teef

just wondering. i went to a jesuit high school, so i had a lot of family and friends go to a jesuit college. lots of john carroll, loyola of chicago, canisus, etc guys.

!@#$ing cake walk.

words.

just a ton of man candy.

seriously. that got me by for years. once they finally found out my true intentions...too late! they already have my stank on them.

there's definitely better options. they must like peterman to some degree obviously since they picked him. could be a situation where he's cheap, and they already spent capital on him, so why not give him a go. i'm not confident in nate either, but i don't know how much difference an off the street vet would make. i think that's exactly what's going on as well.

Or mcd is just a coach who wants to give his rookie an more time to come along. If that’s the approach, why not let your other young qb get some development time. Maybe he becomes a great back up.

You were called out for having a look at me screen name and avatar, and this is now your approach? Nicely done.

oh cool. where did you go?

did you not bring up education first? you really are child like.

why? you brought up the education thing first for some reason. if you don't want to discuss it here, don't bring it up.

shhhh. you're tired and a bit over stimulated. why don't you sit quietly for a bit and have some you time. also, if alabama is irrelevant to this topic, why bring up a jesuit education? isn't that also irrelevant to the topic too? do you see why people don't take you seriously?

i'm in the 5% or less crowd. i'm not saying he'll have a good game, but i think nate has come a long way from last year.

i'm not into any of that crazy german sexual stuff.

says the guy that's somehow impressed with the academics of alabama. on occasion my 3 year old will get a wrong idea in her head. when i try to correct her, she sometimes refuses to listen to any reason. i just chalk it up to that simple, developing brain, and walk away. that's what i'm doing here.

we're done here.

ohhh. playoffs every time. every...time.

or maybe he was on drugs, acting differently, causing the bills to start to distance themselves, got news of the medical condition, and then had the breakdown. see how there's a lot of variables here? i swear, cogs himself could tell you that the contract didn't set off his decline, and you'd still argue.

so what you're going to do here is find a way to twist the story any way you can to fit the idea that the bills caused incognito's breakdown. what's pretty illogical is that you refuse to look at a very large history of mental illness, or how mental illness even works. i suppose there's no discussion to be had here with you. hey...i tired.

so...even though he very publicly indicated he did, you don't think he was telling the truth? you have very little info which causes you to jump to a pretty illogical conclusion. when presented with some evidence from the person himself, you completely discount it because it doesn't fit your original idea. got it.

but then we go to the playoffs, and it was strictly by accident.

this has zero to do with the conversation we're having right now. you being right on that has nothing to do with being right about cogs. i'm not sure why you even brought it up. do you think incognito not being able to physically play due to medical issues had anything to do with it? the bills couldn't have caused that.

it's not at all though. that's what everyone is trying to explain to you.

that's fair. i suppose there's always an amount deemed worthy of a specific player that a team feels comfortable with. ritchie also mentioned physical reasons for retiring, so i'm guessing that had a large part on his breakdown. at the end of the day, it's unlikely that cogs would have been on this team this coming year either way. this is all well stated. there's much more to ritchie's breakdown than the bills offering him a reduced contract to sign. i'm sure he wasn't pleased about it, but i can't imagine that's the stimulus.

what's the double standard?