Dan

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?

Good points. But, to some extent, people will always try and jump on whatever train they think will help them. And I'm sure in the early days of the planning, Comedy Central was latching on to anyone... just to guarantee someone showed up. In the end, if the estimates are right and over 200,000 people showed up, 10-20,000 from Huffpost is a literal drop in the bucket. In one way, I'd agree he might regret to some extent her involvement; but then again, that's in many ways the target audience of his message. So, maybe it's not so bad that she did bring people down. If the far right had brought a bunch of folks, perhaps the event would have even more impact. I doubt it, because extremist on either side rarely listen to someone else. But at least the target of the rally's message would have been in greater attendance. I think it was good to end the event as he did with some semi-serious remarks. But, for me, you can't beat the beauty and imagery of using a battle between Cat Stevens' Peace Train and Ozzy's Crazy Train only to compromise on the O'Jays' Love Train. Great bit, well worth the price of admission.

Point made.... point taken.

OK.. maybe he wasn't being arrogant. But will you settle for.. being stupid? Because the odds of something bad happening on each of the plays you mentioned are higher than if you just hand the ball off to Jackson and let him grind out a few yards. The Nelson fumble in the Ravens game, was the first time we had an OT situation, with plenty of time on the clock, and Gailey went with a spread offense. That put the ball in the hands of Nelson. Even if he doesn't fumble, he would have gained 3-4 yards on second down. Why not give it to a more sure-handed Jackson and let him get those same 3-4 yards on the ground. The 53 yard FG that Lindell missed is by no means at all a gimme. Again, going spread for 3 consecutive plays tips your hand and makes getting any additional yardage that much harder. Why not get a few surer yards on the ground, first; then spread them out and take a shot at something more? IMO, Gailey put Lindell in a bad situation. Calling the Spiller play is an all or nothing play. We didn't need it all, we just needed a little. Why go with a play you haven't run once all season when you can dial up something a little more sure? Again, I'm not against taking some shots. But, even Peyton doesn't line up with no RBs, every snap and succeed very often. There's a reason NFL teams don't rely on the all out 5 WR spread offense. Gailey sold out with the spread and it failed. He's done it more than once. So either he's arrogant or stupid. I'm not really sure which at this point in time.

You're missing the point, as well, if you think this rally was a call from liberal hippies for civility. Although Stewart clearly has liberal leanings, he most consistently mocks extremists on either side of the spectrum (a place where I'd put liberal hippies) and, in particular, the news media's (both far liberal and conservative) propagation of these extreme views. I think most people see Stewart as more of a liberal bias because he's most frequently mocking Fox News. However, I think that's just because Fox News is perhaps the most biased, most extreme, and most popular "news" agency out there. He mocks MSNBC quite a bit as well - but let's face it... if a "news" person shouts into the TV and no one is watching does s/he still make a sound (i.e. it's easier to make fun of Beck because everyone's heard of him; but can you make fun of... uhhmm.. uhh.. who does MSNBC have?) As to the 2nd bolded statement... that doesn't surprise me at all. And if you watch Stewart with any regularity, you'll find he mocks CNN quite bit because they don't get it either. And you're point about bringing Huffington in to talk discuss the lack of civility is exactly the type of bit his show thrives on. You can't make that kind of stuff up!