Dan

I completely agree. For that reason, you don't randomly collect data just by picking data at random, you use random number generators and the like. Good point.

It's kinda like how Gore never actually said he invented the internet. Comedians, then pundits, took a comment , skewed it just a little and... there ya have it. Fact.

I suppose... we all believe what we want to believe. No worries...

Considering the Tea Party is a new movement with a much smaller contingent, I think calling it a fringe movement is quite accurate especially prior to the election. Also, if you had control of the media and really wanted to squash the Tea Party, wouldn't it be more effective to just not report on it at all? By reporting on it every night, they're actually giving it notoriety and allowing people to know much more about the movement. So I'd suggest that the liberal media is doing exactly the opposite of what people are claiming they're trying to do and are biased <i>towards </i>the Tea Party. Why don't they give more press time to other "fringe" political parties? Because they like the Tea Party more, that's why. Given that "liberal" is seen as more of a negative label than "conservative"; couldn't you argue that the liberal media is actually helping the conservative candidates by clearly and routinely telling me which one is the conservative candidate. If any thing, I see that as a conservative bias by helping one candidate with a favorable title and helping me more easily identify them. Many of those races were the higher profile ones for a variety of reasons. But, doesn't the media in general always report on the "freak show" events more than the actual issues. That's why Paris Hilton and her like get so much press time. I'd say they're just giving the dumbed down masses what the ratings indicate they watch more than any sort of political bias. The chick in DE said she practiced witchcraft, you gotta admit that's going to get headlines and subsequently a lot of press time for the duration of the event.

Actually, those numbers don't point to any bias at all. Just because someone voted for a democrat; that doesn't mean they slanted news articles towards that candidate. Contrary to popular belief, some people can remain objective in their job despite their personal feelings and beliefs. It's called being a professional. That's what wrong with the news media, in general, today. All too often, "news casters" are required or permitted to inject their personal beliefs into a story rather than just report what has happened; therefore, blurring the line of professionalism. To demonstrate a liberal media bias, you need to point to news articles or reports that purposefully slant the narrative in favor of a liberal candidate - not tell me who the article writer voted for. It's kinda like the scientist that spends his/her life studying the evolution of life histories while being devotedly Christian. According to your logic, because this scientist goes to church every Sunday and teaches Sunday school (following his personal beliefs), his research would have to have a conservative, creationist bias (in his professional career). However, that is not always the case.

And that, right there, is why I still have little to no optimism for this team. The exact same people that will be in the draft room in 2011 were in the draft room in 2010. Did they address any of the team's obvious needs then? We got a rotational RB, a few situational guys, and a couple of guys that aren't on the game day roster. I just can't get excited thinking that all of a sudden these same guys are (1) going to draft for the team's needs or (2) draft players that are actually ready to play. Unless someone can explain the rationale for turning 2010 into a tryout season, I have to assume Nix and Gailey thought they were making good moves to improve the team. Well, here we are at 0-8, and I'm not sure we can say that ANY of their moves during the off season improved the team. IMO, the only solid move they did to improve the team was cut Trent; and that even took them 2 weeks into the regular season to do. If they: fire Edwards and hire a proven DC, address the O and D line and LB position with early draft picks and/or quality FAs - maybe. My guess is they do one of those things and the big move is drafting a QB that will take 2 years to see the field. Then they'll spend the rest of the off season telling us how much progress we made this year.

Considering we're 0-8 and the offensive scoring has dropped off the last 2 weeks, I'd suggest defenses are doing just enough to stop it especially late in the game when it's most critical. Name one offense, other than one lead by Brady or Manning, that can be one-sided and be consistently good. Even if we're not running the ball with much success, we still have to show them the run to keep the defense guessing.

Jackson's biggest problem is... Gailey is as pass happy as Gilbride or Martz has ever been. It's hard for the RB to look good when the QB is throwing the ball 51 times. Then add in splitting carries between Fitz (2 rushes/scrambles), Spiller (7 carries), and McIntire (1 carry); how is Jackson ever supposed to get into a rhythm? He ran the ball 8 times last week.... 8 times. For all Chan's genius (that's sarcasm) and for all the offense's improvement (that's serious); the one thing Chan hasn't figured out how to do is get our running game going. Perhaps it's the run blocking, perhaps it's the "packages", perhaps this is just the offense Chan wants. All I know is we're becoming an extremely unbalanced offense and opposing teams are picking up on it.

Can't really help with that that. But, I'd suggest that if you just want to start a new business, but really have no idea (or care) what type of business; then you're going about it the wrong way. Score.org is a spot that has quite a bit of good info though to get you started, if/when you decide on something you want to do.

No, it's not just you. My brother-in-law and I were saying the exact same thing yesterday evening watching the 1-6 Cowboys sucking it up. There is a growing disparity in the coverage of NFL teams, not only in prime time games, but also in coverage on the pre-game shows. There's a smalll handful of teams that you hear about, get to watch; and all the rest... good luck.

Opposing defenses are figuring out Chan's offense. He relies too heavily on the pass and abandons the run game all too quickly. Making Fitz much easier to defend. One-sided offenses are rarely, if ever, successful in the NFL and throwing 51 times in a game is a one-sided offense. Chan needs to stop giving up on the run the first time we don't gain 10 yards on consecutive plays. It's mind-numbing how we can never field a competent offense and defense during the same game and how we can never seem to find any sort of consistent balance between run and pass on offense. It's been this way for years.

And if your post wasn't enough.... further proof that the game in Toronto appears to be a complete disaster of an experience.

I agree with much of your post. And I'm not blaming Fitz in any way. I'd place this loss, once again, squarely on the coaches shoulders - Chan is entirely too pass happy and gives up on the run; Edwards is lost and refuses to get Kelsay off the field. My point is that Fitz could be a very good QB, if he could improve his accuracy. But, I have no problem with him starting. As far as drafting a new guy... I'd have to wait and see who's available. But, a new QB is far from our biggest need.

I thought it was the missed extra point. In a tight game, Lindell misses the first extra point of his career. That one point is what lost the game. Think about it... if we make that, it's tied 14-14. Our next score, we don't need the 2pt conversion; so they get the extra point and its 14-21. Then when the Bears score, they don't go for the 2pts, so it's tied 21-21. I knew as soon as he missed that point that it would cost us the game and it did. (Granted we would have probably lost in OT anyway, but still...)

Fitz does just enough to be a good QB. But, makes just enough bad throws to not be a very good QB.

End of discussion. Few teams ever win when they run the ball 15 times and throw it 51 times. No running back is going to be successful with 8-10 carries per game. Gailey needs to stick to the run game and stop giving up on it so early. He's become entirely too pass happy!

The Burger Lab: Revisiting the Myth of The 12-Year Old McDonald's Burger That Just Won't Rot (Testing Results!)

No hard feelings at all. Just some good, spirited football discussion. I just really thought they were in a position to win yesterday had they called just a couple of plays differently. We may disagree on those play calls. But we can certainly agree that the team does seem to be making some progress.

I was wondering about that looking at the photos. What's up with that? Why would you hold a rally, expecting 100's of thousands of people and make them all stand off to the side and have this big pool in the middle of the stage? I know lots of people do it, not just Beck. I'm just wondering about the rationale behind it.

Out of curiosity and an attempt at avoiding productivity, I did. According to this site: It is impossible to compare the two [photos] since they were held in two different locations, taken from two different vantage points.

Is the goal to make it to the Playoffs or make it to the Super Bowl? Despite all Jones' greatness, spending, and hype; the Cowboys have been only marginally more successful at the making it to the Super Bowl.

And in the last 15 years the Cowboys have won just 1 more playoff games than the lowly bills.

PTR... hope you appreciated my subtle humor.

How about for the utter hilarity of it. Can you imagine Moss' meltdown when he heard the Bills picked him up?