Mickey

What we needed to happen in week 13 according to the article happened so we are on track. One better actually since he had the Ravens beating the Bengals. That actually opens up another avenue to the playoffs for us that he hadn't considered. All we have to do is win and hope for the best.

You have to do a double when someone says "Hi Bob". The record for the most "Bob's" was the episode where Jerry and Howard got in an argument about who is Bob's best friend. "Bob and I go to games" "Yeah but Bob and I go to dinner every friday" "Oh, yeah, I was Bob's best man" etc. Use a tape of that episode and there won't be anybody still conscious by the end of the show.

He sure was something. When he is on, McNabb is a terror. Of course, the media overrates him because they want a black QB to succeed so much. Basically, he is average. Seriously, I have seasons for SU and so I was lucky enough to see him play for 4 years here. The guy is simply amazing.

Yeah, because the defense had real problems today. The struggle we had today wasn't because Drew wasn't playing out of his mind. We wouldn't have needed Pat's pick if that 3rd down pass wasn't dropped, you know, the one where Drew twisted out of a sure sack, rolled out and found a guy wide open, and then hit him in the hands? On top of that, MW was out most of the game and we had a zillion penalties. Complain about a win if you must but leave Drew out of you criticisms this time. The man did his job and then some today.

It is even worse than that Tom, these guys are actually part of a movement generally known as the "Christian Identity" movement. I just did a search on "hate crimes" and I hit on a watchdog site that had a US map showing the locations of different types of hate groups with links to sites. Freaks.

The popular line is that they didn't get the support they were promised, however, it is by no means assured that they would have been successful had they received that support. They were counting on a mass uprising supporiting them soon after their landing. That never happened and was likely a fantasy from the beginning. We'll never know. JFK concluded that he made mistakes. The mistake he believed he made was to approve the undertaking to begin with, not in withholding any support once it was a go.

This is to supplement the earlier thread on what could be seen from close examination of the tape of the Seahawks game. Mostly I concentrated on good plays by the offense. Here is one that didn't turn out so well. Drew's third pick, the one the safety nabbed at the the middle of the field was a tough one to figure out. What follows is simply my opinion and on this one, unless you are in the film room hearing what the coaches have to say, there is more than one defensible opinion here. My end conclusion is that the pick was a combination of things that all added up to trouble. It was third down and 6 from the Seattle 42. We had 4 receivers in the pattern. Moulds was alone on the left and we had three guys on the right. The nearest guy on the left ran a pattern across the field basically crisscrossing with Moulds who was going the opposite was on a very shallow pattern, pretty much along the line of scrimmage. The middle guy ended up being the intended receiver. He ran a short post, he went straight about 12 yards down and then angled to the middle. The wideout on that side did a square in or button hook in, hard to tell exactly. Essentailly we had three guys on the right running patterns that turned to the left and then Moulds going the opposite way underneath, waaaay underneath. The Seahawks rushed 6 including a safety and had 5 in coverage. The safety that blitzed was on our right side initially. Right before the snap he move forward and angled to our left a bit before heading straight in. The remaining safety was on our left, near the hashmark on that side. The safety blitzing in jumped in the air and had his arms up and was right in line with the safety that was deep and may have kept Drew from seeing him. Seeing that one safety come might have lured Drew into thinking the middle of the field is open which is pretty much the weakness teams try to expose when there is a safety blitz. We have been caught in this situation with out own defense. We blitz a safety and the one left goes to help a CB with an outside receiver while a Fletcher tries to cover a TE on a streak. I think the Dolphins scored against us with that play if I recall. The thing is, the remaining safety didn't go help with an outside receiver since the one on his side was Moulds who was crossing going left to right. To the extent that safety, having the deep coverage on Moulds, stayed with him, he also moved to our right. That took him right to the right hash mark area where the slot guy was running his short post. In other words, the design of the play moved that safety into position to make a play on a receiver he wasn't even covering. Moulds wasn't open and was too short to get the first down if Drew threw to him. The far wideout on the left was running a pattern that put him so close to the slot guy that the slot defender could have made a play on a pass thrown that way. The guy who had the best shot was, I think it was Smith, the guy running the 5 yard criss cross going right to left. He was covered pretty well but it was just him and one defender. Drew was looking right all the way but then again, 3 of his 4 receivers were on that side. That further helped to convince the safety to move to that side of the field. Maybe Smith was his 4th read and he never got there because his 3rd read was open or at least looked open because Drew couldn't see the safety and more importantly, didn't know the safety had moved with Moulds and Drew's eyes to that side of the field. In short, it was an excellent read by the safety and a little lucky the way the leaping rusher sort of blocked out Drew's view. Of more concern was Drew not giving a look to Smith, 4th read or not. Also the design of the play that pretty much helped draw the defender to the side of the play where all the receivers were didn't help. I'd blame Drew on this one for about 40% of it with 20% to the recievers for not really getting open and the rest to the play call and very good defense by the 'hawks.

I don't know, we seemed to keep our heads after Oklahoma City and the Branch Davidian nut cases. Now imagine if that bombing or that shooting had been done by gay environmentalists. Homosexuality would be punishable by death by now if that had happened. Just when you think we might be able to get along and avoid a virtual civil war, some idiot comes up with some moronic and divisive drivel like this. Of course, if we respond in kind then we will be treated with all sorts of posts about how hateful and vitriolic the left is. In an effort to keep people like you from destroying what little civil debate that manages to survive here, let me help you with some links that to sites where your viewpoints might find a more receptive audience: Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka, Kansas Stormfront Bob Jones University Kinsman Redeemer Ministries Christian Separatist Church Society Council of Conservative Citizens You'll really like these guys whose site includes brilliant observations like: "Both the Negroes and their liberal White and Jewish admirers, for having labored tirelessly to boost this race [blacks] into a position of political power all out of proportion with its numbers and contributions to society, have long recognized one simple if media-overlooked fact: Black-on-White rape, as a political act, has always been part of the world view of radicals and Communists." Since you are assuming the absolute worst about those on the other side of the political spectrum and apparently believing the worst things said about them by the most partisan of critics, allow me the pleasure of treating you the same way. How does it feel bigot boy?

I don't think we were preempting anything. We were, depending on your point of view, A) assissting Cubans to win back the freedom of their own country completely independent of any threat, present or future against us; or B) invading Cuba under the pretext stated in A because of our imperialist aspirations in our hemisphere. Again, the emphasis on whether one or another incident was technically "preemptive" is misleading. The brawl at the Pacers-Pistons game was "violent". The bombing at the Atlanta Olympics was also "violent". Does that really mean the two events are at all similar? The idea that Kennedy did something that was technically preemptive therefore criticism of Bush's preemptive policies in totally different circumstances 44 years later is unjustified is plain silly. Besides, no one seriously objects to the idea of hitting another nation or people or group before they hit you when it is clear that they present a reasonably imminent, realistic and proportionally dangerous threat. That is where the controversey is on Iraq, Iran and Korea. Those question are far more complex and the answers much less certain than some sort of litmus test that all preemptive actions are right or wrong. The left, in my opinion needs to stop focusing on the idea that preemption is wrong and more on whether or not preemption is justified in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or whoever we are rattling sabres at lately. One thing is clear, the standard for preemption has got to be pretty strict. The idea that one action or another might be, in a technical sense, preemptive is of not really a very revealing coparison.

Its like prohibition, right or wrong doesn't matter, it isn't enforceable, that is a reality that has to be dealt with. Besides, I don't think collusion is right but for some reason, all movie prices are the same whether it is a much anticipated blockbuster everyone wants to see or piece of doggy doo that no one wants to see. Same with music CD's, all the prices are basically the same. Maybe you save a dollar here or there if you buy on-line or at Wal-mart but basically, the prices are the same. Even if there were no meetings, it is defacto collusion. I'll get upset at all the terrible felonies being perpetrated by the pimply kid next door on his power mac some other day. Speeding is wrong but if you lower the speed limit on the thruway to 25, don't come crying to me about what a bunch of crooked drivers there are who flout the law. As for food being taken off the table of union workers on films, please. Studies have shown that sales have not been cut by this kind of file sharing. My sense is that if her kid had couldn't download slapshot, he just wouldn't see it. The idea that if he couldn't he would run out and buy it is speculation not backed by a number of studies. The kids are choosing between downloading for free and not buying at all as opposed to downloading for free or buying it at Walmart. The interest of copyright holders is certainly valid but you can only charge what the market will bear, that is economics 101 kind of stuff. Technology has altered the market so that the gravy train of hack "musicians" and record industry tycoons making a gazillion bucks on lame music may be seeing the beginning of the end. It won't end music, it will just lead to a more tenable economic model. Charching more than the market will bear leads to depressed sales or a thriving black market. It is an old story. Either they drastically lower prices to undercut the black market, figure out ways to make the same cash outside of CD sales or deal with the rock stars making 1.5 million a year instead of 35 million a year. For example, here is my stab at a new economic model: A band releases a new CD for free on the internet. The music turns out to be popular so their web site is inundated. At the site, they sell advertising at a very pretty penny because they draw so many hits of people downloading their free music. The free download means that just about every 15-20 year old in the country has their CD. Accordingly, their live appearnces are sold out everywhere at a premium price, especially because their web site hints at a great new song not released yet which can only be heard at live concerts. To get the free music, the kids have to register by providing all their vital stats and so on so that the band can direct market to them. Time for these people to get out of the buggy whip business.

If you intepret "preemptive" that broadly, you could probably call building a nuclear submarine "preemptive". In fact, you could call the deployment of those missiles to Cuba by the Soviets as "preemptive" as it was "just in case" the US invaded Cuba. Further, just referring to a "blockade" in general is a little misleading. Typically, I think people think of a blockade as sort of a net and if the other side trys to get through, you fire on them. In that sense, it wasn't a traditional blockade. What they planned on doing was to board all ships approaching Cuba to be searched to see what was there. Obviously, if nukes were on them, they weren't going to be let through but otherwise, they were. It was therefore, not a complete blockade. Further, as the ships approached, the blockade, such as it was, was withdrawn closer to Cuba to allow for more time before a confrontation. That was really what was the beauty of the blockade. It wasn't a confrontation. It left it for the Soviets to force a confrontation or honor the blockade by going back home or allowing themselves to be searched. Was that preemptive? Maybe what we are really discussing is pure semantics. Lets say it was "preemptive". Does that mean is was at all similar to the invasion of Iraq? I don't think so. One action was not a confrontation in itslef while the other was confrontation itself. You can't get more confrontational that an invasion now can you? I guess what I am getting around to is that whether or not the blockade was or was not technically "preemptive" doesn't really tell us very much. Preemption in the sense it is being used today presents the question of whether or not the US is justified in making war on a country not because of what it has done to us but what it may, in the future, do to us. The missiles were not a future thing, a maybe. They were being built. It was a present reality, not a maybe. Saddam maybe getting WMD's is not really the same as Cuba actually having them with the launch systems within days or weeks of completion.

I have no problem with kids whose parents have consented having condoms available provided that they have gone through a health class with a decent sex ed component, a major part of which discusses and pushes abstinence. Again, parental consent is the issue. If there are parents who don't want their kids involved in sex ed, contraceptive availablitiy, etc, fine. For those who do, why not? Choice. I don't think this is an issue you can solve no matter what bright ideas you come up with. What you can do is limit the damage as much as possible and that entails hitting the problem from many angles from abstinence to condoms. The plain fact is however that condoms are available in only a tiny fraction of schools so talking about condoms in schools is only slightly more than a purely academic question. Besides, it isn't like condoms are not available outside of schools. As for abstinence, I don't think we need a $100 million program that achieves very little. Teachers are perfectly capable of integrating that preferrable choice into the curriculum all on their own. This program is more an opportunity for patronage than anything else. Patronage is a small price to pay for programs that work, for those that don't, it is a colossal waste.

Like smart has much to do with it. Cookie Gilchrist was a bona fide lunatic. He made Saban look sane. Seriously, Willis didn't make a mistake or do anything dumb on that play. He just saw an opening in the middle at the same time he saw the LB read the play and head for the gap. That same LB wasn't going to be able to fill a hole between the center and the guard. He was simply reading the LB. Unfortunately, even with out the LB on that side, the middle was plugged but good, in part because Teague was taking his guy(s) inside. Willis made a heck of a recovery when he came to a dead stop and slid back to the guard-tackle hole. That LB was still there but Shelton took care of him. It was a very nice football play and for me anyway, it was a lot more interesting "upon further review" than it was at first glance. I don't know why people insist on getting caught up in an argument about this. Willis was just doing what good backs do, try and find a way to score. He did score and a lot of the credit goes to the line without necessarily taking anything away from him. Geez, it was one play.

Banaan did play, he didn't on that particular play unless he was on the other side. I saw him in on another TD run to the left where he was pulling and his man went deep, so deep that he took himself out of the play and so Justin really didn't need to block him. That guy may have had the responsibility to just turn the play inside so maybe that is why he did what he did. I didn't look at that play to see if Tucker was also out there. Maybe they like Bannan's mobility and so use him when they need the guard to pull but keep Tucker in when the guard is just going after the guy in front of him?

The guy was step for step with him, in fact, he was a step beyond him which is why he was able to get to the overthrown ball and Lee wasn't. For that play to have worked, Drew would have had to have underthrown it to the inside. Even then the defender would have been able to make a play on the ball because he was stride for stride with the receiver. That is just the way I saw it but I'll take another look next time I have the time to run the tape.

I am not being critical of him, he recovered nicely. The point was to show what a good job Shelton, Jennings and Tucker did on that play. The line I have been hearing was that Willis made the play on his own by breaking tackles and heading outside. What he did was see a hole open up quickly to his right that closed before he got there. He stopped before he was close enough to the line for the defense to get a handle on him and go back to the hole. That was a very nice recovery but it didn't get him to paydirt, he still needed a hole somehwere. That is where Jennings, Shelton and Tucker really shone. They not only made a hole, they kept it open long enough for Willis to get on track so that it was still there. That has to be difficult, keeping a hole open for very long on the goal line. Again, I am not taking anything away from Willis, I just want the contribution of the other guys to be appreciated. Lets face it, this line has taken a lot of criticism, most of it deserved. By the same token, you have give them a hand when they get it done.

I watched the play, and watched it, and watched it and watched it. If it was designed to go into the middle, explain to me why Tucker is plowing his guy into the middle right where Willis is initially cutting? Tucker's block and Jennings' (pushing his guy outside) created a perfect hole and that is where Shelton goes to pick up the LB who stepped up to fill the gap. There are counter plays and misdirection plays, they are pretty easy to spot, that one wasn't a misdirection play, it was meat on meat. Why is it so hard for you to give some credit to Shelton, Jennings and Tucker? Willis had no problem singling out Shelton's blocking for praise. Check the tape and you will see that Shelton hit on only a couple blocks that sprung Willis in that whole game, one was that TD.

I think one can support their right to govern their own church on the one hand and disagree with their decisions on the other. Freedom of Religion does not come with immunity from criticism.

It was improvising that got him into trouble on that play by taking it inside rather than into the hole on the left where it was designed to go. What he did do is see that he made a mistake in just enough time to stop before he got to the pile and got tied up. From there he simply went where it was designed to go and the hole was still there because of some great blocking. Again, this is not to be critical of Willis at all, I just want to see the OL and Shelton get the props they deserve for their efforts on that play.

Finally had a chance to take a close look at the tape of the first TD drive against the Seahawks. Here are some of the things that stood out: MW was a monster. He hit on all of his blocks that drive but one. Took his man down or moved him around almost every time. On the screen to Willis, Tucker missed his block so Teague had to take the guy out. That left Willis to beat two guys on his own. It was a nice gain anyway but we had the right play at the right time and would have scored if Tucker got his man down. Teague would have been able to lead Willis and take out one of the two left and Willis would have done the rest. Yeah, it was a good play but it should have been 6. On the TD run, Willis hit the wrong hole. The play was designed to go between Jennings and Tucker on the left side. Shelton hit that hole hard and took out a LB but Willis took it inside to the backside of the play. He must have saw an opening. It closed quick and he saw the guys coming early enough to pull up and stop before he hit the pile and people could get a hand on him. Then he just went to where the play was originally designed and fortunately, because Jennings, Shelton and Tucker killed their blocks stuck with them, the hole was still there. Willis gets all the credit for that run because at first glance it looked like the line failed to make a hole and he just did it on his own. WRONG. Tucker especially nailed it, he just plowed people out of there and Shelton vaporized that LB. You can tell that the hole was originally on the left because that is where the FB went. Right off the snap you see this huge gap between Jennings and Tucker and a LB rushing to try and fill the hole. I don't think Willis thought anyone was going to get that LB so he took it inside but Shelton nailed him as went into the hole and knocked him back. Look at the tape, you will see Shelton still standing in the endzone when Willis goes in. How often does a blocking FB charging into the line on a goal line play to throw a lead block stay on his feet? Not often, only when he knocked the LB back. That was great blocking and frankly, suspect running so give it up for the line. Don't get me wrong, Willis is great but that time it was the line. I think it was that play in particular that Willis was thinking about when he was praising Shelton. Second Drive: Jason Peters was in as a TE on the left side and blew a seal block on the DE on a sweep to his side causing Willis to lose 5 yards. That set up the 2nd 15 play that led to a pick. On the pick, the defense blitzed the LB that was covering the TE in the slot on the left so he was uncovered. Campbell looked to be running a seam route just outside the left hash. For some reason, he slowed down almost to a walk just as Drew cranked it right where he would have been if he kept running. I think Campbell saw the safety and decided to slow up to stay in that open patch of field vacated by the LB. The deeper he ran, the closer to the safety he was going to be so he pulled up. Problem was that Drew was under a blitz and had no way of knowing what Campbell was doing so he threw it exactly where it was supposed to be. Whenever you see a pass that off, you know somebody screwed up. No QB at this level is that inaccurate. I ran this in slow mo over and over. Drew had his arm in midthrow when Campbell was pulling up. Tough to blame either. If Campbell keeps going he has a chance at it and I think there would have been no pick, incomplete at worst. However, if Drew somehow managed to see what Campbell was trying to do, it was a sure completion and a nice gain. Rest of half: A nice reverse with Bledsoe throwing a key block is nullified by a penalty against Jason Peters for not reporting as eligible. He is not having a very good half. We try it again on the other side with MW leading the way. There is only one guy out there to stop the play but MW engulfs him so Evans goes for 15 and a first down. The drive ends when Drew throws a deep one to Evans who had single coverage. It was single coverage all right but the guy was all over him. The pass was a little overthrown and with coverage that good, it ended up a nice pick. Drew went to the right receiver and you would like to think Evans would beat the guy one on one. Oh well. Last drive of the half: Willis goes for 18 yards on a sweep to the left. MW again hit a great block taking out a LB. Teague was pulling and was the lead blocker but he caught a guy knifing in from the middle out of the corner of his eye. Teague somehow stops his sprint outside and lunges inside to take the guy out before he got to Willis. Campbell also makes his block on the DE and Willis did the rest. Again, the line did a great job. From that point it was the Bledsoe-Evans flying circus right into the endzone. Nice half of football. Seattle was lucky it wasn't worse than 17-3.

The Republican Governor of Alabama made a noble effort to remove antiquated language from the State Constitution which mandated separate schools for "white and colored children" and imposed poll taxes that kept blacks and poor whites from voting. Unfortunately, the ballot initiatives failed by a whisker. It was so close in fact that a recount was automatically triggered by law. I congratulate him on his efforts. Unfortunately, he could not overcome the opposition by the Alabama Christian Coalition and the defrocked former Justice Roy Moore (Mr. Ten Commandments). I posted on these initiatives before the election but I never got around to posting the results. Without rehashing the whole debate, the proponents simply wanted to get rid of this offensive language but the opponents argued that it would, horror of horrors, give citizens a right to public education and ultimately lead to judicially ordered school budget increases. Proponents pointed out that such a thing was already illegal under Alabama law as there was a case directly on point ruling that under no circumstances would a judge have that authority. This is not, I would think, a right-left thing as the man who fought for the initiatives was a Republican. The end result is that segregation is still, technically, the law in Alabama. What a wonderful thing for students reading the constitution of the State of Alabama to run across. *sigh*

The incredibly small amount of schools that make condoms available overwhelmingly (over 90%) require some sort of parental consent. That is how the queston should be framed in political discussions: "Should schools make condoms available to teens whose parents have consented to them getting condoms?" Instead, the question is phrased in a ludicrously misleading way: "Should teachers hand out rubbers to kids in school?" Stated honestly, the issue has little or no political traction but stated in just the right way, it has unlimited mileage. My favorite is when they expand it to "They won't let God in school but they have no problem handing out rubbers to children." Among the right, that one is a guaranteed crowd pleaser, standing ovation material. The fact that it is an illusion woven of overstatement and lies dosn't matter much. That it divides the country into the moral majority on one hand and liberal elites on the other is just a bonus.

NE was choosing between Bledsoe and a QB that had just led them to a championship. Pretty easy choice. We aren't choosing between Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady on the heels of a championship. We are choosing between Drew Bledsoe and JP Losman. As far as I know, JP hasn't recently led an NFL team to a championship so I don't think the choice is at all comparable.

Good for you, I have a 5 and 3 year old daughter so this topic is of prime importance to me. I started out looking for information on the number of school programs making condoms available to students as this seems to be a frequent complaint. My hunch was that there were very, very few such programs and that the outcry over them was overblown. Along the way I ran across the info on abstinence programs which led to teen pregnancy rates by states. That info included an article in a Nashville paper which showed how perplexed they were that the south in general had a worse teen pregnancy problem than the north. I checked the raw data to see if that particular article was right about the numbers in the south, it was.

Sorry eryn, I thought your first post was serious as it was mocking of the length of the post and the one smilie face was in reference to a crack about blzrul.