Dan

I think if he steps out of bounds; then steps back in bounds; he can't be the first to touch the ball. But because he stepped out of bounds, stayed out of bounds, then got the ball; the ball is considered out of bounds. I think that's the way it's ruled. Sucks for us; although I doubt we win regardless of that.

true

Is it time for Hamdan?

But we pay with love. Thanks for the hard work.

Actually, it is happening. If you watch any of Obama's rally speeches lately he talks about the financial mess and Wall Street, blah, blah. Then he continues with... but let's be honest many of us have lived beyond our means, many of us here have to be more careful with our spending, we have to take some responsibility blah blah (I'm paraphrasing of course). So, he's already begun to stress that Americans need to live within their means. I think a few things gets lost in all the rhetoric. First, both candidates have put forth plans, but in no way does that mean this is what will happen upon either's election. I would fully expect the President-elect to have to alter his plan based upon the situation and the Congress he has to deal with upon taking office Secondly, both candidates make bold statements that are often misleading, and almost always pander to the Middle Class. Why? Because that's what politicians - all politicians - do when they want to get elected. Finally, both candidates put forth their tax plans long before the financial crisis. Both have been asked several times how their plans would change in light of the financial crisis. Both have been unwilling to address any major changes in their respective plans. However, if anyone thinks they won't have to dramatically alter a tax plan that was prepared prior to the financial mess, well... you're just naive. Bottom line, specifics are less important than ideology and party history, because in the upcoming months the specifics of each plan will almost certainly change (which is probably why neither candidate gets too specific) but the ideas of the party they represent won't. In that regard, Republicans have historically favored a top down economic theory while Dems have favored building the economy from the bottom up. Which is better is a matter of discussion, but that's what you'll get, if I had to guess. So, with regards to taxes and the economy, do you want a candidate that favors tax cuts and breaks to the higher classes and large corporations, thinking that will spawn jobs and spending and a strong economy? If so, I'd say vote McCain. If you want a candidate that favors tax cuts and breaks for the lower classes and smaller business, thinking that will generate more jobs and spending and a strong economy, vote Obama. But, IMO, this talk about socialism and spreading the wealth and other such nonsense is just that... nonsense. Smoke and mirrors.

Thanks. I was about to lose a lot of respect for you. I completely agree with everything you said.

But, Al Davis is in the HOF. How disgraceful is that?

I'd love to see Bruce and all other Bills' players protest the HOF voting and remove their names from the list until Ralph is voted in. It's an absolute disgrace to the NFL that Ralph is not in. Disgusting in fact. It would never happen, but it'd be nice.

Please expand more on this tidbit.

..and if Levy were here now, he'd consume the Patsies* with fireballs from his arse!

Because its a panzy league now?

Interesting. I had a friend this summer that got a rash. We work outside, so I thought it might be poison ivy or oak or something like that. It persisted overnight and got worse. The rash was hot and irritating and it would be on his arms, then all over is chest, then back - eventually most of his body was covered. He went to a doctor and was told it's probably stress. I told him to take a few days off and keep lathered up in whatever topical ointment he had. It went away and he had no other problems. We're still not sure if it was stress or not. He and I kinda settled on allergic reaction to something he may have ate, for what that's worth. I'm not sure any of this helps. But, thought I'd share the experience. The reason I doubt spider bite is because its something I know a little about and they're actually quite uncommon. Most people that get what they think are spider bites, it's actually something else - lice, bed bug, mosquito, several other types of bugs. But, certainly it could be a spider. Allergic reaction, whether it be from bug bite or detergent or whatever, could definitely explain the rash spreading to the arms. Usually, remove the allergen and with a little benadryl topical to relieve the itching/irritation and the problems go away very quickly. Of course, that can be a problem if its a cleaning agent (for ex) that's being used in the school. Again, not sure any of this is helpful. But, wish you and your daughter well.

Well, that sucks. Suddenly my world doesn't seem so safe and secure. Any chance you're wrong?

I wanted the Titans to lose a game. Oh well.

Not sure about who you can talk to about the Doc. But, I'm more curious as to the diagnosis. Did they ever come up with something? Or was it just bendril? Interesting to me for a few reasons. I doubt it's spider bites.

Yeah 4 yards, 0 yards - just details that disprove my argument. Can we forget them? I can live with that idea. Given the play call on the previous 3 plays however, we had little options that could surprise them. I agree, though, I was really hoping the 3rd down play was a PA fade to Hardy. If they had tried something like that on 2nd and or 3rd downs then a 4th down play seems a little less predictable.

I think this thread would be the comments he was referring to.

If we had the Dallas or the Pats* Offensive line, I would agree and think it a good shot of success. But, we had 3 shots, we gained 0 yards. If it were a little later in the game - say 3rd quarter; absolutely get the tie. But, with the entire game left to play, there were still plenty of scoring chances.

Jauron says in his press conference today that Lynch was "dinged up" at the time. So he was not an option, at the time. That's why Jackson was in the game, nothing more nothing less. The question I have is why not try one fade to Evans or Hardy? Evans did a great job pulling in the pass last week. Hardy is the tall guy. Why not give one of them at least one shot out of those 3 plays? I don't have a problem with the FG. At the time, 1st quarter, there's all the time in the world. Take the easy points and regroup. Most coaches will take the 3pts at that point in the game, IMO.

Oh no he di'nt.

Love your sig line. And I agree. The Fins are a much better coached team than we would like to believe. I don't see them in the playoffs this year, but they're definitely a competitive team.

I see your point. I just think those kind of statements and outbursts are best done "in-house" or at least they're usually done "in-house". So that's how I saw it Dennis Greenish, in that he stated it all in the PC rather than give the typical coachspeak.

I think they've got their pitchforks in hand chasing Donte Whitner right about now.

I've been saying it since about week 2. This stretch of games will be the barometer for our season's playoff aspirations. We needed to go 2-1, IMO, to stay on top the division. Anything less and it's not that we won't make the playoffs, necessarily. But, we will have a tough fight and likely playing for a wildcard spot, not the division. Well, we just lost our 1. On the good side, it was against the last placed Fins. On the bad, we now need to win the next 2. I think we can definitely do that. If we do... we're right back in the #1 spot with 7 games to go.

It's actually kind of humorous if you take it the right way. I just read all the posts and think... wow, there's another guy I'm smarter than. TSW is a really good self help tool in that way.