Mickey

Really? For me, I would think that the 6 straight completions to finish the half in the last two minutes with a TD taking the score to 17-3 was kind of critical. Of course, that is just me. On our first scoring drive he hit Henry for 5 on third and 3 and then hit Willis for 16 on 3rd and 8. On our next TD drive he hit Evans for 10 on 3rd and 8 and hit him in the corner on the fade for a TD on 3rd and 3. On the next TD drive, he hit Aiken for 11 on 3rd and 9 and on the last TD drive he hit Moulds for 24 on 3rd and 5 and nicely executed the fake sneak for the pitch/pass to Willis that him in stride for a long TD "run". Take away the picks and he had a great game, with them, he had a good game.

They could concevably win a tie breaker against the Jets or Broncos. We need the Jets to lose three to tie them anyway. They are 6-3 in the conference and we are 2-6. However, their two toughest games are Pitt and NE, both AFC games. If they lose those two and for us to have any shot at being tied with them they would, they would be at 6-5 in the AFC. We would need them to lost to Houston this coming Sunday to knock them back to 6-6 where we would likely finish if we win out. We would be tied in record, head to head, division record and conf. record. Actually, the record in common games is before conference record in the tie breaker rules for division teams that are tied which is what you use if the wild card teams that are tied are in the same division. Common games include the division games which would be tied at 3-3 each. You have to go to the other common games: Cinn, SF, Balt, Clev., Az, Pitt, Seattle and St. Louis. The Jets are 4-1 against those teams with 3 to go against Pitt, Seattle and St. Louis. We are 3-1 with 4 to go against Cleve, SF, Cinn and Pitt. Our schedule in that sense is a little easier than theirs. If we are tied there, then you go to the conference schedule as outlined above which could be tied as well if they lose to Houston. The next tie breaker is strength of victory which is the winning percentage of the teams you have beat. For now, Buffalo has the edge there .463 to .341 A Jets loss to the Steelers and a win for us in the last game against them would likely clinch us this particular tie breaker. It is a long way to go but we could actually win a tie breaker against the Jets. As for Denver, it is even harder. They have all conference games left and are 4-3 now compared to our 2-6. We have to win out to have any shot at all and if we do, we would be 6-6 in the conference. With the Steelers and Colts among their AFC games left, the Broncos could easily lose at least two more AFC games. One slip against anyone else and we are tied in the conference. For that to happen though, Denver would lose three games of the last five leaving them at 9-7 and if we win out, we would be 10-6 and not tied with them anyway. Bottom line, we need Houston to upend the Jets, Denver to lose to SD, Cinn to beat Baltimore and J'ville to lose to the Steelers. Of course, we must win at Miami. A loss there and it is all over. If you are watching the scores come in next week, that is what you need to root for.

I posted last week some numbers suggesting that it was less than impossible for Buffalo to make the playoffs. It is still a long, long shot but just about everything we needed to happen this past weekend to improve our chances actually happened with the exception of the Jets getting upset in Arizona. Remember that all division winners get in and two wild cards. Lets start with the presumption that NE, Pitt and Indy are going to win their divisions. The last division in the AFC is up for grabs between SD and Denver. Both were are 7-3 going into the weekend. For us it doesn't matter who wins the division, just that the second place team start to lose some games in a hurry. SD so we needed Denver to lose and thanks to that blocked kick last night in the snow, Oakland beat them. For now anyway, the Wild Card candidate from that division is Denver at 7-4. Along with Denver there is Baltimore, now 7-4 due to its loss to NE yesterday. J'Ville which is at 6-5 following their loss to Minnesota. Then there is the Jets at 8-3 after their close win against the Cardinals. Is it possible for us to get in? Well, lets start with J'ville. We are only one game back from them and they have games remaining against Pitt (10-1), Chicago (4-7), GB which is away (6-4), Houston (5-6) and away at Oak. (4-7). Certainly the Pitt and GB games will be tough. Two losses and the best they finish is 9-7. The question is, can we finish 10-6? It isn't likely but the schedule isn' t that bad. They are away at Miami (2-9), Cinn (5-6) and SF (1-10) with home dates against Cleveland (3-8) and Pitt (10-1). The Steelers game is the last of the season and so might not be of much interest for them. Perhaps they will be resting their starters. The Bengals on the road is the toughest of that group until you get to the Steelers. It is certainly not impossible for us to go 10-6. Denver is at 7-4 with games left at SD (8-3), Ten (4-7) and KC (3-8). They are also at home against Indy (8-3). With two 8-3 teams on the schedule, it is not impossible for them to finish with at least two more losses. Any slip up against the others and they are 9-7 at best. As for Baltimore, they are 7-4 with away games at Indy and Pitt to go as well as games against the Giants and the Bengals, two middle of the road teams that are dangerous. I think the Ravens are looking at two losses minimum over the rest of the season. If anything weird happens, they could slip up against the Giants or Bengals. That would make them 9-7 at best. The Jets at 8-3 have an away game at Pitt and a home games against NE still on the schedule. They easily could lose those and also have to play Houston (5-6), Seattle (6-5) and St. Louis (5-5). Essentially they are playing two of the best in the league and then three against aspiring teams with solid records. Again, it wouldn't take much for them to lose at least one of those games. In short it is a long shot that just got a tiny bit shorter.

At this point, Bledsoe isn't the issue at QB, we know what we get with him, both the good and the bad. The problem is the alternative. JP is a complete and utter question mark. He could be the next Joe Namath, he coudl be the next RJ. Nobody knows. Odds are, even if he is very, very good, he is not going to take this team to a SB in 2005. Just check the numbers on how often a rookie QB has taken his team to a SB. Yeah, it happens once in a blue moon but that isn't exactly something you pin your hopes on. Might as well by a lottery ticket and call it "financial planning". If Drew gets us to the playoffs this year after that awful start or gets us within a game of them, I think it would be difficult for the coaches to just turn over everything to a guy who spent most of his first year in a tracksuit on the bench fetching Gatorade. JP would have to show that he is clearly the better the QB in camp or else he sits behind Drew next year unless Drew struggles mightily early on. Mularkey will put the QB in that gives us the best shot to win that game, that week. I don't expect him to use the regular season as on-the-job training. If we crap out the rest of the way or Drew's salary is prohibitibive than we might not have a choice. However, if we finisah 10-6 or 9-7 after an 0-4 start with a new coaching staff and a sorry offensive line, there is a good chance Drew will get one more year if he wants it.

Most of those yards came late after the thing was pretty much over. When we really needed the running game, he was picking up 2-3 yards. I don't want to take anything away from Willis but we won this one in the air and with solid defense. He had a nice run on the first TD when he was stuffed and took it off tackle. He is the real deal no doubt. Those third down conversions were in the air. Some of those outs he was throwing across the field were amazing. Fortunately, the picks were all in Seattle territory. They weren't much worse than punts. Seriously, with Drew playing at the level he is capable of, Willis hitting his stride, the OL at least playing average and the coaches making the right calls like they did today, this offense can flat out produce. If Drew can play like that next week, we will be at 6-6 when we go after the Browns at home.

I think we did a survey not too long ago and the right-left around here is about 6 or 7 to one. Roughly similar to Air America vs. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingram, Schlesinger, Savage, O'Reilly, Liddy and North to name a few. We are only just catching up in the "idiots with a microphone" arms race. Beyond that, I have been around here long enough and posted enough to get a sense of this and the "look at these crazy liberals" posts far outnumber similar stuff from the other side, especially when it comes to completely twisted, soon debunked stuff. Apart from this one, just the other day someone was posting pics of glass tubes that said "Sarin" on them taken in Iraq, claiming that they proved that there were WMD's when we invaded. A number of "Aha, take that libs" comments were posted before someone with experience with those tubes identified them as part of a detection device where you insert a tube that says "Sarin" and then sample the air, if the tube changes color, there is Sarin gas presence. In other words, what was photographed was our own chem detection equipment. From the day we invaded up to that thread, I would guestimate that we average about 2-3 threads a week of posts claiming to have found WMD's in Iraq. All were shot down within days and the perps of those threads learned nothing. The same culprits post the same stuff and make the same mistakes over and over. There is never an apology, a mea culpa or any acknowldgement that their record on the issue is around 0 and 337 or so. Of course, they do break up their posts with an occasional lecture on how Michael Moore has no credibility. Another example just came to mind. Some lunatic recently set himself on fire outside the Whitehouse. Somebody immediately posted it and claimed that it was a distraught democrat. Of course, that was not the case as soon became evident but not before we were all treated with another round of "look at those crazy libs". With that type of attitude being held by so many, and yes it is not all one sided, it has become next to impossible to have anything close to an intelligent discussion with the vast majority of posters here. Really, how do I have a converstation with someone who seriously thinks I am just a baby killing, terrorist loving sodomite?

You haven't been on this board for long. If you had, you would be able to wall paper Ralph Wilson Stadium with prints of posts like this. "Look at the crazy liberals now..." theme is a favorite here. The vast majority of these all turn out to be some ridiculous overstatement, outright lie or based on the actions of a handful of lunatics. You see, I voted for Kerry and I recently learned that I must therefore, ergo, be a "friend of PETA". Some wack files a lawsuit somewhere and all of a sudden every democrat on the planet is assumed to be a named plantiff in the case. It doesn't seem to work the other way when one of these Lamb of God nuts shoots a Doctor in the head. Then we are supposed to recognize the difference between and extremist psycho on the right and everyone else on the right. No such suttle distinctions are made when they are talking about the left. In any event, thanks for vetting the story but you will have a second full time job if you try to keep up with this stuff.

You mean to tell me that when something sounds too stupid to be true, it usually isn't???? You are rocking my world.

I think what you are saying is that basically, a democratic government in Iraq isn't going to last much longer than the presence of our troops. We leave, they fall thus, we may not be able to ever leave. I have the same worry but you know, we are committed to that outcome for good or ill. Should we have invaded? We did. That question fades in importance. I thought it was important in deciding whether or not we should trust GW's judgment but the election is over so that is no longer an issue. Should we build a democracy in Iraq? It is the only choice we have right now.

Training camp is in August, not November or December.

I don't get it AD. I was responding to the notion that the CIA was "cut to shreds" by showing a 350% increase in CT funding. Your response is that money doesn't matter so apparently, whether he cut anything to shreds is irrelevant. I am not sure what role the President himself plays in determining agency policy and day to day actions but I am guessing, not much. The report I linked contains numerous statements by FBI, NSA and CIA officials that despite the CT budget increases, they didn't have enough resources but those same sources pretty much acknowledged that they never ever thought they had enough resources for any objective. A Gov't Agency complaining that they don't have enough money is pretty much a reflex response to budget issues. The problem is that determining how much is enough is simply not possible, we are not buying widgets. What are these ridiculous rules you are talking about? Somebody apparently didn't think they were so ridiculous. Obviously, you think that they are and that carries plenty of weight with me but I can't discuss them intelligently with you if I don't know what they are. There are usually two sides to every story and I imagine that the higher ranking people who made those rules had reasons they saw as compelling, backing up their decisions. Any way, we are getting a little far afield here in that my main concern was the fiction that Clinton "gutted" the military budget. On the ground decisions, tactics, strategy and the rest are more interesting and probably more relevant to understanding effectiveness but it is a far step from where this discussion started.

I am sure there were problems and I agree that we all got caught looking the wrong way. That is why you won't find posts from me claiming that evey military or intel problem we have is Senator Hossenfeffer's fault or Bush's fault or whatever. I was responding to the "gutted" and "cut to the bone" stuff. Presidents and legislators have a lot more to say over total appropriations than they do on the day to day spending of those resources. The money was not gutted and when it comes to CT, that is the only place that experienced a dramatic increase. I agree with AD that simply throwing money at something doesn't solve anything. Then again, I am not the one claiming that we don't have interpreters because Clinton "gutted" the CIA. It is kind of a push-me-pull-me argument: One guy slams Clinton saying he gutted, ie slashed the budget, of the CIA so we don't have interpreters. I point out that the truth is, CT appropriations went up 350%. Then the response is: so what? money doesn't matter. See, when it slams Clinton, money matters. When the numbers support him, they don't matter. One guy says bean counting doesn't matter and the other says it does and that Clinton screwed us out of a lot of beans. I understand and appreciate the info on the problems getting interpreters. What I don't get is why we are just starting a program to deal with that shortage 3 years after 9/11.

"Cut to the bone"? link? From what I could find, the budgets for CT show otherwise at both the CIA and the FBI.

"Cut to shreds"???? Do you have any support for that claim? Counter Terrorism appropriations under Clinton increased dramatically over the course of his administration. By 1999, he was spending over 3 times what Bush had spent in 1991. The appropriations for CT for the CIA in particular during that period mirrored the overall increase. In fact, a Senate Investigation of 9/11 concluded that prior to the attacks, CT spending had "quintupled" during a time of tight budgets. The FBI experienced a 350% increase in it's CT funds. Personnel in both the FBI and CIA working on CT increased just as dramatically during the Clinton years although they leveled off in his last year in office as the budget got tighter. The numbers actually fell during Dubya's administration and prior to 9/11. An FBI budget official noted that Ashcroft specifically wasn't interested in CT efforts by the FBI, they were not a priority as far as he was concerned. Overall intelligence budgets are meaningless in this context. What matters is what is spent on CT. It won't help you to nab terrorists if you double the intel budget and they spend the increase on a pension plan. Cuts in intelligence budgets were supported after the fall of the USSR by just about everyone, including Republicans. Arlen Specter proposed and had passed a $1 Billion cut in 1996 to recover unspent funds which had accumulated in what amounted to a slush fund. A bi-partisan committee headed by Warren Rudman (R-NH) commented that despite the overall cuts in intelligence in the post Cold War climate, we were still spending, in the 1990's, about 80% more than was spent a decade before at the height of the Cold War even after adjusting for inflation. Tellingly, at the same time there were some cuts in overall intelligence spending, counter-terrorism spending increased dramatically. Obviously, counter-terrorism became a priority in the 1990's and that is reflected in the the increased spending on this issue at a time of fiscal austerity when all other intel spending was dropping. Senate Report 9/11, see also, Fact Check The idea that Clinton "shredded" defense is just as full of s**t as the claim we heard over the last six months that Kerry "gutted" intelligence agencies. Of course, with the Republicans running the show for the last 4 years and 4 more ahead, they have to keep blaming Clinton for every shortcoming of their own. 9/11 is over three years old now and we still don't have enough interpreters? How is it Bill Clinton's fault that the CIA hasn't hired over the last three years the interpreters that they need? Heck, I could learn Farsi from scratch myself in less time than that. By all means though, blame Clinton. *Edit: Here is a link that shows that despite the end of both the Gulf War and the Cold War, defense spending, adjusted for inflation, under Clinton remained virtually the same as under Bush without the large cuts one would have expected given those developments and the record shattering deficits he inherited from Bush I. National Securtiy Spending 1940-2003

If you can find a single post from me ever on this board defending PETA or anyother animal rights organization for that matter, please do so, if not, please have the guts to admit that the "your friends at PETA" reference is bull stevestojan you made up with out the slightest idea as to whether it was truthful, fair or accurate. Are you defending what this group and PETA do, slamming both or applauding the tactic used by one group because you agree with their politics and slamming the other's use of the same tactic because you don't agree with theirs?

Thanks RIBF, that was a great piece of work. I think this is around the 345th thread along the lines of "Aha! WMDs found in Iraq, take that you liberal scum". It is also the 345th time the initial claim was total crap. Richio is our primary source for this never ending error geyser. None of the prior claims were quite so spectacularly, completely and quickly debunked as this one. Congratulations and thanks for the laugh. Problem is, I am sure this very claim is circulating elsewhere and without someone there with your knowledge on the issue, it is being taken as gospel truth.

Are you done? I am not sure what that rant is about, all I did was phrase what I thought was a simple question: Why don't they just not watch what they don't like? What is the goal of pressuring advertisers if not to keep whatever kind of entertainment they object to out of the market for everyone, even those who want to see it? I have no problem at all with these groups coming up with their own "reviews" for those interested to consult. Telling potential audiences that you saw the movie and for whatever reason think it stinks is a far cry from trying to scare the movie right off the screens from the git go. One lets those who want to see it to see it and those don't to not see it. The other takes that choice away from everyone.

If they don't like it, why don't they simply not watch it rather than begin a campaign to remove it as a choice for those of us who want to see it? I assume that since they hate these films and what-not so much that they aren't watching them. What then is the point of also writing to advertisers who fund TV shows or studios who finance films if not to prevent the rest of us from having that choice?

Sorry, but I have heard this stuff from Limbaugh and the rest now for 12 years or so. I see no comparison at all. If Al Franken said it, I think it would get a lot of coverage but some nameless jerk on some radio station no one ever heard of? Savage had a gig on NBC didn't he? Rush in on the radion 24-7 and on tv plenty. I heard worse stuff at the game on Sunday but nobody cares what a nobody says. Limbaugh has a massive audience, hence the big fat bullseye, it is in proportion to his notoriety. Really, the right invented this stuff. Limbaugh predates anyone you can name on the left. I think the first book Franken wrote on politics was Rush is a Big Fat Idiot. It was a reaction to this kind of thing. I actually posted critical comments on what this goof said. I can't recall the last time I heard someone from the right on this board stand up against one of their own and call foul when this kind of stuff surfaces. More often, the posts are to defend or rationalize it. I love politics, I really do. I find the machinations of government, the aspirations, the battle of ideas to be endlessly challenging. I am almost ready to chuck that interest though because I just don't think I can stand arguing anymore with someone who thinks I am a baby killing, terrorist sympathizing, sodomite worshipping, America hating, kool-aid drinking commie. I have had my intelligence, my integrity, my profession, my patriotism and my sanity questioned, mocked and maligned. It is why so many people drift in and out of this board. They love a good discussion but those are almost impossible to have in this format where anonymity encourages the worst instincts. Before the civil war, there were ridiculously overheated debates that took place between political leaders on either side of the big issues. They were known as "fire eaters". Their divisive, bombastic and meansprited rhetoric made compromise increasingly impossible. That is what these people are, "fire eaters". How do I sit down and have a meaningful discussion with an eye towards common ground and possible compromise with someone who just spent their hard earned money on a book that claims that I am guilty of treason and believed every word of it? We could argue over who does it more or who started it but does that really matter? Who cares how the corpse of compromise got so cold? Fact is, it is dead, dead, dead. You are a racist, nazi, fascist, bible thumping, queer bashing, creationist zeolot and I am a baby killing, treasonous, christ hating pagan. Let's just leave it at that shall we?

Apparently you haven't heard the wonderful news, Racism is dead. It hasn't existed except in the minds of white, eastern, effete, liberal, elitist wusses since sometime in 1979. The precise moment of the end of all racism hasn't yet been identified by cultural archaeologists but most experts agree that it occurred sometime after the cancellation of "Good Times" and the debut of "Benson". The controversial "What's Happening" theory has been largely debunked in most credible circles though it too was canceled in 1979.

I can't speak for whoever "these people" are, but I posted a critical comment regarding what he said. So I agree about the hypocrisy thing but don't see why it is being mentioned in response to my post. I assume you are planning to comment on the hypocrisy of those calling for this guy's head who have never been critical of all the right wing creeps I mentioned but just haven't got around to it? One could argue that it is hypocritical to comment on the hypocrisy of one side while ignoring the hypocrisy of those on the other side. This guy is a nobody from nowhere. I have never heard of him. As bad as he apparently is, people with huge audiences like Coulter and Limbaugh are of more concern to me when it comes to beyond the pale rhetoric.

Unlike conservatives who can't get away with anything which is why Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Jones, Schlesinger, O'Reilly, Liddy, North and lord knows how many others are unemployed selling pencils in the park. Whooops. Forgot. They have millions of adoring fans applauding every bit of hatred they have oozed out of their slime-holes for the last 12 years.

I guess he will go on but with a lot less credibility than he had before, assuming he had any to start with. I am no fan of Rice, I think she has been a light weight and will continue to be so as Secrtetary of State however, there are lines and whoever this guy is, he crossed that line.

It all comes down to Seattle. Road games are won with good defense. That is what we need, some big plays on defense. Certainly, we have the special teams talent to do some damage there. We have to be patient on offense and avoid the big mistakes. Seattle has not beaten a team with a winning record and lost to the Rams twice. Their wins came against SF (beat them twice) who is 1-9, the Fins who are also 1-9, Carolina who is 3-7, and the Saints and Bucs who are both 4-6. They lost to Arizona, NE and the Rams twice. These guys can be beat.

I could care less why they were not part of the war effort. That is not the point really. She was critical of the idea of allies. Prefectly sound criticisms of Kerry could have been made that he wasn't going to have any more luck than Bush did in getting any help from anybody anywhere. Also, the one you make that these allies are morally bankrupt. There are plenty of good arguments to make on this issue. She didn't make them though. She just coughs up some bromide about learning in High School that you don't put too much stock in what other people think. Sorry, I wasn't as impressed as those who cheered her letter. Sometimes the nail isn't driven on the first strike, you need to drop the hammer until its done. I have made the point in other threads that there is a change the democrats need to make but it doesn't have anything to do with the so called moral values crap.