eSJayDee

Isn't it just BROADCAST tv that is required to be in HD? In other words, channels that are exclusively available on cable &/or satellite are exempt and still be broadcast in analog.

And I thought "Senority" was how Spanish the guy was.

AFAIK, they still use the original network feeds. If CBS doesn't broadcast in HD, the only way they can telecast in HD is to do some funny business (think much of TNT-HD). Either they only show part of the pic to get the 4:3 to fit into 16:9, or they stretch it, or some combination thereof. Further, I doubt that the original digital transmission, if it even exists is in hi-res, so think worse that Directv-HD due to the conversion. So no, I would assume that if CBS isn't HD, then Superfan won't be either.

Gotta be edited. Can't tell from the YouTube, but those look like long kicks, perhaps 50 yds. There's NO way that someone, even someone EXCEPTIONALLY accurate can hit an upright from that distance more than maybe 10% of the time. Think about it - you've gotta be accurate to w/in about 2'. To do it 4x in a row? You'd likely need over 1000 takes.

re: pass blocking from our backs: I seem to recall a couple or more years ago, we had a part time RB who absolutely MAULED oncoming rushers. I can't say for certain that he actually picked up the right guy, but often the guy that he engaged, the guy literally ended on his butt. I'd be inclined to think that the RB in question was McGahee in his rookie yr. Can someone correct me &/or confirm my recollection?

This just in, football players, especially those that play in the trenches are STRONG. I'm not familiar w/ the play in question, but it's entirely possible that the player in question just beat Royal, or perhaps Royal wasn't ready to block him. If you 'only' weigh 250 lbs & a guy that can bench about 500 hits you either by surprise or when you're off balance, he WILL be able to push you, if not entirely knock your butt on the ground. If this happened consisitently to him by the guy he was assigned to block, I'd be inclined to say he doesn't belong in the NFL playing TE, and definitely shouldn't qualify as a good blocker, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from 1 play.

Hey, you've seen my car! Seriously, it's very 'pretty', but certainly doesn't provide the comfort, convenience and reliability of a modern car, nor is it devoid of annoyances. Of course the 8 mpg goes along w/ the bad emissions. And to Jim, at least for the time being, I'm not leaking anything! (But it is a constant battle.)

I think a significant portion of what is visible is NOT 56 years old. AFAIK, breasts do not substantially enlarge once you hit menopause. Also, that face looks like it's morphed quite a bit from what she looked like 10 or 20 yrs ago & I don't think that's attributable to aging either. Hey, I've got a '68 Charger, & there's a lot of parts on it that aren't 40 yrs old. Like the car, calling her (& of more importance) and her appearance as that of a 56 yr old woman is a great misnomer.

A show of force? I wouldn't think overtaking an oilrig w/ 26 workers on it requires much 'force'. I would think that 2 or 3 guys w/ handguns would be sufficient. I'm sure we have armed robberies over here that are more forceful. Bombing Pearl Harbor (damn those Germans ) was a show of force. Overtaking a commercial oilrig is more a sign of lawlessness.

I think the problem w/ your theory, is that you're not looking at enough data and a fair amount of what you're looking at is flawed &/or irrelevant. If you drafted an OL in the 1st round in 2001 & he's no longer w/ your team (i.e. lost in FA, hurt, just sucked royal moose pud), what relevance does that have to your 2005 performance? Likewise, I'd be inclined to think that the fact that a 2005 draft choice is still riding the pine won't have much bearing on performance (One could even theorize that it's detrimental, cuz that pick could've been used elsewhere & contribute more.) Also, cuz you're dealing w/ such minimal data (0-3) AND your that your 2 round cut-off is somewhat arbitrary AND a late 2nd round choice is virtually the same as a high 3rd round it just seems to me that there's too many varaibles to feel too confident in your conclusions. (Then again, I guess your conclusion is that drafting OL high is uncorrelated to performance.) But I think what I'm trying to say, is that all of the above is the cause. I do, however, commend you on your efforts to come up w/ a theory and try to quantitatively substantiate it. Now, can you tell me what the price of Gold is gonna do next week?

All-time - Chandler, w/ Fergy probably 2nd. Right now, I think I'd go w/ Moorman.

Rob, you ignorant slut.

If that truly is the case, the guys better than Jerry Rice ever was. A 50:50 ratio would mean that EVERY time you throw to him, it's a completion. (It would be more appropriately be shown as 1:1.) I think what you meant was 2:1, i.e. 50%, which is probably not too bad considering that a decent QB will only complete like 60% which also comprises a certain percentage of throw aways and likely is also padded by high %age passes such as dump-offs.

Actually Seymour was the other way around. He played T in college, & from day 1 was a TE for the Bills. (Which w/ the game play at the time, our TEs of recent years would be considered prolific rcvrs, so he was essentially a 3rd T.)

It's not that it hasn't been addressed, it's that it hasn't been SUCCESSFULLY addressed. We've had decent turnover, mostly in an attempt to improve it. (I'd be inclined that letting Jennings go was 'ignoring' the line, but I realize that it was a value decision AND that he is injury prone.) However, when you consider that our best linemen was an unsigned FA (at a position other than line at that) and that some are comparing him favorably to a 4th pick in the draft (who was a consensus pick that high), it only goes to show how futile & poor of a job we've done in trying to improve the line. (An aside, IMO MW was at one time playing very solidly but for whatever reason, most likely motivation, was unable to improve or even maintain that level.) I'm hopeful that we have indeed improved the line play. If we haven't, I think we are again destined to have one of worst offenses in the league.

14 minutes and 55 seconds. 14 minutes and 56 seconds ... We can only hope.

Now I know why I'm not married. I was born 30 yrs too late. That is just tooooo funny. I have my doubts that it's for real.

I haven't been to any practices, so I'm only basing my opinion on what I've read & more importantly, what I saw in the 1st PS game, but I think KH NEEDS to play. Not to determine whether or not he should be our starter, but whether or not it's worth keeping him at all as opposed to Klingsbury(sp?). Likewise, we don't know what we have in Nall, so really ALL QB positions are up for grabs (2nd, 3rd, 'on the street', & to a lessor extent 1st string). The question is whether we can keep 4 on the roster til after the 4th game when our non-starters will have more opportunity to play. (Traditionally, the 3rd PS game, starters play the most.)

Trivia answer It's a football game (football stratomatic?) that uses offensive card overlapped w/ defensive cards resulting in a probability matrix that is 'randomly' determined by flicking a beed w/ a pointing in its seam between 2 springs. A & B Divide is when the 2 RBs (A & B), go out in short 'Go' routes 'dividing' the pocket. Wwow, haven't played that in about 30 years. Fun game though, but IIRC, the odds made for some unrealistic results. (I used to keep stats. Yes, I'm a geek.) p.s. Until proven otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, our best player is still kept off the field on 3rd downs. Moorman only plays on 4th.

Like you, I'm of the opinions that having (& using ) brain power is always a good thing. However, I think it was last year, a discussion came out that some teams have target Wonderlics for various positions. In other words, there's some positions where they ideally want someone that doesn't go ABOVE their target.

I thought I read somewhere that Marv likes to know what's going on during practice so he can follow along better seeing specifically who is doing what & how well they're doing their assignments. His clipboard is probably a list of plays, etc. If QBs (whose job it is to know this stuff) can have cheat sheets on wrist bands, why can't a GM (who has many other responsibilities) use a clipboard?

Like I imagine most typical fans, I find the number and frequency of commercials during games to be quite annoying. The fact that many years ago, a game often finished in less than 3 hours. Now, after numerous rule and policy changes, they're to the point where a game finishing in under 3 hours is a rarity. In fact, it seems like prime time games are seldom finished in less than 3 1/2 hours. It'll be interesting to see what happens on the NFL network, now that they will have production control over their own games. Will they cater to the fan & have more reasonable commercial breaks, or will they be as bad as the other networks?

I've got to disagree w/ so much of what you said. Sorry. If those guys aren't good enough to make our roster, (bear in mind, our offense has been near the bottom of the league for a couple years), I've gotta think there aren't too many teams that they would be major contributors on. As for being trade bait, if someone like Moulds is worth little more than a box of tape, what do you think a team would give up for someone who if he isn't on the street in a couple weeks, is basically equivalent to dozens of others? You don't make a trade for a 4th or 5th WR. As for them being snatched up quickly that is perhaps somewhat true. Wilson & Nance seem to have promise and are eligible for PS, so they would likely be picked up (& likely put on PS). Aiken is a proven ST contributor, so some team that is a bit weak/thin at WR & wants a ST producer will likely pick him up (maybe w/ ties to Greggggg in Wash or Mularkey in Mia?). If Davis doesn't make it here, that'll be 3 relative failures for him; I don't see anyone overly anxious to grab him. I would assume Fast Freddie is not eligible for PS & other than as a returner, hasn't shown much, so he, too, could likely find himself flipping burgers.

I don't think it's an issue of cameras 'at RWS'. It's whatever cameras & equipment the broadcasting network chooses to set up each week. Last year, CBS only broadcast like 2 games in HD /week (typically their marque games). Few of them were the Bills & I don't recall if they were home or away. Fox broadcast all games in HD & did telecast our games that we hosted vs NFC teams in HD. Hopefully, CBS gets w/ the program this year but I haven't heard anything one way or the other.

1st time I read that, I thought the 'them' was referring to the kids!