N.Y. Orangeman

I still think we have the athletes to compete with Florida. IMHO, it was just poor coaching and poor execution. You have to love Ginn getting during the celebration...fantastic.

Ok, thug, just remember-you'll always get what you deserve...

Peter King on Inside the NFL said what makes this tragic is that DW did the right thing that evening: 1. He hired a limo (no DWI), 2. He was not armed, nor was anyone in the limo; and 3. When confronted with a conflict, he walked away.

Actually, up until this year, his only injury was a broken ankle in his freshman year.

Is he worth consideration in the 2nd?

I don't think that is a fair assesement at all. I'm guessing you did not see the Florida game, where he played with a torn bicep when he was advised not. It was incredibly gutty. IMO, he's exactly the kind of guy Marv is looking for when he mentions character.

These sanctimonious posts about doing the right thing and not going to scary/gang-ridden places (sarcasm) places are a bit much. Not one of us knows what happened that night yet. Until this information, it is a much wiser course to withhold judgment....then you can make these posts with much more credibility.

Wow. I'm speechless.

This is a win-win situation. If we win, we finish .500. If we lose, we jump up 7-8 spots in the draft (which is important, despite claims to the contrary)>

Please. While you don't agree with my point, do me the favor of conceding I can articulate a thought on my own and I'll concede your ideas come from a source other than the usual libertarian pundits. To answer your question, no-each state should not get back equally what remits to the federal government through its citizens. You, as an Alaskan, benefit by having a greater receipt of tax expenditures that you would otherwise have but for the Federal government. These benefits are in the roads you drive on, the services you receive, etc..

Accepting it is volition enough (as we agree, he should). He's attacking government programs on the board, in particular, one that serves as a safety net for the elderly, widows and orphan. On the other hand, he strongly advocates for Alaska's share of federal appropriations due to its strategic importance and it relative youth within the construct that is the U.S. (both valid points from where I sit). However, I don't think you can have it both ways: railing against the Federal goverment programs. I firmly disagree with your statement of SS. While you can make an argument that privatization in some form, . He implied (and correct me if I am wrong) he believed SS should be terminated in its entiretly. Big difference. It is a broken system, but it has done an incredible amount of good since its inception. While you and others of our ilk who are capable of investing over, many can't or don't have the means to. I fully agree some programs aren't helping people, but SS isn't one of them.

Does it when he is accepting the benefits of such a system and arguing on behalf of it to the extent it benefits him and those who are similarly situated, while, at the same time, decrying a program that benefits everyone (SS)? Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Actually, I know "WTF" I'm talking about as well. Alaska, as a state, receives two federal dollars for every one dollar it contributes to the tax roll. You benefit from this, direcltly and/or indirectly. Also, as an Alaskan, you receive around $1200 just for simply being a resident of Alaska. Please correct me if you have different figures.

My point is that he, as someone who is one of the bigger beneficiaries of government programs (state and federal), is attacking government programs as promoting the welfare state. While moving would be ridiculous, he could chose to not cash his fund check. That's a bit less drastic, isn't it? In reality, I don't think he should do this, just as he shouldn't be advocating the cessation of the subsistence payments to the elderly, the widowed and the orphaned--sounds a bit different than the "welfare state" doesn't it? That being said, I'm regretting making this personal as to him, as this could be any crazy Alaskan advocating the cessation the SS program.... If I've offended, my apologies.

Soundbytes? Nah. Facts, Darin, facts. Actually, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your attack on government programs, while you, as an Alaskan resident, are a prime beneficiary of both state and federal programs. Sorry, Darin; I enjoy your posts, but it is what it is.... To think that SS has somehow stunted America or weakened it is absolutely ridiculous. You can throw around buzz words like welfare state and the like, but as someone of intelligence, you know it is something much less dramatic and beneficial on the whole. As for attacks on Alaska, I'm not into them. I'm more into attacks on hypocrisy of your argument concerning SS and other beneficial governmental programs. And again, for the record, I am a Republican (before I get painted with some brush).

True, but they usually don't criticize programs like SS so loudly...

It is kind of funny listening to the resident Alaskan argue against government programs. I'm sure you still cash your Permanent Fund check and drive on the roads others in the lower 48 pay for..

Actually, the difference is that Seattle never made that promise to Jones or Jones agreed to waive the clause.

I'm not sure I understand your point on Walter Jones. If you want to keep believing that, go ahead. It is ridiculous to think that an agent would take a team at their word on such a huge issue that is literally worth tens of millions of dollars.

On the face of it, it is a ridiculous proposition. More to the point, any agent/attorney would be guilty of malpractice/violation of NFLPA policies for not putting that into the contract. Look at the Poston situation with Arrington as an example of what happens when advisors don't adequately represent their clients--they get suspended for prolonged lengths.

I think its kind of funny that people are assuming that Nate's agent didn't put a clause prohibiting any kind of tag being placed on him into his 2006 contract. Nice thought, but not plausible..

Letting him go is a ridiculous step backwards for a team that should should compete for the division title next year, especially when you consider their current cap situation.

I'd respectfully disagree. While Hansen benefited from having Smith, I think Hansen was on of the better DE at defending the run of the last 15 years. IMO, he was a better all-around player, but a lesser pass rusher when compared against Schoebel.

He may very well be one of the more underrated players in the NFL, but what kind of a jackass makes that statement to a national publication. He looks pretty stupid, if you ask me.

Youbouty was raw his Junior year at OSU. He needed one more to work on his technique and his overall understanding of the game. We need to consider this year his senior year, next year his rookie year and expect a major jump in 2008 IMO.