eSJayDee

Oops. Never mind.

It depends upon who DEN loses to. For ties between teams outside the same division, after head to head, is Conference records. Right now, we're 3-3, they're 3-2. If we sweep, we'll be up to 5-3. Assuming DEN loses one conference game, it then resorts to common opponents. I'm too lazy to figure that one out.

Yes, I think an argument can be made in that regard. It appears that the package that JP is working w/ is not a 'complete' gameplan and he has had limited exposure to 'real' game situations. IIRC, he only had one true drop back pass which resulted in a broken play & him taking off running for a FD. (All around Kudos for him on the play - smarts & athleticism.) Granted, this exposure certainly does him more good than sitting on the bench and an argument could be made that it's best to expose him to elements of the game a small piece at a time. But he (& perhaps more important for our discussion - we) still don't have experience of running a 'complete' offense where the primary goal is to score, not eat clock.

Yes, LASIK several years ago. I have 'issues', primarily that glowing/halos that you read about. Overall, I'm very happy I had it done, but consider it a gamble. You might be among the majority that have negligible negative repercussions and lose essentially nothing (except the need for glasses), then again, you might be in among the small percentage that have significant problems. I, along w/ a significant percentage, fall somewhere in between, where what you gain relative to what you lose is a trade-off. From my perspective, if you currently wear contacts (I can't as I'm too sensitive/squimish around my eyes) and have no problem doing so I can't imagine it worth the gamble. Likewise, if you already have 'good' i.e. like 20/40 or 20/50 uncorrected vision that corrects to 20/20 I'd reccommend against it. I'm assuming you're asking 'cuz you're contemplating having it yourself. Try & research so that you make an informed decision. (Seems like you're doing this.)

I have version 5of the Reader. If, under the Edit menu, you 'select All', the 'Copy', you can then paste that text into WordPad or something similar.

Canadian men who don't drink? That sounds mighty suspicious. If I were you, I'd check into your liability for possibly harboring terrorists or something. (Just a joke.)

I believe Campbell blocked for FG & XP. Euhus I think was on the KO ret team, maybe others, although I might be mistaken about that.

Huh??? Up until this week Reed has been injured & out. This past week, he managed to catch 2 balls and then back to his old self dropping one that was catchable.

If you view the role of our education system to be to teach the neccesary skill set to get you to function in todays society, looks like she's doing fine. The kid knows how to Google , right? That's about 2/3rds of the battle

Yeah, I thought TDs response was pretty amusing when I 1st read it. Perfect politician-speak. Didn't answer the question at all.

I was absolutely positive we would kick the 'Boys butts in SB XXVII.

1st, I realize that this is unlikely that roster size will be lowered (primarily due to the NFLPA influence). I just think that in many respects, the game was better when it was simpler. I don't see this (your 2 starter scenario) as a problem. Although they might not be ideally suited, but an OT can play G, DE DT, etc. w/ little or no drop in quality. Further, the dropoff of having a fast LB playing S, an agile S playing CB, or a big LB playing DE is minimal. I think the only thing that might happen is that you'll see less ability to vary your formations (i.e. no 5 WR sets, 8 DBs, etc.) which is agruably a good thing.

No. Although I'm not advocating going back to the days of 2 way players, I don't think it's necessary to have even as many players as we currently have. You only have 11 on the field at a time. Even if you seperate Off & Dee, allow for 2 spots reserved for P & K, that means that w/ 46 it allows for a reserve for every starter.

I bet you'd get more hits in this thread, if you put the aforementioned Charlize in the Topic as opposed to Drew.

??? Never heard of Peter Sellers or Geoffrey Rush?

I caught a few minutes while flipping. AFAIK, that was the 1st time it was on, which is unusual in that a movie like that I would think warrants a Saturday night premiere on HBO. I intend to watch it though. I'm a BIG fan of the Pink Panther movies.

I believe you failed to take into consideration the possibilites of Indy &/or SD losing their remaining 4 games. I realize each have low probability. I haven't figured the odds yet (let's wait at least another game), but the way I look at it, there's 6 teams that can be 'eliminated' & we need 3 to do so (& of course, us winning our remaining 4).

I just heard that there win today was their 1st road win against a team w/ a winning record since 1990! Wow, & we thought we sucked on the road.

He's good, but I've gotta think Butler was much better.

Why the @#$^%^ would you have to pay to attend a company Xmas party? Are you talking about taxi &/or sitter that you'd have to pay if you went out anywhere?

Like most polls, a simple Yes/No answer is insufficient. 1st, how many millions are relative to what? Say $20m over a few years and being an elite world class athlete versus the alternative of $20k/yr & absolutely no athletic ability? In that case, I'd vote yes. Under the more likely scenario : As above w/ steriods vs. maybe a $3m and being a '2nd tier' world class athlete? For me, no, but I suspect this is where people who greatly value athletic prowess & success are in a position to swing & vote yes. For me in my position, the extra 2" of vertical jump to improve my volleyball game, or the extra 10 yards off the tee in golf, that steriods might garner certainly isn't worth it. Like most value questions, this debate/question is far more complex than can be adequately analyzed by a simple Yes/No response.

YES That's it. Thank you.

I recall seeing them at We-Bee-Toys & my sister mentioned them (for her son/my nephew). They come in 2 categories, the real ones that I think are for kids a bit older, & a more basic model for kids closer to his age (5). Thanks.

I thought I heard them say on the Entirely Sabres Report that until recently, he had been on the Giants PS.

Well, he started off as a TE. He wasn't among our 3rd best, & wasn't likely to be anytime soon. (IIRC, we had a FA rookie TE, Tauffalt or something, that I was impressed w/, too.) He had promising potential, so he was put on the PS. Given 8 weeks of work or whatever, he improved to the point where he was good enough to warrant a roster spot (primarily as a ST player & OT/short yardage TE).