Dan

I can agree with that. However, your initial statement wasn't about winning one Super Bowl; it was about winning multiple consecutive Super Bowls. It does beg a question that I've debated at times in the past. Is it a greater achievement to have gone to 4 consecutive Super Bowls and lost them all? Or to go to one (ala Tampa Bay) and then immediately fall back into obscurity?

I think that's more than a little unfair to Levy. He took a team to 4 consecutive Super Bowls, not strictly because of the talent on the roster but in large part because of how he coached that talent. Are you suggesting that those Bills teams were the most talented teams in the history of the game? Because better coaches couldn't even get their great teams (70's Steelers, 60's Packers, 70's Cowboys, 80's 49ers) to 3 consecutive Super Bowls let alone win them all. Yes, Levy was outcoached in those games - perhaps not as much on the field as he was in his game preparation. But, the blame equally falls on Polian for not addressing the defense properly throughout the glory years. Which sounds a little like the Colts of the last decade, wouldn't you agree?

Cowher as HC. Gailey as OC. vs Gailey as HC. Modkins as OC. hmmmmm... exactly what point were you trying to make? Are you suggesting that because a former SuperBowl winning coach would like Chan as an OC; that Chan is just as good as a HC? Well when we throw Modkins into the mix... I'm starting to see your point.. whatever.

And there's the kicker. The people in that article and I'd wager 90% of Americans in this mess don't know how or are unwilling to save. Taking the air boat out on weekends and going out to eat once a week is not saving money. Refinancing at the peak of the bubble to buy a new truck is not saving money. And there's the problem. People are unwilling to save; they're unwilling to live within their means. And, just as importantly, banks have been all too ready to enable this poor spending. So, on one hand, I think the banks got what they deserve. They gave loans to people they knew couldn't afford them. Then they all repackaged and sold the loans so many times they lost complete ownership of it. Typically, only the bank wins by charging more and more interest. In this scenario, the consumer is winning because they're living mortgage free and taking advantage of the banking industry's complete idiocy. However, on the other hand, these people (on the surface at least) are doing absolutely nothing to actually improve themselves or their financial position. They're continuing to spend on luxury items when they should be saving and trying to take advantage of the low house prices and favorable interest rates now. So, in the end, they'll be right back in the same mess they've always been in.

To that... I completely agree. BP needs to be far more accountable for the cleanup and restitution. And, that is something I hope the federal goverrnment gets involved with - holding them accountable. Given the influence of big oil on our government, however, I'm not holding my breath. Ultimately, they need to make sure the cost of fixing and cleaning up an oil spill immensely outweighs the cost of the saftery valves and such. Because as all businesses do; they'll weigh the costs and why install saftey measures/devices if the fines and costs of a spill are roughly equivalent or even less.

But, that's essentially my point. The Governement, federal and local, IS ivolved and has been involved. So has the private sector. There have been massive efforts to contain this spill. Let me ask.. how much has been pointed out about the dispersants that are being used? Next to nothing. But, that's all private contractors and local aerial ag applicators making millions right now applying those dispersants. (It's probably doing more harm than good, but that's beside the point.) We could go on, but the fact remains; there's been considerable involvment by lots of people. No one is just standing by watching this thing and waiting or BP to do somethng. Of course, that's the perception. But, it's just not reality. The problem with fixing this, is it's a busted pipe 5,000 feet under water. That's not an easy thing to fix. The most telling point from Murra's post about the top 10 spills should be how long it took to get similar "spills" to stop flowing. So for any of us to think they could or should have stopped the flow of oil within a few days is being naive. Believe me, I hate this. I fall squarley into the "this is a huge environmental disaster and just another reason why we should do all we can to find alternative energy" camp. However, as a realist, there's certain realities that are unavoidable. We are an oil dependent nation; therefore we must drill; therefore there will be spills and environmental damage. Furthermore when there is a spill; certain realities inevitably follow - just as we're seeing. But, to pretend that anyone could be doing more than they are doing is largely reactionary and counter productive at this point. For example, Jindall wants to build a huge sand bar to shield the coast. Do you know the time and effort to do such a thing? To think that creating a sand bar of that scale within a coule of weeks is a viable solution is borderline insane. But, I guess its doing something. Realistically, thing of it from a pure business perspective. How much money is BP losing because oil is being wasted, because they have to pay for this clean up, and because they'll have to pay restitution? There's not a company employee that's not doing everything they can to stop this leak. Hell there's probably a million dollar bonus to the engineer that figures out how to stop this. BP is motivated more than anyone to fix this. Now, that doens't mean that I think BP is great or anything. It just means that for the time-being; they are the best hope to getting this thing stopped. Now, come cleanup time... that may very well differ, depending on how much bad PR they're willing to endure.

First of all, if you're trying to pretend that this and all those other oil spills are perfectly harmless and nature just cleans itself up with no larger, long-term ramifications for the local and global ecosystems, as well the people in these areas; well... you're just deluding yourself. Secondly, the comparisons to Katrina are spurious at best. No one blamed Bush for Katrina, they faulted Bush and Federal Government for thier response to Katrina. Not all of that criticism was fair, of course. But, the situation was vastly different in what was going on and how we should respond as a nation. In this instance, it's an oil spill from a well that is owned and operated by a private company. It's their responsibilty to stop it and clean it up. There's a clear line of physical and monetary responsibilty here. There's absolutely no need for the federal government to kick out the clearly rewsponsible party and assume the financial burden of this mess. Their job is to send in the coast guard and work with BP to contain it. Now, should Obama (or someone relatively high up) have been more vocal about what's going on, since day one, and pretending to be in charge? Yes, imo. However, it's not his nor the federal government's place to take this over. What I find most interesting is that the majority of the people calling for federal government involvment are the exact same people that are upset beccause of all the recent federal government involvment in the banking, health care, auto, etc. etc. industries. I will say the same thing about this mess as I did Katrina (and I was involved in a small portion of the Katrina response); there's a lot more organization and work going on than 95% of the world knows or is being reported. But it's the nature of the beast. When we're not in it, all we see is what's on TV. Hence, the boring stuff like planning and organizing are not talked about. But perception is reality. So, yes, Bush should have been on the TV within a day of Katrina talking about what's being done; just as Obama should have been on TV a month ago. But, the fact that they weren't doesn't draw a line to their inaction. Back to my original point though, this is a vastly different disaster than a hurricane. And therefore, calls for a vastly different response from the goverenment. In the event of a hurricane local resources are depleted or wiped out; so the federal government is called on to step in and help. In an oil spill, the company responible for the spill is responsible. They have the resources in hand and there's little need at all for government intervention. The governments typically get involved to recoup lost revenues and ensure compliance and all that crap. But, I'm sure many will disagree. Because after years of people saying Bush is bad, they want their moment to say Obama is bad. I guess it's understandable but it doesn't really make anything better, does it?

The worst thing about all these comments is that it confirms what most of us have suspected for years. This team was soft, unprepared, simplistic in their schemes. Just astounding, really. I would agree with your statement that at least they'll toughen the players up. In my mind, that's the first step. And it's precisely the right step to implement during OTAs for a soft team. Spend the next few weeks toughening them up physically and mentally. Then come back for training camp and reinforce those lessons while working on the execution.

This is exactly why most all players or coaches or any public figure give bland, boring, politically correct answers. And why the vast, vast majority of all interviews have become pointless. Everyone wants a player or coach to tell it like it is and be straight forward. But, then when someone like Donte is open and honest, they get belittled and ridiculed for talking too much or throwing people under the bus or some other such nonsense. The only problem with Donte's play has been that he doesn't make the splashy interception plays. But he's rock solid in the run defense and has been critical to our overall defense. But, because he's not making Ed Reed type-plays, he's a bust or needs to be cut. I guess.

So why does any team waste their money on a training staff or workout gyms? Afterall, it's the player's responsibility to get themselves into shape and improve each season, right?

Because it helps to prove the point that he's a lazy, no talent, bust.. thug, if we only talk about his bad year and the problems he's had. If you talk about his 2-1,000 yard seasons or any of his charity work in Oakland, I get confused. Then I don't know what to think.

It's the first day of OTA's in late May. I'd fully expect them to be a little rusty. So, personally, I'm not reading that much into any of the comments... just yet. Of course, they dids say Trent and Fitzy took the majority of reps. We can only assume that if Brohm was getting the first unit reps the QB play would look much sharper.

He probably just couldn't catch a ride with someone and he's afraid to drive his own car because he'll get jacked by the man as soon as the garage door opens because its against his HOA's policy to have garage doors open during the daytime.

Point well made. And I would completely agree. Personally, I would love to see the Super Bowl rotated through all NFL team's cities. But, I agree, I'd bet that's not close to the proposal. So, yes, I would vote no if the only intention is to show favoritism to another big market team.

You know when GE's head Obamabot Immelt is beginning to talk this sort of talk, it's time to batten down the hatches. I guess the glass really is half full or half empty, depending upong which sentence you read???

Got one (linky worky). For Christmas 2 years ago. Not a great hammer, as a hammer, but great for small jobs. Also got a Bills tape measure to go with it... use that all the time.

All good advice here... Try the sites that compare multiplel rental car agencies, inculding some of the lesser known companies. Also, I've often found that if you look for off-airport locations you can save money. Many rental car compnaies will charge an airport tax (or something like that) if they're considered at the airport, even though half of them aren't but that's another thread perhaps. So, I'd suggest looking for a rental car location not at the airport and then figure in the price of a cab ride or shuttle there. Sometimes it can be quite a bit cheaper. I think it depends on the City and how much they charge for the "airport tax" as to how much you'll save.

Good point. Wrapped up and amongst the solution should be an avenue for maintaining th NFL as the premeir sport. However, Dean makes some great points. Owners can cut a player whenever they want and void the remaining contract; players cannot quit and void their contract. I think at the core are the rookie salaries. Rookies are the ones that truly get a chance to negotiate, other than a handful of FAs. Hence, players try to get all their money up front; which lessens the pot for proven vets and puts guys like Marshall in the postion to be underpaid. So... why not a slotted, rookie contract structures. Based on the position played and the postion drafted (as suggested by Rfeynman). All rookie contracts are for 3 years. Then, players can negotiate their second contract on the open market. All second contracts are 5 years. Repeat for a 3rd contract. Finally, repeat for 4th and 5th, etc. contracts, but shorten those to 3 year contracts. All contracts are guaranteed. So, if a player is cut, he still gets payed. Incentives are added to ensure a player doesn't just coast. If the team currently holding the contract offers a contract that's equivalent to an average of the top payers at the postion (essentially, follow the same guidelines for Franchise Players); then the player cannot negotiate on the open market. A team can do this with every player - provided they don't go over the salary cap. The point being, you want to encourage or allow teams to hold on to their top notch stars and potentially decrease the amount of player turnover. This would give rookies 3 years to prove they belong. Then they're signed to big contracts. If they're truly great they get a second big contract. The vast majority of players are on the downside 13 years into their career. But, for those that aren't they can still get big money. Teams can keep the stars, provided they pay for them. Players have the security of guaranteed contracts. Fans know that a player is there for a certain number of years; therefore buying a friggin jersey doesn't mean the guy is cut the next offseason. All contracts are still guaranteed on trades.

I don't really listen to the radio much (had sirius, even dumped that). But this weekend we drove to my parents house and I forgot the ipod and I had to listen to radio. By the end of the 5 hour drive and having heard about 3 or 4 of this chicks "songs", I was ready to shoot myslef. Honestly, I find it hard to believe anyone could actually like her "stuff". Not to mention all the other pop/hip hop/rap crap that spews over the airwaves. Holy hell its horrible.

Isn't that when Jared Gaither was selected by the Ravens.. and now we hope he becomes our franchise LT?

Did you watch the video? He's there when Spiller makes his first catch in the video, but of course doesn't tackle him because it's a non contact drill. He was also shown briefly in blocking drills. Maybe you don't know what jersey number he's wearing? Or are you just expecting him to record 5 sacks per non contact practice? Or perhaps ou just have a preconceived perception and view the 3minute video in a way to reinforce your beliefs?

No. Nix agrees with you. It's just that posters here don't like him, for pretty silly reasons; therefore, they think he should be traded.

Is there any doubt that some of the best comedy on the interwebs can be found right here on TSW? If so, this thread puts an end to it. Funny stuff guys, keep it up.

Actually, I think the kids should be given a history lesson pertaining to the flag and how to display it. It's considered disrepectful to wear the flag as a form of clothing. "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general."

Given that this morning it was reported that they immediately pulled the VIN number off the engine block and very quickly ran down the owner, seller, Craig's list transaction; I'd tend to think that GG's assesment is a little more accurate. Do you really think they tell the press every detail in an ongoing investigation? Not to mention, have you seen the guy's photo? He looks more white than Pakistani (whatever Pakistani looks like).