leh-nerd skin-erd

it could happen, but just prior to opening day, you pretty much ensure that demetrius bell or jamon meredith will cut his achilles tendon getting out of the shower at the ralph. in the ensuing chaos, he'll slip and fall in a diagonal fashion and slam into eric wood's miracuoulsly-healed shin, causing a reinjury that somehow, inexplicably was more gruesome than the first. and, as the big curly top realizes what has happened and his damn bad luck, and he slams his hambone-sized fist toward the ground, he inadvertently will crush the instep of poor andy levitre, who unfortunately wandered into the common area to check out all the excitement and hulla-baloo. I mean, why not? It could happen.

unfortunately, you are right. look. mike vick can hang with anyone he wants at anytime. well, absent the arrest and prison time he would be able to. given his prison time and rules associated with his release, he has to be more careful than a pre-arrest michael vick. given his potential earning power as an nfl player, one might logically assume he would want to extend his own personal checklist of people to avoid to include those who might pop a cap in someone's ass. we can argue all day about whether or not people should smash cake or throw cake or hit cake, and what the result should be. all the other arguments to the contrary, it seems he only needs to follow timmo's 3 Simple Rules to Multi-Million Dollar Succces for Michael Vick: 1. don't screw up again. 2. don't hang out with people who screw up. 3. don't hang out with people who might know people who screw up. after you factor out all those people, there are still tons of people left to hang out with. besides, he only needs to follow timmos' 3 simple rules for another 24-36 months or so. then, he can hang out with anyone the law will allow him to hang out with. so say i.

i am half with you here, but respectfully suggest you're missing the larger point. i think inevitably, the power brokers in this administration see the ultimate destruction of what most would consider 'the private sector' as the answer to the power they are seeking. let's be honest, in every political system, there are the haves and the have nots. the end game is simply to be on the correct side of the divide when the system breaks down.

mipplesSIX...the one flaw in your logic re: the boy who cried "wolf" is that in the old story, it was the same boy crying wold over and over and over. in the case of the buffalo bills, nix/gailey had very little to do with the decade-long drought of the buffalo bills, virtually nothing in fact. so, it's like a new kid coming in after the prior kid cried wolf. i think you have to trust your instinct and hide the sheep until the new kid proves he's a sillyheart liar. in fairness, you could make the same argument abotu regime changes as they relate to cowher or shanny or marty s. it's quite clear that organizationally speaking, past history is not a guarantee of future success (see joe gibbs and his recent redskin run). true, those names might play bettter than 'chan gailey' but that's the fact, jack. and, to take it one step further, chan's relative success in dallas might well mean that he has gone as far as he can go, and old dogs might never learn new tricks. i believe his lack of big game success (and the feeling he got jobbed a bit in the big d) might well have him coaching with a bit of a chip on his shoulder. i personally like that dynamic in play here. i'd sure love for marshwan lynch to look at it like that. though he might lack the capacity to see the bigger picture. cowher, shanny et all have been to the promised land, and while that doesn't preclude the burning desire to go back, i wonder if their committment would extend to a small market team in a cold weather climate with a team in flux right now. i also loved gailey's comments about training camp and shoebel maybe/maybe not attending. Something about "coaching the dog" out of the players that are there....please do, chan, coach the dog right out of them. so, new regime is no guarantee of succes, new tough talk means nothing until they hit the field, not having jauron there doesn't mean they will be better coached or execute more efficiently----but it is a new regime. remember that team from south florida a couple years back that benefited from a regime change? i'll have an extra large kool aid, no ice please...

if you're not looking for more ways to dislike the guy, i concur. i was hoping for a bright spot somewhere in there.

is this what it feels like when your team wins a super bowl?

this reads like a good tom clancy novel. a little misdirection, a little Moroccan flea market with the money in two separate pockets, a little international intrigue (i'm assuming at least some of the people you're quizzing for tickets must be Canadian), and anarchy and panic in the streets as the clock ticks down to armageddon. i also liked the "Its a 3 beer walk from Hammers to the stadium". good stuff.

line by line: 1. you'd think this would be the best response to suggest belicheck is a corrupt coach of a corrupt franchise and thus, his legacy is tainted. unfortunately---and don't shoot the messenger---many view it as a non-issue see your point #4). whether that point of view is colored by a desire to protect the franchise that is the nfl (my personal opinion) or not, it ain't keeping him out of the hall of fame with a decade of success. 2 and 3. i've said the same thing many times over the years, but it's irrelevant and will not impact the consensus view that bb is a hof coach. and, in fairness, brady is a great qb either way, and good teams typically "get the breaks". 4. wins do that for a franchise. 5. let's hope you're right. 6. please please please please please. i've been to gillette and seen the bills take them to the edge two times and lose games at the end. absolutely brutal. i won't go back because i can take an ass-kicking, but this bill's habit of taking it right to the end and then losing on a blown blitz pick-up or comedy of the absurd fumble on a kickoff is just too much.

i can see it going 'hangover' gangsta style. i see marshawn wondering what happened to his grill the morning after.

perhaps-and we no doubt agree that bad things that happen in foxboro are good things for us all. i actually almost ended up in a wheelchair after the giant's win in that SB. i'm a bills or nothing fan, but my father-in-law is a giants fan who always wishes me & the bills good luck so long as it doesn't impact the giants. my wife pointed that out, and my respect for him plus my hatred for the pats convinced me to enjoy the SB and pull for the g-men. i was fully prepared to be miserable. when tyree caught that magical catch from a scrambling eli manning, i jumped as high as my little legs would go. alas, i was in my finished basement, under the finished ceiling framed to hide the duct work in that particular area and nearly compressed my spine. like it or not, he's a consensus all-world coach, i fear.

i'm not sure what cake you're selling buffjeez, or what beef you have with fletcher, but you could use some work on your reading comprehension. "works hard and tries"? you wanna move poz past him when one of the specific criteria i mentioned was durability? really? i suppose if you removed missed games due to broken bones from the whole durability issue that makes sense. no offense dude, but poz missed more games in one three game stretch than fletcher missed since bill clinton was not having sex with monica lewinsky. here are just a couple random stats on the little engine who tries hard: After this Sunday he will have 192 consecutive games played which is the second most ever by an inside LB (Marvcus Patton had 208). Over 1300 total tackles since 2000 which is nearly 200 more than Ray Lewis who has the second most from 2000-2009. One of 4 active players and one of 13 players all-time with 30 sacks and 15 interceptions. One of 11 players to have 5.5 sacks and 4 INTs in the same season. Only player with at least 100 tackles in every season since 2000 solidly average indeed. the guy is a leader, and always has been.

most coaches never luck into one super bowl and one near perfect season, he somehow stumbled into his exceptional success? hit him for the cheating, hit him for being a dick, hit him for the tuck rule, but to suggest bb is only a "pretty good coach" is absurd.

check out the qualifying criteria. honestly dawg it was for effect, opinion-based and i'd challenge you to prove me wrong based on the criteria provided. at the same time, i'd challenge me to prove you wrong. we were cool at "I really like Fletcher and think he is grossly underrrated".

i think it's "the music of elvis presley"?

i remember the days of people complaining about London Fletcher and the old 'he makes tackles ten yards downfield'. Hindsight is 20-20, but that guy has got to be one of the top 10 players to have ever played the game considering enthusiasm, durability, athleticism, heart, span of career, and leadership by example. good for him. haynesworth is who he is, and if not this, something else. he is not london fletcher.

in related news, the LA NAACP is listening to every rap song written since 1985 as there are rumors some might actually contain the word "ho". no word yet on what they've found. "hole" should be stricken from the dictionary. it's racist and sounds dirty, too.

so then we go down the obvious road, huh? abortion v. a woman's right to choose v. the rights of the unborn child. sensible tax policy v. tax the rich v. corporate greed v. ultra-wealthy. secure the borders v. racial profiling v. undocumented/illegal immigrants my approach to voting has historically been to find the candidtate that stands for things that hurts me least. typically, that candidate is from the republican party, warts and all. at the same time, as i move through life and see some things that just make me shake my head----i'm really moving the the mindset you pointed out above matt. is the big picture all about just keeping the kids arguing at the card table in the basement while the adults talk serious talk up in the fancy living room. for example...i can drive home tonight, be pulled over by a uniformed, firearm-toting paramilitary type simply because i'm there. he can demand my papers, check me out in a state-sponored database that reveals many personal things about me that i might prefer not be known--and if he so desires, this paramilitary type can deprive me of my freedom and haul me off to a virtual gulag for processing. at the same time, some would argue that treating a foreign national who willfully (and in some, though not all cases malisciously) disregards the sanctity of our borders should NOT be subject to similar treatment because it's unfair and really just not nice. now, while all the debate rages about illegal immigration, the power elite in what my Grandmother derisivley referred to as "Warshington" go about the day-to-day business of taking more and more and leaving less and less. and Matt , going back a few posts, your mention of Michael Moore and his film. I disregard virtually everything that many has to say, as he's as agenda-driven as any individual on either side of the argument. BUT, i'd concur that the military sells better in poor neighborhoods than Scarsdale.

that was what i was wondering as well. i don't follow the contract issues very closely, so i have no clue. if, as was suggested he passed up on a $2mill roster bonus, you'd wonder how going out like this benefits him (pension? health care? retirement?). i suppose it could be as simple as cynical has suggested, a manifestation of his subconscious desire to transfer the stress of such an important decision to a third party----i guess we'll see. i still think it's odd as balls on a catfish.

but, cynical, what's the part about it being in the bill's hands all about? they pretty clearly want him there.

the dreaded downward thumb guy! you are 100% correct on his career, the horrible regimes, and his class up until now. i acknowledged that and defended him many times over people who thought he was a mediocre player. on this subject, i can only describe him as "classy" if by "classy" we mean he took 6 months to seriously consider his options, spent long nights thinking about his career and his teammates and his fans, and finally decided with certainty that the best thing for him to do was maybe not play football and leave it in the bills hands but maybe they could call him for a game in october if someone gets hurt. i don't see it that as classy, except maybe in a dick jauron press conference way. now--after i had time to ponder my initial response, i softened my stance a bit. if he just didn't know exactly what to say and it came out wrong, then I was a bit harsh. if he's angling to play for another team, i liked the guy enough as a player to cut him a break and wish him well----but don't beat around the bush with this kind of blather.

i've been in the camp that Schobel conducted himself with grace and calss as a Buffalo Bill. i thought he was often under-appreciated by the fan base, and was glad to have him on the team. all that ended today. it takes you until June 10th to come out with this lame-a$$ed pussyfooted commentary that seems designed to hamstring the bills and sound like you're still a decent guy to the fans? i think this is even worse than jason peters.

thanks for your thoughts. I'm a blue collar kid who has never run in the circles you have apparently run in, but i've danced on the fringes with some people who have some money. not crazy money, likely, but the $2m-$10m net asset base. At the same time, i've taken the lessons i was taught by my very hard working parents and tried to go just a little bit farther than they did (my job is to help my kids reach just a bit farther than i did, and so on). Your position is admirable. Given your education, it's probably safe to assume you're a pretty intelligent guy. My issue still comes back to the notion of what constitutes 'fair share' when dealing with a government that consumes like a pig at the trough 24x7x365. I'd gladly pay my fair share of the tax rate if equity in the system was even on the horizon. The way I see it, it's like working hard to carve out your little slice of the world just to give a large part of your money away to help good old Uncle Joe, only to find out Uncle Joe likes the ponies a bit too much, and on the way to the track he swings by the local bar and buys drinks for everyone before hitting the blackjack table. Additionally---your opinion aside, I'd bet there are contemporaries of yours (maybe your father-in-law, maybe not) who feel differently. In a perfect yet admittedly far-fetched world, the government would not be demanding the vig on your life's work day-in, day out, but certainly would let sensible, kind-hearted people like you gift your money on a scale you felt appropriate. Instead, they seize it, blow it to some large degree, and try and convince us all it's about fair share. And, frankly, it sure seems to catch up a lot of small to moderate sized familes, and I simply don't believe that's a coincidence. In Poz We Trust! Group: Members Posts: 15,036 Joined: 12-January 07 Member No.: 8,989 ############ QUOTE (timmo1805 @ Jun 9 2010, 11:20 PM) i asked in an earlier post and might have missed it---but how much extra did you send uncle sam last year for the greater good? l I didn't, but I'm not a millionaire. If I won the lottery I wouldn't take any tax deductions because I think the current rate for the uber wealthy is about right where it should be, without deductions. You are trying to twist my words to make it look like I support the government taking ALL of somebodies estate. I don't. You might as well just cut the checks directly to the poor souls rather than go on a political initiative to have the government bill you for it. It seems your distaste for government doesn't include them raising your taxes in order to give the top 2% a significant tax break. Assuming you're one of the 98%. So how much are you sending to the kids of the uber rich who've suffered the loss of money due to the estate tax? ########################## rfey--i wasn't trying to twist your words, just trying to get a better picture of where you were coming from. and i never suggested in the least that you were for government seizure of all assets, nor do i think that you are. i think you're simply misguided on this issue, but that's only because i disagree with you. i do think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and i do think it's a reasonable question when you suggest that others need to do more---what else are you doing? sorry, not a 2%er, just an average middle class American trying to make it through the world. to directly answer your question, i sent zero money to wealthy families who lost money due to estate tax. i don't recall asking you to do so, either. i didn't call out for a subsidy or an entitlement program to keep the wealthy in their bentleys. i do, however, contribute to causes i feel are just and worthy, that touch my heart, or that move me in some way. i think that's fundamentally different than the government taking a substantial percentage of my estate--should i be fortunate to be able to have one---and wasting most of it under some absurd notion that it's all for the greater good. as for what you would do if you won the lottery (hint: save your money a little bit at a time, invest wisely and regularly in your own future, and build your own brand of wealth over time--the odds of success are better than the pick 6), who can really say? i don't want to insult you because i don't know you--but who's to say you don't glom onto every penny you can using the theory "i finally got mine."

a friend of a friend of mine has a similar philosophical approach to life as rfey. someone's got it better, someone had it easier, someone doesn't do their part, someone owes someone else something more. i guess i can understand it if mother theresa says it, but "wealthy" is really a relative term. this other fellow is a CPA, makes pretty good coin, though not anything that puts him the stratosphere. his approach is that indeed, people making more than the oft-referenced $250k need to do more. it doesn't matter that they already do, it only seems to matter that they have more than he does, thus the burden must rightly be shifted to them. at the same time---when i asked him for some feedback on his personal plan to assist those less fortunate, he opted to do what comes natural to those caught in a pickle. he suggested that he couldn't possibly do more because he needed to save for the new car he liked to buy every 4 years. when i suggested that he might better hold off on that new car purchase for 6 years and give that extra money to those less fortunate----he didn't think that was so fair. when i suggested that instead of maxing out his contributions to his retirement plan, he send that extra money in to help the downtrodden--well he thought that was a bad idea too. it's an endless loop of pretzel logic, really. i think some people find it natural to see people they perceive to have more as somehow having gotten one over on them, and phrases like "silver spoon" get tossed around. the attitude generally changes when those behind rfey and my-unable-to-do-anymore-because-i-need-my-new-smell-prius start asking them to contribute a bit more.

i asked in an earlier post and might have missed it---but how much extra did you send uncle sam last year for the greater good? l

assuming you're not a self-loathing kennedy kid, you might qualify as egocentric under 3a and b, no?