JimBob2232

While I think it CAN work, the problem is when. Nobody wants to watch football in the spring. Summer is too hot. The only other time is during the NFL season. You cant play sunday (obviously), and Saturday is also out. Basically needs to be during the week, which kills. Ya gotta wonder how Arena football can survive, even AFL2 can survive, yet a "minor league" football league has yet to. Possibly need to market it as a sort of "developmental" league. Need to put teams in tier2 markets without a team. I.E. Oklahoma City, Portland Oregon, Norfolk Virginia, Las Vegas, Heck, Los Angeles, Raleigh NC, Trenton NJ, Columbus OH etc. If done RIGHT (and im not sure what right is...) it can succede.

Gotta go with: -Michael Clayton, TB -Matt Jones, JAX -Chad Jackson, NE -Nate Burleson, SEA And I dont know if they classify as sleepers or not, since they are #1s, but are often forgot about -Donald Driver -Drew Bennett -Keenan McCardell And I wouldnt cout out Eric Moulds with Andre Johnson opposite him

Seriously though...Quinn might be available in the top 5, depending on who picks up there. San Fran: Alex Smith Tennessee: Vince Young New Orleans: Drew Brees Houston: David Carr (possible?) Green Bay: Aaron Rodgers Really, the Jets, Detroit and Maybe Cleveland, Green Bay or Oakland are the only 5 teams I an realistically see needing a QB and possibly drafting in front of us. This of course assumes we NEED a QB...which I am not sure is even the case

I agree...SF is just too bad

My 21 is bigger than your 21.

I am sorry it took me so long to see this post. This is a rather interesting situation. I am not an attorney, real estate agent or anything of the like, but I have been around the block several times with mortgage companies. I am suprised to hear you are having so much trouble with citibank mortgage. Though I have to say the most important part of buying a home is the people you surround yourself with. Build your own network, not be a pawn in a network already in place. What I mean by this is ask around. Find an agent you can trust, and then DONT use the mortgage company reccomended by the agent. Find your OWN home inspector. Find your OWN settelment agent (lawyer). Build the network around YOU. I dont know if thats what you did or not, but its really irrelavant at this point. Just something to think about going forward. You already indicated you have an attorney. What is he/she doing to help this problem out? What are they saying? If they are sitting by passivly waiting for the paperwork to fall out of the air so you can sign it and dutifully pay their fees, kiss their a$$ goodbye. A settlement agency can do that. You are not paying for a settlement agent, you are paying for an attorney. At this point your attorney should be advising you of your options. A good attorney should be giving you advice on how to handle the situation, the legalities of the buyer backing out based on the wording of the contract, and be protecting your interests (i.e. ensuring you GET the house). Most standard contracts I have seen state that you must close within X days of the settlement date on the contract. Usually this is 30 days. After 30 days, from he agreed settlement date, the seller has the right to back out of the deal. Read your contract carefully though. The ones I have seen in virginia state that the seller must give the buyer "reasonable time" for loan processing. If your states something similar, you may be in business. Here's how... IF the seller tries to back out of your contract, presumably they are fed up with the time dillemma and need to get the house sold. If your contract states "reasonable time for loan processing", simply have your lawyer write a letter stating your intent to dispute. Until the dispute is resoved, any other potential buyer will be unable to obtain financing due to pending litigation on the property. No lender will accept that risk. Make this clear in the letter your attorney writes. Unless the seller really wants to play hardball and see if you are for real in your litigation, they really have no choice but to wait out your loan processing. Its amazing what lawyer letterhead can do. In case you feel bad about the buyers situation, dont. Its not your fault. And remember this. The SELLER selected the mortgage company just as much as you did. I dont think many reasonable people would reject citibank mortgage as a lender, but if I was selling a house, I would need to be desparate to accept an offer from eloan, lending tree or other brokers I know do not perform adequate service to their customers. The problem is not you. The problem is citibank. And, while I am thinking about it, what is your agent doing? Your agent should be all over this situation. Besides you, they are the ones with the biggest stake here. They should be helping you drive to the hoop. Passively "remind" them your "brother" might be buying a house in the next year, or simply ask for a few business cards. Remind them they have a stake not only in your house, but the possibility they have of building a network. Boldly refute any claim that this would not have happened if you chose THEIR lender. Again, I cant stress enough. READ your contract. (of course, your lawyer should do the same). Are you required to notify the seller of your loan progress? If so, make sure you do. Good luck to you.

You agree to a deal with a #1 before the draft....typically.

I think he can only be offered 4 years.... Maybe if 3 more people say so, it will be true

I wouldnt go so far as to say these shows are serious news. However, I believe (the intro at least) is amung the most objective news out there. The fact that they make a complete mockery out of real news makes it more the real story than anything on at CNN. Once they get to the interviews, their bias shows (especially Stewart), but thats okay. I dont have a problem with ANYONE on CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX whoever who shows an opinion. Just make it known its your opinion and then I will choose to watch accordingly. Just dont try to twist stories to fit your point of view. By exploiting how these networks twist stories, Stewart and Colbert untie the knots and make the news more objective. Just my .02

And thats differnt than a Barbara Walters interview, or 60 minutes interview how?

Because then you still dont have 2 RBs, you still have to go out and grab a bunch of "possible starters" later on, and you dont have 2 good WRs. If you are going to go for finding RBs later in the draft (round 3 on...) might as well go balls to the wall and pick up a ton of the other guys and get 2 good WRs 1st round.

Oh, come on people! You guys kill me. a) He said it, he meant to say it, while I wouldnt be suprised to know that editing occurs on these sketches frequently, the cocaine is fun part WAS NOT EDITED (source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/24/...litics_1830819) b) Who cares! I am as conservative as they get, and I dont like wexlers politics much. But seriously, WHO CARES. The guy isnt saying he did cocaine today, or even 20 years ago (and even if he did... again, who cares). It was a joke, it was funny, it was apparently NOT edited. End of story. Some of you guys make this WAY more serious than it is.

Yes, yes and YES. Reason: Most leagues start 2 RBs. If you have a 12 team league, that is 24 RBs. There are only 32 teams in the NFL. That means there are only 8 starting Running backs in the league that will not start for one of the fantasy football teams in your league. Now consider, Green Bay has Green/Gado/Whoeverelse. Dont want to touch them Tennesse: Henry/Jones/White San Fran:Gore/Barlow New Orleans:Bush/McCallister Detroit: Kevin Jones=Scary Dallas: Julius Jones/Barber III Minnesota: Really going with Chester Taylor? Baltimore: Jamal Lewis? Or Mike Anderson? Denver: Bell or Dayne? Jacksonville: Fred Taylor = Scary. Indianapolis: Addai or Rhodes Jets: Can Martin Stay healthy? New England: Can Dillon Stay Healthy? Pittsburgh: Haynes or Parker? So, thats 14 teams that have questionable starters. Leaving 18 sure thing starters. Not getting 2 RBs early ensures you will be stuck trying to make due with Ron Dayne or Willie Parker as your other RB, and hoping to get lucky. RB/RB/RB. The only other option this year....contrary to what I just told you. You MIGHT be able to go WR/WR/RB/RB/RB if you are late in the first round. If you can get CJ and Steve Smith and then follow up with 5-6 guys on the above list later in the draft, you might be okay.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3xOocmYuFH0&sea...exler%20colbert Okay, a SLIGHT exaggeration, but hillarious none-the-less

Seriously! Check out Peters. Never noticed him in this clip before, but the dude is keeping up stride for stride with McGee (albeit, McGee is a bit tired at this point)

Hmm...completly overlooked Lonnie Johnson. As for Norwood...He is one of the most hated bills because of that superbowl. His name causes shivers to go down my spine. While he may have been pretty good overall, one play defines his career. Same with Bruce DeHaven. As for WR, Reed, Shaw and Early were tough...but I couldnt think of anyone else... Fina...perhaps you are right, he might not deserve to be on this list, but for some reason I seem to remember him getting burned over and over again by Jason Taylor...not that that makes him one of the worst, but it sticks in my head for some reason.

Yahoo has changed their homepage. For some reason the headline article is no longer REAL news. Its crap like Ice cream day, Brad Pitt, and other nonsense....

Philadelphia Eagles Their best receiver is a running back. Their quarterback still may be their best runner. At least Freddie Mitchell could talk a good game. Hillarious

Yeah, i had a hard time with that pick. Its a toss up IMO.

An opposite approach to the other thread about the best bills, lets have some fun with this one and go with "Worst Bills of the last 15 years". My Take: QB: Rob Johnson, Todd Collins, Billy Joe Holbert RB: Antwain Smith, Shawn Bryson WR: Bobby Shaw, Josh Reed, Antonio Brown, Quinn Early FB: Cardwell Gardner TE: T: Mike Williams, John Fina G: Bennie Anderson, Jamie Nails, Mike Pucillo, Corbin Lacina C: Teague? DE: Erik Flowers DT: OLB: Keith Newman, Eddie Robinson MLB: CB: Chris Watson, Ken Irvin FS: Izell Reese SS: Coy Wire K: Norwood P: Mohr (only because Moorman is the only other option) ST: Watson, Charlie Rogers HC: Greg Williams OC: Kevin Gilbride DC: ST: Bruce DeHaven Need some help!

I'd say Marcellus Wiley over Jeffcoat. And, unless your not referring to Thomas Smith at CB, i think we can replace him with someone....(Burris?)

I have Erie in Virginia. Havet had any problems, but any company can take your money without a problem. Personally, AMICA Mutual is one of the best companies out there. Excellent customer service, good rates. USAA is also very good (so I have heard). If you can get in with them. You need to have military connections I believe.

I see alot of people against this proposal, but I see no reasons why. Lets start with the facts a) Social Security will go bankrupt in the next 20 years. b) Workers under the age of 40 are unlikely to see ANY benefit from the current plan, yet are paying in 6.2% of their salary into social security. Something needs to be done. Personal accounts HAVE to be part of any social security reform. Money YOU put in needs to be there for YOU when YOU retire. Right now, money in the social security system has a NEGATIVE rate of return. How money in your account is invested is another matter entirely. Only allow it to be invested in a money market account for all I care, we NEED individual accounts. Now, the problem is this. If we start putting money into our newly created private accounts, it takes away the money available to fully fund the current system. This poses a problem. This article makes it sound like they will take many corses of action to solve this shortfall. I dont agree with all the proposals for this, but I think its a good start and a good debate to have. Once we decide to have personal accounts, the rest is water under the bridge. People have fallen for the typical scare tactic often used in politics. Privatization=bad. People will blow their money investing in Enron. Its simply not true. If done properly, the riskiest investment one can make would be to invest in a total market index fund (S&P 500, wilshire 5000 or equivalent). You pay in every 2 weeks and dollar cost average. This is NOT risky folks. If you make 40k a year, and you pay 6% into a private account, thats 200/mo. And if you could get JUST 3% real rate of return on that money (a bank CD would do), you would have over 185k in the bank over a 40 year career. If you could then get 5% per year interest during retirement, and didnt touch the principle, thats $9,250 per year in retirement income. Nearly 1/4 of your salary from social security. Again, thats IF YOU DID NOT TOUCH THE PRINCIPLE. This is pure logic (and math) folks. I cant imagine why anyone would be against this.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/teams/jaguars/index.html After the Bills cut OT Mike Williams this offseason, the Jaguars signed him and gave him a $1.4 million bonus. But Williams weighed almost 400 pounds as recently as early June. The Jaguars are very disappointed in him and might opt to cut their losses in camp.

Dont think Marv will touch him...