SoTier

It sounds like Hunt and his friends did tried to keep everything legal and stay out of trouble, from the party bus to sending the girls on their way when they found out they were under the legal drinking age. This is more like trying really hard to avoid trouble ... and having trouble find them anyways.

A word of warning to would-be Beagle owners: be sure you get a Beagle that's NOT from a breeder who specializes in hunting dogs. Beagles bred to hunt are PITAs because that's all they want to do. Those types of Beagles really can't be let off leash outside a fenced enclosure because they'll be off if they catch the right scent (usually rabbits but some will trail deer).

This is what I do, too. IMO, Americans have been completely brainwashed into believing doing their taxes is complicated, but the reality is that most taxpayers don't have much more than jobs, house mortgages, and retirement savings/retirements and so should be able to do their own taxes, even if they itemize deductions. It's not hard ... you need to be able read English and do math at an 8th grade level, and that's true even if you qualify for EIC. The hardest part of doing taxes is keeping records and collecting all your tax data in one place ... and you have to do that whether you do it yourself, use tax software or a tax preparer. If you own a business, rental properties or have investments that you actively manage then you probably need professional assistance, but I would use an accountant not one of the tax prep firms. Those are just rip offs, especially when their fees are a percentage of your tax refund. The fees should be based on how long it takes to do your taxes (usually related to how many forms you need).

My previous dog was a rescured GSP, and they're easily my favorite breed, but I'm too old to keep up with a young GSP. If you're looking for a purebred, but would also like to rescue a dog, there are two good routes to doing both at the same time: breed rescues and reputable breeders who are looking to place dogs they bred that were originally sold as pets but were returned (many reputable breeders now require that people who buy their dogs sign an agreement to return them if they can't keep them for whatever reason). My rescue Airedale didn't come with such a guarantee but when I contacted his breeder, he was very helpful in working with Bandit. He was also angry that the person he sold the dog to didn't treat him decently and then sent him to the shelter. My GSP came from a GSP rescue group that was active in eastern NY.

Who are "they" exactly? Do you mean blacks? That Foster is black and you used "they" twice to refer to whomever you're referring to suggests you're simply dealing in stereotypes. Do you believe that being involved in/tolerant of organized crime is part of the culture of Italians in NY/NJ, too? Maybe Foster's bad behavior stems from being raised in the southern football "culture" in which talented football players, white and black, are given passes for all their bad behavior. I'm sure it's a big shock when some pampered SEC players realize that being "on the team" doesn't exempt them from obeying the law.

Snowboarding is crazy! Those guys do so many amazing tricks! The ladies slopestyle starts today I think. I like the Winter Olympics better than the Summer games, partly because I watch more of them because I'm stuck inside because of the cold weather, but mostly because there are fewer events so I get to see more of individual events. I'm a big fan of curling, downhill skiing, and bobsleds ... and now snowboarding.

I don't know about your kitchen, but my DW is plugged into an outlet with all the wiring behind the wall. I don't have a breaker box under my sink to control the dishwasher or any other appliance.

Some people are simply more easily susceptible to demagogues than most of the population. They need to have something/someone believe in, so they seek it out.

Electricity and water don't mix. I can't believe that there could be any situation would make this set up "not necessarily against code" but that's just me.

Somebody stupid enough to lend a 4 time convicted felon $10,000 is asking to get ripped off. C'est dommage.

I'd vote for either a Lab or a Lab mix from the shelter. Not all Labs are large, and some strains are smaller/lighter bodied than others (I think they might be referred to "English Labs"). Female labs also tend to be smaller than males. I don't think Labs are aggressive at all, and after puppyhood, most are pretty laid back. Their biggest fault tends to be their notable appetites. A perfect family dog may be a Labradoodle mix. A friend of mine has one, and she's a great little dog (3/4 minature/toy poodle) that doesn't shed, has a Lab temperament, and poodle athleticism. Most of the golden doodles I've seen are bred on the Golden/standard Poodle cross, and they're all large dogs, especially the males which seem to be bigger than either Goldens or Poodles. I don't know if Golden/minature Poodle crosses are done, but they would be smaller dogs. I would also recommend a miniature or a smallish standard Poodle. I currently have a small standard Poodle (about 45 pounds), and he's a perfect dog, much more attuned to people than previous dogs I've had. Miniature and standard Poodles don't shed, tend to be athletic but not overly energetic like Jack Russell Terriers, affectionate, and very people-oriented. Lab mixes from the shelter are also good bets. Most shelters operate with trial periods for adoptions so that dogs can be returned if the match isn't a good one. I second this e v a l of Jack Russells and Airedales. Airedales come in two types: most are about 24-28 inches at the shoulder but the large ones may be as tall or taller than Goldens. You have to be sure you get the right type. Another smallish dog that's athletic, energetic but not crazily so, good tempered, and people-centered are Australian shepherds. Aussies are medium sized, forty pounds or so, and some strains are even smaller. They're smart and focused but not nearly as much as Border Collies so they're trainable but they don't have the strong instinct to round up and/or order their world the way Borders do. They generally make much better family pets than Borders because they don't get bored.

I have several kinds of feeders of different types filled with black oil sunflower seed, nut and fruit blend, peanuts, and suet which attract sparrows, house finches, chickadees, woodpeckers (downy, hairy, and occasionally red bellied), slate-sided juncoes, nuthatches, cardinals, and bluejays not to mention those feeder pests starlings and pigeons. In warmer weather, I feed sunflower seeds and nyger seed, but I get lots of birds all year around because I mostly maintain a bird-friendly yard with no pesticides, water sources (an artificial pond with waterfall and at least two birdbaths), food sources (choke cherry trees, lots of brightly colored flowers, berries, and weedy areas) and shelter (a row of arborvitaes along the north fence line). I get lots of doves, robins, hummingbirds, and goldfinches as well as some unusual visitors during migrations like evening grosbeaks and orioles. I've occasionally even had young goshawks hang around in my yard for a few days in the fall because of the smaller birds that come to my feeders.

This post is nonsense. How exactly does a team develop two great QBs at the same time? Are the QBs alternating snaps or games or what? And how would a team even know if both were busts after only one year if they were constantly being shuffled in and out of the line-up? I suppose you were one of those who declared Jared Goff a bust last season or have annointed DeShon Watson the greatest QB of all time based on his limited rookie season.

Not unless the second QB was the BPA in the 6th or 7th round because the Bills have too many holes to waste picks.

That's what many fans thought about the 2011 and 2012 drafts, too. They were howling because the Bills didn't draft Blane Gabbert or Christian Ponder or trade up to get Robert Griffin III. Aside from Newton, Luck, and maybe Tannehill (depending how you view him vs Dalton and Cousins) the best QBs from 2011 and 2012 came out of rounds other than Round 1 (Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins).

What if there's no franchise QB to be had???? You, like so many stubbornly delusional Bills fans, apparently assume that all the Bills have to do is draft a first round QB and voila!, he'll turn into a franchise QB. Don't bother to deny that that's your assumption, either, because your own words betray your feelings on the subject. The Bills tried twice before, in 2004 and again in 2013, to take a first round QB just to take a first round QB and suffered disastrous consequences. Face reality: if the Bills draft a QB in the first round in 2018, they won't be drafting another first round QB for at least four or five years unless said QB is a bust, so they better make their QB pick a good one or draft somebody else. Drafting the wrong QB is worse than not drafting any QB. FYI -- Among the FA QBs, probably the only significant upgrade to Taylor is Cousins. As a FA, he picks where he'll sign, which is very unlikely to be the Bills. Franchise QBs are rarely to be found in FA. Among the QBs in the draft, it's entirely possible that even if they want to trade up, the Bills may not be able to find a dance partner. In both 2011 and 2012, there was no way Carolina or Indy were ever going to trade out of the #1 pick. No QB in the draft comes with a guarantee ... and outside of the #1 pick, it gets dicey even for first round picks. Of 27 first round QBs taken since 2000 outside of the #1 pick, only 10 have been long-term starters on at least a level of Jay Cutler, Sam Bradford or Ryan Tannehill. That's still only about 1 out of 3. Pretty shabby odds.

How many teams has Bradford been healthy enough to take to even a winning season? Not many because he's missed all/most of 4 seasons in his 8 year pro career. Bradford can not stay on the field, which is exactly why Case Keenum became the Vikings' starter. When he's on the field, he's basically a game manager type QB in the same mold as Tyrod Taylor ... or Alex Smith prior to 2017. He's one of those first round QBs who keeps getting starting jobs because he hasn't totally crashed and burned ... because he's always hurt.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not impressed with comparisons to a future draft class or a draft class in which only 1 first round rookie QB distinguished himself ... and that for only part of a season. Generally, drafts yield 1 franchise QB no matter how many prospects are taken in the first round, and usually that's the guy who's clearly head and shoulders better than any of the other QBs.

Exactly this. Maybe more star QBs would come out of other rounds if the QB position was such that more than 1 QB regularly played in games (such as DL rotations or RB substitutions) but that's not the nature of pro football. Most of the truly successful QBs who've come out of later rounds in the last 16 years were drafted lower for reasons really unrelated to their ability to play QB (ie, usually short or slightly built), and they benefited from being given real shots to start fairly early in their careers.

This. Go high or stay at home is the best way to get a QB. The number of #1 picks who have been busts over the last 16 years number just 2: 2002 - David Carr and 2007 - Ja'Marcus Russell. All the others have been at least modest successes: Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Alex Smith, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, and Andrew Luck. Jameis Winston (2015) and Jared Goff (2016) appear likely to be at least modest successes, too. I would add that being the consensus #1 pick in the entire draft regardless of position is important, too. I would only trade up to the #1 pick for that consensus #1 pick because that means he's the best prospect hands down. Of the successful #1 picks I listed, only Eli Manning and Alex Smith were not the best QBs in their draft class, and only Manning was a consensus #1 pick ... but he was in a generational QB draft class which will likely include 2 HOF QBs, and maybe 3. There is no QB in the 2018 draft who is the consensus #1 pick. In fact, there's no consensus on who's even the best QB since all of them have significant flaws. It's not like 2011 or 2015 or 2016 where there were two outstanding QB prospects that were clearly superior to all the other prospects, regardless of position, but maybe not necessarily to each other. That makes 2018 the wrong year to trade up very far to get a QB. Giving up 1 draft pick to move up to grab a QB they really, really like might be an acceptable risk. Giving much more in this draft to move up for a first round QB is playing Russian roulette.

Totally agree. What defines "success" is key, and it's very different for first round QBs than for fifth rounders. QBs taken after the first round are generally taken with limited expectations, ie, backups, and the lower round, the lower expectations. Guys like Cassel and Fitzpatrick who eventually make low level starters are probably "hits" whereas first round QBs like Leftwich or Sanchez who were also low level starters are probably "misses". It's why I wouldn't try to calculate/compare success rates for first rounds vs any other rounds except for limited criteria. For me, the minimum definition of "success" for any QB would be minimally a decent starting QB on the level of a Cutler or Dalton or Tannelhill, somebody who is ranked among the top 15 QBs over several years, and occasionally making the Top 10 QB list. Of course that's a pretty low standard for first rounders, especially guys taken at the very top of the draft. For first round QBs, I think anything less than being a "franchise QB" makes a QB a "disappointment" since the expectations for first rounders are so high. A franchise QB is usually included in the Top 10 QBs statistically. He also doesn't just put up stats but demonstrates leadership and "clutch" ability by making plays with some regularity when needed to win games rather than throwing INTs that contribute to losses. It's the intangible factors that separate Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan or Russell Wilson from Jay Cutler or Andy Dalton or Ryan Tannehill. I also don't think QBs with less than 3 full years (48 games) should be called "hits" or "misses" unless they crash and burn early (Manziel). By my criteria, both Mariota and Winston are still in the "too early to be sure", but I do agree with your assessment of Mariota and Winston so far in their careers ... and I totally agree about Tannehill. He's one of those QBs who's too good to just let go but not good enough to win with consistently IMO. Bortles is another one like that, and I think those QBs are probably even worse than outright first rounders who are busts since teams are reluctant to walk away from first rounders unless they're clearly busts. There's no comparison between Pennington and Tannehill. Pennington was a very good QB who was hardly a miss. His stats don't reflect his leadership or his clutch play, neither of which Tannehill has demonstrated to any significant degree. When Pennington was able to play full seasons, he took the Jests to the playoffs -- 2002, 2004, and 2006. Then when he signed with Miami in 2008, he took the Carp to the playoffs. Unfortunately, injuries, especially the one to his throwing shoulder, shortened his career by limiting his ability to throw.

Apparently you are of the "sky is falling" club. Realistically, the Giants, Dolphins, Bengals or Chargers don't seem all that likely to draft QBs in the first round because they're already paying big $$$ for their starting QBs since adding a first round QB is likely to add $5-7 million for the rookie. Plus, they likely have many other needs more pressing than getting a young QB who isn't going to help them much in the near future ... or they don't like the QB prospects as much as they like other prospects. I also can't see the Saints or Steelers trading up "a few spots" to get ahead of the Bills, either. QBs available outside of the top 12 spots have simply been too prone to failure for smart organizations to trade up to get them. Since 2000, only Chad Pennington, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, and Teddy Bridgewater have been successful coming out of the bottom of the first round. A team would be better served to take a QB in the 2nd or 3rd than giving up more draft capital for a player likely to fail, and I think that most GMs understand that. I think that Cousins ends up in Denver, with Jacksonville and maybe Arizona also possibilities, so I think it's entirely possible that one of the popular top prospects will be available when the Bills' turn comes up at #21. Then the question is whether the Bills like him enough to gamble or if they pass to take a player other than a QB that they like better.

This class isn't nearly as good as 1983 or 2004, the only two drafts since the merger to produce even three franchise QBs. IMO there's likely to be 1 franchise QB and maybe a decent starter who ranks maybe 10-15 among starting QBs ... that's about what comes out of most drafts whether there's 2 first round QBs or 4 first round QBs.

Trading up for the #1 pick before the draft is very different than trading up for the #2 or #3 before the draft. Trading up for #1, you get your choice. For any other pick, you don't get your choice.

And Favre wasn't with Atlanta, the team that drafted him, the next year. BTW, Favre only threw 4 passes with 2 INTs. Peterman threw 6 INTs in 52 passing attempts with 2 TDs including the wild card game.