RI Bills Fan

That statement doesn't seem very ambiguous to me... Please tell me how those words can be interpreted differently.

Nice job of changing your post after I replied to it. But sorry, He very specifically said exactly what you claim he didn't say. Also nice job of removing your statement about the shorter completions being "just giving up."

Keep trying to defend the indefensable there Kelly. What he posted IS: "I'd rather see him wait and toss a 12 yard incomplete pass on 3rd and 9 instead of dumping it off to the RB or TE in the flat who then needs to run for the first down." What you claim he meant IS: "He means, say, if there are ten passing downs of 3rd and 9, he wants his quarterback to try to make a pass that gains at least nine yards 10 out of 10 times rather than just dump the ball off too quickly with no chance of getting the first downs. He'll accept the incompletions on a few or several of those ten plays because at least the QB is trying to get the first and has a chance of getting the first. Otherwise, it's just giving up and punting 9 out of 10 times or even 10 out of 10 times because there is very little chance of that kind of dump off gaining the first down." What I'm saying IS: I completely disagree with both of the statements posted above. It is totally ASININE to think that an incomplete pass that lands beyond the first down marker is preferable to a completed pass which is caught caught short of the first down marker and gives one of the team's playmakers the opportunity to make a play and gain the first down. It is totally ASININE to force any QB to throw ill advised passes just because they travel a specified distance in the air. It is totally ASININE to refuse to put the ball into the hands of your playmakers and ask them to make a play just because they might have to beat a defender to make that play. It is totally ASININE to hamstring your offense. Is a 10 yards catch and emmediate tackle on 3rd and nine a better option than a 5 yard catch and 35 yard run on 3rd and nine? And if it isn't than why take away the possibility by forcing the 10 yard throws? (Yes the possibility of the 10 yard catch and 50 yard run exists, but it's outside the perameters you guys set.)

I know exactly what he meant, I just think that strategy is BS. Yes I want the primary option on the play to be a route where the reciever catches the ball beyond the sticks, But the secondary option of completing a shorter pass and hoping that the reciever can make the first tackler miss is far better IMHO than just chucking it past the downs markers and hoping it doesn't get picked. OBTW there is a huge difference between getting the ball into the hands of one of your playmakers and expecting them to do something after the catch, and just giving up.

You'd rather see him throw a longer incompletion, which has no chance of picking up the first down, than see him complete a shorter pass that gives the reciever a chance to pick up the first down by making someone miss???????????? WTF???????? Please tell me that was a typo.

The problem with those of you attacking Lynch is that you try to pick around the edges and avoid the facts. When you say "obstructing justice" you mean it in the sense that you don't like the fact that he used the rights granted to him by the Constitution of the United States of America in the manner that he was advised to by his attorney. We now know that Lynch is pleading guilty in a hit and run accident after a plea agreement was reached between the DA and his Lawyer, which right or wrong is how the system works. He did not throw himself on the mercy of the authorities, which seems to be what you wanted him to do, nor did he obstruct the investigation, because he has no legal obligation to assist the investigation, but he's an NFL Player and as a result of the fame and notoriety, the DA made a decision to exert pressure on him by dragged the league and the team into it. The NFL has made it clear that reason for punishing players is that they want them to be "good citizens" in addition to priveleged athletes. But there is a world of difference between M. Lynch and P. Jones. But somehow I doubt that you can see that far from your seat on the golden throne atop Mount Sanctimonious. And just as a side note, there is an nationally syndicated article about pro football teams "taking chances on athletes with questionable character" running in my local newspaper (The Westerly Sun) today. Can you guess which Team and Players are NOT mentioned?

Tom, please try to remember this simple idea, Things that are different are not the same. The original question didn't concern the competency of the SCOTUS. The original question was more along the lines of; "Who is more competent in the area of constitutional law, the SCOTUS or DC Tom?" You obviously believe you are the more competent of the two entities. So that settles it. Who am i to argue the opposite in the face of your obvious mental superiority? Again, why should I set myself up for failure? You have pronounced these decisions by the SCOTUS to be lacking precedent, and contrary to established law, Therefore I am eagerly awaiting the SCOTUS's announcement that they have unanimously decided to reverse themselves based on your review of their split decision. Where and when did I attack you? I have complimented and congratulated you on your amazing accomplishments. I have deferred to your obviously superior knowledge of everything under the sun, moon, and stars. Why I've even briefly considered revising my opinion on the merits of the SCOTUS decisions under discussion here, based solely on your obviously superior understanding of the facts. How could any of those things be considered an attack on you?

Tom, you continue to amaze me, your accomplishments are truely legion... So now you're not only a lawyer, but a Lawyer with the gravitas to argue before and correct the Supreme Court of the United States? Wow! Who Knew? Or maybe, just maybe, you forgot to insert the phrase "Because I don't agree with the decision, in my (Supremely Qualified and Inarguably Correct) opinion" before each of the bolded parts of your quoted statement. Obviously I disagree with you just slightly, but then again I also know that the SCOTUS is just slightly more qualified to decide important questions concerning constitutional law than I am, so I'm willing to defer to their judgement. The fact that i agree with their decisions (in these cases) and disagree with the characterizations contained in your post not withstanding, please allow me to be the first person on these boards to congratulate you on your completion of law school (obviously first in your class) and your record setting score in passing the bar exam.

ML is handling it fine. You and your Self-Righteous Brothers in Arms however...

And another coffee on the screen moment courtesy of KTFABD...

If they come in the same game we'll all be happy... (TD's right? You were talking 'bout TD's weren't ya?)

Nobody believed you.

And lets not forget the best cornerback ever to play for the Bills, Robert James

What year was this? I don't remember Rick Mirer ever Starting for the Jests.

The best corner I ever saw play for the Bills was Robert James, Clements couldn't carry his jock.

And there you have it folks, absolute proof that Tom and Molson are really the same person. Take your meds Tom and the nasty Molson will fade away...

I think the "Forward Progress" rule would apply here... Lucky for us you're not a coach.

I'm confused, weren't most of you guys beating on the idiots who live too far away from their jobs and spend too much on gas in another thread not long ago? Which way do you want it? Cost of commute or cost of mortgage?

Nope it's Ed. But it is possible that DC Tom and Ed are the same person.

Yep! You posted the WSJ Editorial because you disagree with the new conclusions it draws from old data... Okaaaaay And Sirius "pwned" me... whatever that means, again Okaaaay Enjoy your victory Eryn

That is absolutely correct if you're talking about the actual Pentagon Report. However my statement was in reference to the WSJ Editorial that Eryn is attempting to portray as some new revelation which proves that the invasion of Iraq was a good decision. I disagree with that position. And I was pointing out that there is no new information in the report. Everthing it contains has been previously disclosed but now it's wrapped in a prettier package so people who want the Iraq War decision to be correct can look at it and say "See we were right all along!" Even though nothing has changed and no new intelligence information has emerged.

You not knowing something doesn't make it a new thing... Heckfire and Darnnation Boy! That doesn't even make it unusual or uncommon.

I saw it a while back, when a couple of the Neocons I work with were attempting to make the same argument that the WSJ Editorial Board is trying to make. Nothing gets you past the fact that there is absolutely nothing new in the pentagon report. Nothing! It's all just the same tenuous links which have been known for years packaged in a bright new wrapper. Nobody credible ever argued that Saddam was a nice guy or that he was against terrorism. The argument was, is, and forever shall be that the Iraq invasion wasn't necessary to the GWOT, distracted from the search for Bin Laudin, and would trap us in a useless Vietnam-Like Quagmire, all of which has been proven to be true. So Yeah, I still believe that the Iraq Invasion was possibly the biggest mistake ever made by a President and his Administration. But that's just me. If you want to chase your tail trying to find a way to justify that decision and make it all better, feel free to continue your efforts.

Hmmm... an unsigned opinion piece that rehashes every tenuous fiber of evidence for Saddam's supposed link to al Queida and in itself concludes: Convinces me that the Neocons were right all along. Congrats Eryn, you've converted me! But ya know there's still this little inconvienent fact.. The first part of that statement is undeniable, but the second part? Wouldn't they need something new to back up that statement? There's nothing new in the report. Nothing! But the unnamed WSJ editorialists know that, which is why they used the word "indicates" rather than something stronger like "concludes" or "clearly shows" or "PROVES!" So on second thought, maybe that editorial doesn't change my mind. Better luck next time, Eryn.

CLINTONS BAD!! EVIL!! NASTY!! The quoted post was an automated response brought to you by the Fred in Wacka Society for continuous nonsensical Clinton Bashing.