Dan

This is what I don't get. So your dad took you to places like that and you turned out all right (I'm making the assumption, here.) So, why is it something you wouldn't do with your kid? I don't get it. I hear that all the time from friends and sisters. What makes today that much different from yesterday, other than we've all gotten overly paranoid about potential problems? I say take your kids to a bar, teach them how to order drinks properly, how to tip, and let them have some fun. Money says when they eventually get to drinking age/college; they'll be much more responsible.

I'll tell ya one thing I have noticed from watching the short clips on bb.com... Edwards seems to take longer to make a decision before throwing. Brohm's passes seem to come out a few seconds faster. Granted these videos are by no means good for evaluating performance, but it it noticeable. I can tell you this, though, the QB that gets the ball out the fastest is going to do best behind our line.

I very much agree with you. However, I think you can cover for a below average line easier than you can a below average QB. A strong run game combined with a short, quick passing game means the line doesn't have to hold their blocks for that long. Of course, you're right, they'll still have to block and occasionally hold their blocks longer. If all your passes are quick slants and outs, the defense will still play up and jump the routes. So, they'll have to go deep on occasion. However, give a bad QB a really good line and he'll still make bad decisions and bad throws. I'm not suggesting that our offense will be fine this year, I'm suggesting that 8 defenders in the box, playing the run, can be backed off with a quick passing game. Not all passes need to be 7 step drops, while you go through your reads. A healthy dose of 3 step drops with quick passes to the 1st target, covered or not, can be effective. But, our QB has to be able to execute that quick passing game.

Considering none of us have seen anything of the offense the team will be running, I think it's entirely too early to panic about how our offense cannot react to opposing defenses. However, there are an increasing number of indications that point towards our offense be heavily reliant upon the run game. The above bolded comment is critical, IMO. Because once you establish a run first, run often offense; defenses will react with various looks and crowd the line ans stop they run. At that point, we have to have a QB that can recognize the defense and make the proper hot reads. That's what we've been missing for years. There's no evidence that Trent can do that. So, once again, it all comes down to the QB. He's going to have to read the defense, audible, and make the proper throws to receivers running routes (as opposed to guys that run 15-20 yards down field, stop, and turn around waiting to have the ball thrown). The line doesn't have to block long, if the QB can make a presnap read and throw the ball within a couple of seconds. But, to do that, not only does the QB need to have some brains and accuracy, he also needs some balls. Do that and you begin to back the defense up a little, which helps to open some running lanes. Don't do that, and we see the same thing we've seen for years - Moorman punting.

Agreed. And good points. But, I don't know that they made up a new law to set this fund up. BP decided to do it out of their desire to take responsibility, at the proding and suggestion of the White House. I don't think the $20 billion is the end all be all. It's probably some number they all pulled out of their collective asses. But, in some article I read on it somewhere, it was suggested that this is most likely just the beginning and the finally tally will ultimately depend upon the number of claims and lawsuits that will come. I just haven't seen anything that indicates any specific law or process was circumvented. It's unprecedented, that's for sure. But, that's my point in all this... for once a politician didn't just talk and blow smoke for the cameras; something was actually done. If there were actual laws broken, then I'll reasses but until then I say this is the only positive development in this whole damn mess.

But there's the dichotomy. We don't want the rich or the government paying for this disaster. BP is the responsibile party. So, why is it so bad that had a meeting and decided to set aside money to fix this? Should we just trust that BP will fairly compensate everyone? Does the government have any responsibility to ensure that BP pays up? If so, how do they get them to do that? Should we have just let it all get fought out in courts for years with no end in sight? Quite honestly, I give BP credit for doing this, just as much as I give Obama credit for making sure they did this. It's a rare occurence when the government and a corporation actually seem to have done the right thing together. I just don't see how the Constitution was circumvented. BP has admitted guilt and apparently after some lengthy discussion decided it was in their best interest to do this. I've seen no evidence they they were threatened with jail time or anything if they didn't. (Let's be realistic, Tom was exagerating to prove his point. Amendements 4-10? Search and Seizure? Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Construction of a Constitution? The Preamble? Come on.)

As I see it, something's got to give. NFL contracts have essentially become useless. Owners can back out whenever they want; and now players are backing out whenever they want. Hayneswortth is just one of the most talked about recently due to the amount of money; but look at Revis. He signs a long term contract. The Jets think theye've done well. One good season and lots of great press; and now Revis demands to be the highest paid DB in the league. Nevermind that he still has 3 yrs left on his contract. Similar situation with Peters and a dozen other guys we could mention. Of course on the flip side, teams want to back load the contract so they can dump a player after a few years and never give him the big payout. And, more often than not, they do just that. It just seems the contracts have become useless. No one, player or team, seems to honor them. The only way I see out is to make contracts, ya know, actual binding documents. Players have to play out their contracts and teams have to pay out the contracts. Knowing that you have to pay 100% might make owners think about these huge long-term deals. And by the same token, knowing they can't demand trades might make players think twice about sitting out. of course, you'll always have players sign contracts ane then never live up to expectations. But, that's just part of life. Nothing can ever be guaranteed; its the nature of free agency. Which is why building a team with big name, high priced FAs has never been the way to build a team. It's just a mess.

He has a signed contract that he continued to honor when he took the bonus money this spring. What more assurance can you possibly expect? Should they have had mirrors in the room to make sure his fingers weren't crossed behind his back? Haynesworth has a signed contract. He knows full well the Skins are switching defenses. He accepted the bonus, meaning he plans to continue playing. But, now he changes his mind? As stated, he want his cake and wants to eat it too.

I stopped reading right there. No good could possibly come from a post that entails thinking and such.

That's my problem with it. What are you gaining by adding 2 more games? Nothing, I say. Increasing the chance for injuries, poor play when teams have the playoffs wrapped up with 4 or 5 weeks still to play, shorter player careers, dilution of the NFL product all around. IMO, 16 weeks is pushing it. But I guess the league has run the numbers and shown that they'll make a ton of money with 2 more regular season games. And, afterall, what's more important... making money or putting the best product on the field? Easy decision when you think about it.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Got it. Here's some good Antivirus advice: Consumer Digest Forum Linky

If you think about it... all the best ones had very little gore or effects. It's a trivia question about how much blood you see in Halloween or Psycho. Because there is none, but you're sure there's blood... you remember seeing it. That's' how good those movies are. They put the images in your head, they don't have to show them to you. The Shining is up there as one on the scariest ever. As an adult that thing can still scare you late at night. Another rare one... I Saw What You Did (1965). For kids that used to like to sit home on Fridays and prank call, that movie pretty much ended that. I haven't seen it in years, so maybe it doesn't hold up. No mention of Friday the 13th? I figured someone would have by page 3.

Allow me to ask a dumb question... if your music is on an external drive, why not just unplug it from the one computer and then into the other to transfer the files? I'm not sure why you have to network the two if you have an external drive. Unless you just want them on the one drive, but want both comps to share them?

No option to select the Chorisen One? biased poll, this is.

And yet we still endure post after post detailing how upset the team is with Lynch and they're just waiting to trade him. By all accounts, Lynch is liked by his teammates and the FO/HC want him playing here. Yet, to read some posters, Lynch is this poison seed that's a locker room disruption and the team is readiy shopping. It's like some weird sociological experiment watching posters project their wishes onto that of the team.

As has been stated here... beer pong and other such drinking games are one thing. They can be fun, competitive, all sorts of things. You opt in to play them; that's the key. But this icing thing is completely gay. It's not a game in any way. If you don't have the balls to say screw off, why not just walk around with one of those crappy drinks in your back pocket? Then you never have to drink. I don't know the whole premise seems stupid. As far as what you do at parties... what ever happened to trying to get laid at a party? If I'm a young single guy... no way I'm walking around trying to get other guys drunk. Just typing that, I sound gay. So, for the single guys here... what are you going to parties for, if it's' not to meet hot chicks? And do you really think you're impressing the ladies by icing some guy? (Again, that just sounds...)

Old enough to be that young girl's father, although I'm no sure what that has to do with anything..

So experts know best how to raise your children?

She obviously had enough experience, ability and mental toughness to stay alive and keep the boat from capsizing. But, you're right. She should just stay home and read about sailing on the internet. No, I think that someone saying a kid is too young to handle a gun is being a kitty. See the difference. Just because you're 16 that doesn't mean you're incapable of doing anything and should be protected from all things that may cause you harm. My point is that people are out of hand stating her parents shouldn't have let her take this journey; as though, her parents are negligent and recklessly endangering her life. Just because she's 16, that doesn't automatically make her too immature and mentally and physically unable to make this trip. That's a decision for her and her parents to judge, not you or I or some expert.

Exactly. It was that training and experience (something everyone wants to assume she didn't have because she's just a wittle baby) that kept her alive when she encountered the storm and lost the mast.

Yes that's me... an ass talker. You assume quite a bit.

My disdain is for the public outcry at how parents could so recklessly let their child do this. As though all people grow and mature at the same rate. Just because she's 16 does not in any way mean she's incapable or that her parents are endangering her life. Just because you (in a broader sense, not you in particular) chose to shelter your child and protect them from evey possible failure in life doesn't mean everyone should.

This is one of the many reaasons for the pussification of America. I suppose we should protect and shield every kid from all possible dangers till they're "adults". When exactly is that? The magical age of 18, when it's a well known fact that all kids are suddenly endowed with good sense and maturity? God forbid a teen ager actually want to do something other than play video games and text all day. I commend her for the effort and wish more parents would enable their kids to act independently and follow their dreams. This overly protective, parents are bad unless they watch over their kids 24/7 and shield them from the world attitude is disheartening to say the least. With all the GPS tracking devices, emergency beacons, satellite phones, and online blogging, I'm not even sure how you can consider this a solo voyage. They lost contact with her for 20 hours, of course, they still knew exactly where she was.. they just couldn't talk to her for nearly a whole day.

I think Hallmark pulled it because it was one of the stupidest ideas for a graduation card ever. They're just using the racist comments as a smokescreen for their complete lack of creativity. Is that card for 1st graders graduating? And, if so, can you really expect kids to conquer black hoes in 2nd grade?