Crap Throwing Monkey

When you're not busy trying to convince everyone he won't. "Yeah, I think he sucks...but I hope he doesn't." It consistently amazes me that I'm the one diagnosed as mentally ill in this crowd...

Ooooh...tape number 7001!

Try starting here. If you can get his military records, you might be able to track stuff down from there. Another option might be Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis; if you're on good terms with an attorney who has access to NC case law, they might be able to find the criminal case, presuming there was one. Other than that...I don't know, maybe call the NC state police and ask them what, if any, process there is for researching old homocide investigations...presuming the crime was committed off-base, otherwise it probably falls under military justice, and your best starting point is military records.

No. You're saying he had nothing to do with the failure of the play. I merely suggest that's not only not demonstrable, but given Losman's penchant for staring at a single receiver, may very well be fallacious as well. And sorry about the big words. Hope they didn't confuse you too much.

Losman, when he doesn't set his feet.

Yeah...but I'm still taller than you.

I have a plan. Let's let Losman worry about it, since it's his name we're talking about. If he doesn't have a problem with it, I don't.

So because it worked, it's okay, even though it's bad play...and even though the flea flicker DIDN'T work, largely because the defensive backs didn't bite on the run and played "pass" all the way...which presumably had nothing to do with Losman staring down the receiver the entire play? Uh, okay.

So we weren't justified going into Iraq because Hussein was never a threat to dominate the region or take huge land masses, despite the mass killings and regional aggression. And yet, we WERE justified going into Bosnia DESPITE Milosevic never being a threat to dominate the region or take huge land masses, because of the mass killings and regional aggression? You either need to take more drugs, or less. I'm not sure which.

A function of youth, again. Lots of young, strong QBs overthrow receivers until they learn to control their arm strength. But I don't believe the pass to Moulds was that kind of situation.

Re: staring at receivers. I just watched him do it again, TWICE. The flea-flicker to Reed, he stared at Reed from the handoff through to the throw, taking his eyes off him to make sure he caught the pitch-back. Then on the following play, on the out to Reed, took the snap and never bothered to look at anyone else. On a flea-flicker, that's inexcusable. On the following out...well, you CAN argue that "he took a three step drop and gunned the ball immediately on a short route", even though he didn't (dropped back, set - which was nice to see, FINALLY, patted the ball, threw0, and even though plenty of other QBs would look off their ultimate target. But the only play I haven't seen him do that in is his "scared rabbit" scamper to open the third drive. On the plus side, in that out to Reed, staring at Reed was probably the only think he !@#$ed up. It shows what he can do IF he uses proper technique instead of using his very considerable arm strength to overcome his terminally putrid technique. And overall, I'm not THAT concerned that he stares at receivers. Lots of young QBs have done that and overcome it. And now that I think of it, I shouldn't be all that surprised that it's been overlooked amidst all the JP Losman-as-Messiah worship here.

Stupidest thing I've read today. Of 32 starting QBs in the league, probably 28 have "less than stellar play". And how the hell does the writer know that Holcomb "has a great command of the offense"? It sounds suspiciously like a "let's see what I can pull out of my ass" style of writing...

That is ENTIRELY different from what I'm seeing. When the game's over, I'll rewind the tape and detail my observations. But I will say that if a schmuck like me on the other side of the TV can tell where the ball's going WELL before he throws it...well, he's probably telegraphing something then. His second drive, though, really shows what he can do with proper technique...and what happens when he tries to overcome bad technique with arm strength. He hung Moulds out to dry with that pass.

What, no one's concerned that he STARES at one receiver to the exclusion of all others? I just watched him consistently do that on the first drive against GB, and it's not the first time I've seen him do that. Fortunately, he CAN be coached to stop that...but they better cure him of that quick, as he'll be eaten alive in the regular season doing that.

You mean they're actually sticking to their programming schedule??? It's a Festivus miracle!!!

It would make sense...but at 1425 dinar to the dollar?

I don't think they track stats for dancing...

I guess the mass graves, systematic mass killings never happened. And it was not about the Kurds vs. the Iraqis... it was about Hussein invading the regions surrounding countries with no end in site... a smaller version of Hitler if you will.

50% is SO high, I suspect it's less "real" growth and more due to the recovery of capital previously unavailable in less economically stable (yes, Iraq has been less economically stable than it is now) or totalitarian times. (For that matter, it could represent the absorption into the economy of the massive amounts of aid we've provided to rebuild the infrastructure.) 3% probably represents real growth, and while arguably low for a country in Iraq's situation probably isn't unhealthy anyway. But the idea that "anything not quite as good as we expected is bad, hence failure" bugs the hell out of me...3% growth for a country two years out of an invasion, occupied by a foreign power, and fighting an insurgent/terrorist campaign on its own soil is pretty !@#$ing good when you think about it. I'd wager the banks are undercapitalized because of the inflationary pressure of 50% GDP growth. Tough to maintain a healthy reserve if your currency progressively devalues...unless they're holding Euros. Also tough to spur investment when gomers are running around blowing sh-- up...which, obviously, is precisely what they're striving for.

Actually, that's not entirely incorrect. The field of gravitational physics has been an irreconcilable mess for about forty years.

Yeah. Remember that when you B word about Iraq.

Weird article. It paints a bleak picture, but the numbers it uses are ambiguous enough to paint whatever picture you'd like. To me, GDP growth slowing from an overheated and inflationary 50% to a more rational 3% and oil exports increasing more than expected looks like a positive, not the negative the article portrays it as. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, I guess... The article, though it made some very good points, would have been more honest if it had simply said "The situation's murky".

It's the op-ed page of the NYT, so it must be God's Honest Truth.

Would have shown up in autopsy, presuming they did a complete one.

If I had money, I'd take that bet. But my wife "needs a new wardrobe". And I haven't seen this weekend's game yet (waiting for the NFL Network's rerun of it). But I'm willing to bet that the safety isn't necessarily his mistake anyway. Just because something bad happens to the guy with the ball, it doesn't mean he's the one that !@#$ed up. Could have easily been a lineman out of place, or even the opposing defense simply doing everything right, which does happen. But like I said...I still have to watch the game. There's also the problem of objectively measuring his performance for such a bet, of course. But really, expecting a sophmore QB with a full - what, eight plays of pro experience (discounting preseason, which I think is valid - college ain't preseason ain't regulation)? - to be the solution to the offense is a little optimistic, to put it mildly. Personally, I think it borders on delusional.