is an either/or situation, we need them both but if it were, I'd go with Peters.

It is standard practice to renegotiate a contract prior to its expiration when circumstances dictate that it be done. We did it for Schobel when Kelsay got a bigger contract despite not being as good of a player as Schobel. Since we have done it for others, Peters can certainly argue that there is no reason not to do it for him. Evans didn't make the pro bowl, Peters did. Left Tackles are highly valued in this league and he is one of the best. Based on his performance and value, he is seriously underpaid. We need to resolve the Peters situation.

You would be happy to see him retire without a championship???

willams gets run over and pushed around pretty easily. looks good in preseason though.

Given that the plea was for a violation and not the misdemeanor the DA had talked about for weeks, sounds to me like the atty did a good job. I think his rep would have suffered much worse if the reduced charge he had to plead to was a misdemeanor.

You can draw whatever inference you want, you are not on a jury. If you were, you would be instructed by the Judge not to do so. If you went ahead and did so anyway, you would be violating the oath you took as a juror. Exercising your constitutional right to remain silent does not mean you are guilty any more than would speaking to the police be proof of innocence. Lots of guilty people have talked a blue streak and a lot of innocent people have taken the 5th. Nevertheless, not being on a jury, if you want to infer guilt from silence, go ahead. If you want to infer that Lynch is the Easter Bunny based on his not having denied it, go ahead. There is no law requiring you to be logical or intelligent. I am still trying to make sense of Clark's statement that, on the one hand, the deal is based on Lynch having been the driver but that, on the other hand, Lynch hasn't admitted to having been the driver. One last thing. In a case like this where a personal injury suit is clearly in the offing, the typical police response is to hold the charges against the defendant in abeyance until the civil suit is completed. They know that the defendant would otherwise be forced to take the case to trial. A plea of guilty is admissible as an admission in the civil case but jury verdict of guilty is not. Thus, where the civil case is likely to carry a heavier punishment than the minor offense charged would, it can be in the defendants best interest to take the case to trial. DA's prefer pleas so the hid the criminal case until the civil case is done and resolve it then. I have personally arranged this kind of deal literally hundreds of times. Think about that when you hear all the bleating about how Lynch got special treatment and how this was "dragged" out way too long.

It hasn't exactly "dragged on", as these things go, its moving quite fast. That is how deals are done. The atty and the DA haggle back and forth. "If the facts are this, I'll give you that" Done all the time. The very reason it hasn't resolved yet is the inherent difficulty in the situation. DA doesn't want to commit to too light of a deal if the facts justify something more. The suspect doesn't want to provide those facts until he has a deal in hand because its his only bargaining chip. To the extent this is "dragging on", that is why. The attys have to haggle and dance around the problem of who goes first. I stand by my original comment, Lynch can't accept a deal because one hasn't been offered though we know his atty tried to get one the Monday after the accident. Its not Lynch who is necessarily to blame for the matter not being resolved yet.

"in the care of" suggests on-going care, not a one time stitch session.

I am sure Lynch will take a deal, just as soon as one is offered. The "stonewalling" is from the DA who can offer a plea anytime he wants but so far has not.

That is the way it is done. Atty: "My client will talk if you will let him plead to "X", a violation, no jail time." DA: "Okay, but only if he tells the truth and only if he wasn't drunk." Atty: "Deal." Simple. I have seen it done. I have negotiated these same deals. If you give them the info first, with no commitment, they can back out and you are screwed, having just given away your only bargaining chip. An apology is admissible as proof in the civil case. He might as well just say, "And to the victims attorneys, merry christmas, "I'm sorry". I guess we just differ, I don't think refusing to help the DA put you in jail is "acting like a criminal" nor do I think decency demands that you volunteer to become the victim's winning lottery ticket. As for insurance companies, they will hire him an atty to defend the case, the same thing that you deplore happening now. This isn't a 5 year old who broke a window with a baseball. This is a guy with a big target painted on his back for anyone looking to score some fame or $. Believe me, the victim won't care about decency when she is asking a jury for $$$$$$$ for 7 lousy stitches.

What exactly could he have done to avoid "dragging it out" (all of what now, 2 weeks?, I've seen longer hearings)? How would Lynch's rep have fared if the DA charged him with a felony after he ignored his atty and talked with no deal on the table? Not knowing the facts and reaching a conclusion anyway is, respectfully, not exactly fair. Again, the assumption seems to be that A) he is guilty and B) the nicey nice DA wants to help poor Marshawn out if only his meany atty would get out of the way. What if the DA were out to nail Lynch, for the notoriety of it, and far beyond what the facts would warrant? Would you still begrudge Lynch the right to stick up for himself?

Just to go with the new avatar, thought I could just change back in a few days, didn't know you could only do that once every 6 months or so. Whatsamatter, you prefer the avatar of my dog over Gemma Ward?

I have no idea if his atty is an idiot or not. You have to wonder about a guy not even in Maritindale. Apart from the skills or lack thereof of his atty, I do however think that there is very little proof that the DA was willing to mop this up quick with a plea to a violation with a hefty fine/comm. service. Lynch had his atty meet with the DA as soon as the guy was able to get to town. The DA hinted all the while that it was no big deal, a plea and a fine, etc. Then, when the atty met with them and asked for the plea before Lynch talked, they told him "No way." The choice then was to trade the only bargaining chip Lynch has, information as to what happened, with no deal in place on the table. That is not how it is done. The DA tells you, if this is what happened blah, blah, blah, we will plead it to such and such. The guy then tells his story but if he lies or the story doesn't check out, the deal is off and they can go for whatever charges the proof merits. The whole point of a plea is to get a lesser charge in exchange for admitting guilt and forfeiting your right to a trial. The DA, to my knowledge, never committed to that. In fact, the published report is that he refused to do so without first getting all the information from Lynch. There is no way on earth Lynch would not, if he was in fact the driver, jump at a plea to a violation with a fine + comm. service. The reason the deal hasn't happened is because it hasn't been offered.

Really, you don't think the victim would have hired a PI atty to start a suit if Lynch had fessed up? Let me guess, you clapped your hands raw during the "do you believe in fairies" part of Peter Pan, right? What would an "unmotivated" DA do as opposed to a "motivated" one in this case? Would he have let Lynch off? Not investigated the case? If so , why did the DA hint all weekend that he would cut a nice deal with Lynch's atty when they meet on monday and then when the atty asked for the deal, turned him down flat?

His atty met with them on the monday right after the accident and the DA would not committ to a plea on a violation despite hinting in public that if Lynch cooperated, thats all it would amount to. Lynch didn't make this a competition. Instead, he sent his lawyer to cut the deal the DA and the police had been hinting at all weekend that they were willing to cut him. When it came time to put up or shut up, they balked. Please explain what you mean by "lawyering up before he had to"??? What proof do you have that if he hadn't called his lawyer and had him come to town to meet with the police that monday, the DA would have cut him the deal they in fact refused to cut him? Since you are willing to bet this young man's future on your certainty that if he only threw himself on the mercy of the DA that all would have been well, you must have some proof besides your own "intution". I don't mind discussing this with your but you keep basing your opinion entirely on the assumption that if he had not done what he did, ie, send his laywer to cut a deal that monday, all would have been well. I just want to know what that assumption is based on, if anything.

Because if he just fesses up, the police will be nicey nice to him right? They have his best interests at heart, more so than his attorney? The victim's motivation is irrelevant as to the criminal case. His greatest risk is jail time, not a 2 game suspension. I am sure that if he was the driver, if the DA would commit to a deal where there was no misd., just a violation and a fine, Lynch and his atty would jump at it. The DA has refused to do that. Now why would he do that??? Maybe because he wants to hit Lynch with far more than just a violation, maybe the DA wants to turn an accident into a crime. Just about everyone after Lynch to talk is doing so on the assumption that the DA would let him off lightly, an assumption not backed up by the facts which are that when Lynch's atty asked the to commit to a violation, the DA said No way.