Dan

Andre's biggest problem is that he's not been a media suckup like Irving.

To see Irvin sitting there and Reed continually overlooked is just a shame. Just sucks.

No friggin doubt. How got in so quickly is a complete testament to how political the inductions are.

I think you're supposed to just write, in bad grammar, any random thought that pops into your head... especially the ones you'd never actually speak out loud if someone were in the room with you. Then you sit back and wonder why everyone's hatin' on you.

Of the 3 WRs, Reed is by far and away the more deserving of a HOF induction. Carter and Brown, IMO, are alot like Monk... good, solid WRs, but not special in any real way. So, yeah, Monk made it, but those guys should have to wait quite a bit before they're seriously considered. Faulk is head and shoulders above Bettis and Martin. Quite honestly, I'm not even sure why Martin is this far along in the consideration. He was a sold back for a number of years, but HOF... really? Same with Bettis, although he did come through in some big games. But, I'm still not sure how he's a HOF back. Richard Dent, Chris Doleman, Charles Haley and Cortez Kennedy... really? I'm not sure I'd consider any of them HOF material. I might could be sold on Dent, but that's about it. I guess we just have to consider anyone who played for a while and put up decent sack numbers. Same goes for Dermontti Dawson and Willie Roaf. I just don't get it. Sharpe and Sanders IMO, helped to redefine their positions in the modern game and should be in hands down. So for me, I'd say Reed, Faulk, Sharpe, Sanders and Sabol (although I'm not completely sold on Sabol; his son I'd say has actually done more. But I don't know all of Ed's contributions either.)

In most states, not entirely sure about NYS, there are many areas within a County that aren't incorporated - that is, they're not in any town. Hence, they fall under County governance. In the smaller, more densely populated New England States, RI, CT, maybe MA, I think there's little to no area that's not an incorporated town. Hence, the County government is not needed. They still have county structures; they just don't need to perform all the civil services that you usually associate with a gov. structure. But, the County government and City Governments essentially do the same thing. Typically, I think, City services trump County services. So, you'd call the City police not the County Sheriff, for example. But, there are all sorts of complications and/or overlaps regarding jurisdiction of services that are usually worked out with intergovernmental memorandum's of understanding between the Cities and Counties. That's it in an acorn-sized nutshell.

As a senior in HS, I had half day classes. I rushed home that afternoon just to watch the Shuttle launch. I was sitting in my house, alone, in my dad's chair.... in complete shock.

True points. But, IMO, the ghosts of Super Bowls past were just too much for the Bills in this last one. The Bills were outplaying Dallas and in great shape to win the game... even after Thurman's fumble. But, you could just see the look in their eyes after that play. They looked defeated.. .they had the "here we go again" look in their eyes. While, Dallas just seized the momentum and never let if go. At 13-6, Dallas scoring didn't mean we lose the game, but the players sure acted as though the game was over at that point.

You gotta spend money to make money.

Nope. There's nothing any politician can do to "reform" health care/insurance that's not going to in some way increase premiums. Because, that's what businesses do - they raise their prices at every opportunity. So, if we completely repeal the Health Care Act and replace it with new laws as proposed; they'll have similar a similar affect. The can of worms has been opened. The health care industry (primarily the costs) in this country are obscene. Either we get the costs down so that you can afford to get sick without insurance or you find a way for everyone to get insurance. Personally, I prefer the former. But, looks like we're going to focus on the later. So what can either party do to bring health insurance coverage to all individuals without the insurance companies trying to raise their premiums? I guess we could take the tact that not everyone needs health care, but then that's perhaps a different argument all together. Either way, insurance premiums haven't skyrocketed (at least mine haven't) and at least some businesses are using it as an excuse for the time being.

I'd assume they're more forward thinking that I am. But, really don't know what motivates them. I'm fairly certain 1/1/14 is when it would become mandatory for everyone to have health insurance; hence, when employers have to provide it... or not.

Thanks. yeah, I wasn't so much interested in all the good and bad prognostications of the past. So, I didn't really search. But, that's kinda how I see it. Companies used the federal monies, whether it be stimulus or whatever to clean out their books, get new business, generate more profit and then sat on it. But, then I don't get why we're upset at the politicians because these people are sitting on their profits that are largely due to my tax dollars helping them. I'm not sure I buy the whole health care act has created all this uncertainty; therefore, I can't hire anyone. I think it's a cop out. Like most people, I haven't read the entire bill and like most people I'm not a lawyer; hence, I don't quite understand the intricacies of all I have read. However, my understanding (as a person running a business) is that for the time being it has almost no affect on my business. In a couple of years, I'll be forced to give our employees health care or pay into the larger system. But, 2 things: we already give all our employee healthcare, and most importantly, that mandate doesn't kick in until 2014. So, even if I don't give my employees health benefits why wouldn't I grow my business and hire people if needed until then? I can always fire them later if they demand health care. So I keep coming back to people saying that the billions and trillions were wasted; but it seems the economy by and large was saved just prior to a full collapse, the largest corporations are doing as well as they ever have because of it; yet people aren't being hired - largely because businesses are becoming more efficient and just banking the profit. I can't really blame any of the politicians for that. I can't help but think that most people expect the world to go back to 2007 when homes were grossly over valued, and as jboys said, companies were overstaffed with too many employees that they've since discovered they didn't really need. It's a mess no doubt. I'm just trying to understand it all better. Agreed about the promise to not exceed 8% unemployment. However, I would suggest that no reasonable person would expect any one, especially a politician, to be able to completely and accurately foresee the future. So, I can give a little ground there. But, I do see your point. As to your last paragraph... exactly my point just stated in a different tone. Please don't interpret my comments to mean I expect companies to bring their profits into the market just because people need to be hired. I'm suggesting that you can't blame any politician because companies aren't.

OK... here's my simple dilemma... I'm hearing on the tube that Obama's massive stimulus spending and trillion $ bail out didn't work because we still have 9.4% unemployment. Also that it's not up to the government to create jobs; it's up to private business. right? Here's what I don't get... the stock market is at 12,000pts, the banks are stable, the car companies are doing as good as ever. OK. so why aren't these people hiring yet? And why does everyone say the President and the Congress have to do something to get America working? It seems all the stimulus money did it's job as it was spent to save wall street and corporations too big to fail; it did that. Now those corporations aren't holding up their end and hiring again. What am I missing? Why don't we conclude the stimulus trillions did their job and bailed out all these mega corporations? Why do we want less government that doesn't try to create jobs, but then criticize politicians when the unemployment rate is high? Educate me...

That's what I was saying earlier today... I hate the Jets, but if they go on the road and beat Manning, Brady, and then Rapelesburger... crap that says something. Those are probably the 3 best QBs in the game over the last 5 years. I might have had to pull for them in the Super Bowl. Fortunately, they lost in spectacular fashion!

Hanie era begins!

Yeah, I brain froze on my word choice there - hence, the quotes. I'm sure Wanny (and Gailey) wants to give Edwards opinions, ideas, etc. on the gameplan and use of players. And Wanny wants those suggestions to, in the least, be given serious consideration by Edwards and not just be brushed off. Hence, the whole meeting to "make sure everyone would get along". If either one, Edwards or Wanny, let's their ego get in the way and doesn't listen to one another and work together; you've got the potential for a serious headache. But, if they're able to sit down all week and develop the best use of the players and the best gameplan, which Wanny will have (and probably wants to have) plenty of input on, then we're in better shape.

Didn't really want to start a new thread.. but FWIW: Polian, the God of all GMs, has signed just four, yes, 4 free agents since 2004. They were talking about it in the context of Manning's new contract and making him the highest paid player ever. They did that in 2004 with a 7 year, $98mill contract. Since that time, they've signed 4 FAs. And now Polian is promising to the bring in more FAs to help get them win And how many Super Bowls have they been in? So, the Colts are clearly trying to do it all through the draft, albeit because a couple of high contracts are forcing them to. And how far have they gotten with the leagues best QB? How good has Polian's drafting been? Interesting to say the least. Makes you wonder if Manning will take a pay cut, to help the team pay for other players to help him win more?

You're absolutely right and, really, there's no reason to even argue it. Wanny approving/disapproving Edwards in-game calls is the epitome of dysfunction. Now, on the other hand, I can easily see Wanny and Edwards reviewing film and talking all week about what the defense should be doing, what calls should be made when, etc.; thereby, giving Wanny plenty of input and "control". But, publicly and to the team, it'll be Edwards show. That's how it has to be; that's how it should be.

We just watched Winter's Bone and... yep.. my initial pre-watch impression was spot on. It is very well done and acted all that jazz. But, entirely too slow-paced and melancholy for my tastes. Not a single person smiled in the entire movie. If I'm that chick, I would have shot my self to escape the depression of my life.

Tosh.0's Spoiler alert

I didn't mind The Other Guys so much. It's not great, but had some decent moments. It's a Will Farrell comedy (although I thought he was toned down a little). So, you pretty much know what you're getting. The Town, I agree. Good movie and very much enjoyed it. Scott Pilgrim. Different, but entertaining is a good description. IMO. I liked it, but it's certainly a different kind of movie. A little odd, but you somehow keep watching it to see what's going to happen. Social Network - saw that last week. Good movie. Watch it. We rented Buried last night. Didn't care much for it. It's an interesting idea for a movie. It kinds held my interest. But, by about half way through.. I just found myself calling the guy an idiot. Not to give anything away, but some of the scenes were like.. really? really? And I was cussing. So, in the end... I didn't like it. Tonight we got Winter Bone. I'm not optimistic, despite the hype. I'm expecting a rather slow, let's all stand around and talk, but no one really do anything movie that ends in some half-baked climax scene that leaves me thinking I'm just glad it's over, now I can watch Ancient Aliens.

That's exactly how I see it, as well. Look at the training Trent put in during the off seasons to get better. He did that because he knew he was the starter and he was trying to get better. Of course, he just didn't have the mental tools to make it. But, it'll be really interesting to see if Fitz makes a similar effort to improve his accuracy this off season. IMO, you do that with a lot of core strengthening and working on your technique. Knowing that he's almost certainly the starter next year, I'd expect/hope to hear of him working hard all off season to improve the physical aspect of his game.

I agree the goal should be win the Super Bowl and it should be clearly stated each day. However, you don't necessarily fire people and blow things up if that goal isn't reached every day. Because, IMO, someone at the top has to temper that goal against the harsh light of realistic expectations. You then make the necessary changes each off season to address the reality of what occurred to once again achieve the goal. For example, we needed more coaching brains on the defense.. so you bring in DW. You don't have to blow the defense up; but you do have to realize there's a problem and address it. Now after a certain time, when your changes just aren't resulting in progress; then yeah you blow it up. IMO, 2 years is not enough time. I disagree about not waning to make the playoffs next year, for 2 reasons: (1) you never know what may happen (ala the Jets last year backing in to the playoffs and then before you know it they're in the Championship game) and (2) the experience, confidence, and motivation if gives the players is invaluable. So, I'll take a blowout loss in the playoffs any day over just missing them. Also, yeah Seattle got blown out against the Bears, but that was in the divisional round; they beat the defending SB champs the week before. But, now tey all have confidence in the coaching staff, they're motivated to get back there again, and when/if they do they'll have this year's experience to draw upon to better handle the pressure.

You can all be pretty well assured that the Jets WILL NOT win it all this year. In fact, they won't beat the Steelers. Why? How can I be so confident? Because I picked them to win this week in my pick'em pool. I've had the worst luck ever with my picks and my sister is kickin my a:censored:. So, you see... if the Jets win, that means I win. And, this year, I don't win.

Perhaps not. But, it is a little refreshing to see that Nix and Gailey didn't just stay the course and not make any changes to the defensive staff. And, you know, in the past, that's exactly what this franchise would have done. They would have fed us some bull that it's not all bad and we have to give it time. In the end, this FO and Chan haven't made all the right decisions - some have been downright incredulous (extending Kelsay). But, it's a positive sign that they're able to see at least some of this team's problems and then that they're willing to try and fix them. Will hiring DW help the defense next year? We'll see. But, it's really hard to see how this isn't an upgrade for our team. I guess we could argue that there was a better defensive guy to bring in; but I'm not sure there was. Not because DW is so damn great, but just that potentially better coaches were either hired or just may not have wanted to come here.