Fan in Chicago

From recent memory ... Erik Flowers.

Easy with the superlatives - remember Lonnie Johnson ? Unless you meant first round busts ...

I agree on the financial part but ML is sticking true to his 'character guys' comment. And I appreciate that. Stick to ONE strategy and be true to it with your actions.

Did you miss my sarcasm emoticon ?

Prisco is an idiot. NC is poor in man coverage, can't defend the big pass play, is past his prime, sucked in the Miami game and thinks too much of himself. These sportswriters go just by big names and don't know their facts. Who pays them to write this cr*p ?

Please name the second purpose

Thanx, Rubes. So teams cannot get around the cap issue by simply paying a huge signing bonus. It makes sense. Given this calculation, I am now even more baffled about how Indy continues to pay their 'key' players so much.

Stupid question of the day - do bonuses count towards the cap ? Else, $16.5 million/5 years amounts to $3.3 million/year and if our cap space with some cuts is in the $11-$12 million range, his price is affordable.

Thanx. you are correct - no sense spending that kind of money for him. But, if he spends a Day 1 pick on a corner, our line needs better have been addressed by then.

So much the more reason to retain Moulds. Good question about salary cap. Does it say if all the 40MM is in salary or includes bonuses ?

Don't know what the going rate for Law would be, but I really wouldn't mind him on our team. That will cement the secondary (assuming we don't trade NC) and can go after pure line(s) help in the draft and rest of free agency. No to Fiedler. If we are going to get a #3, might as well be a low draft pick.

Nice ! I especially like it that they will be trying to work out a long term deal. Somehow I suspect, TD would have let NC go for the same reasons as he did Pat Williams. Oh well, TD ain't here ....

The issue here is not him wanting to be here or his salary - it is his mental toughness. He is not worth any amount of money if his heart is not in his play. Mental issues are tough to modify unless by a Phil Jackson-type motivator/psychologist or in the event of a life-changing incident. As a side note - he may want to be a Bill because he either knows the market will not value him much or is just to lazy to go out evaluating other opportunities.

Dang it ! So did I. And I am not a Marine so just a unadulterated dumb-ass !! Should have listened to my third grade teacher.

Aah don't worry nobody here is feeling bad for him, just for the dolfins. oh wait .. nevermind ...

As this thread seems to have been hijacked anyway, I will feed it further. I think marijuana, or heck drugs even, should be legalized. While I agree with your last sentence, I don't see why the government should spend so many $$ in controlling drugs. Looking at it from an economics stand-point, legalizing it will drop prices, go a long way in destroying drug cartels, reduce crime and save a bunch of law enforcement money/effort. Will this cause social problems ? Possibly for a while they will increase till they stabilize in time. Society has programs to discourage use of alcohol and drugs which can continue anyway. Also, organizations, such as the NFL, can continue to enact and enforce rules against personnel that consume these substances. It is not much different, philosophically, than showing up for work drunk. I think the illegal status of drugs is a political issue which no one dare go against. Back to the current RW issue - he should be suspended for life from the NFL. He is a repeat offender and should be treated according to the rules. Sc*mbag !

Don't agree. I totally subscribe to the free market theory but do agree when the government intervenes to help the health and security of its people. Also to a certain extent, support for upcoming technologies is good as corporations would not risk shareholder wrath for putting money towards a new technology that can pay off in 10 years as opposed to the next year (e.g. biofuels, alternative energy sources)

Not a valid argument - raw material is taxed and so is any end product so no reason why oil and gas out of the ground should be any different.

I am a bit confused. First it says that royalty relief triggers stop at oil prices above $35 but were waived for leases granted in 1998 and 1999. That means leases granted before or after that would still be subject to royalties if oil is above $35. Then the article calculates the loss of royalties based on $65 billion worth of oil and gas. For this value to be true, a heckuva lot of licenses must have been granted in 1998-99 and those wells must be incredibly productive. I cannot believe this is true. Something in the NYT calculations is askew. I am a oil industry apologist normally, but this time I am with the philosophy of the article that the industry should get no sops for exploration and production of both oil or gas as the robust demand will let them reap a lot of money anyway. No reason to help them out. Actually I don't agree with the sops even at prices below $35/barrel but that is a different argument.

It is not so black and white (nothing is). My wife are certainly not dumb when it comes to protection against an unwanted pregnancy. As I said in an earlier post, a contraceptive method once failed and she used this pill. It was much better than waiting anxiously to see if that accident caused her to be pregnant and then going for an abortion. Her mental trauma of going through an abortion would have been incalculable. I do agree with your last statement. Note that not all unwanted pregnancies are due to rape or promiscuous teen behavior.

I have not read the entire thread, but agree with this one. My wife did have to use this pill as our contraception method (condom) failed on one occasion and she was ripe for a conception on that day. Availability of a prescription drug should not be a demand-based stocking idea. For all the great supply chain solutions that Walmart has perfected, they need to apply those principles to consumer goods only such as shampoos and toothpaste.

Did you miss a sarcasm smiley on that sentence ? He was part of the line and hence part of the problem.... I know the line has to work together, but my feeling is that he pulled down their performance rather than pushed it up (which is what would classify him as 'good')

If someone before us picks a player we wanted (Ngata, Williams), then we can trade down. Else we stay put. As for another 1st for NC, that will certainly help. But we will have to either expend FA $s or another pick to replace NC and that changes the dynamics. As we are going to a Cover-2, we better have a damn good secondary and some half-way decent depth at those positions. Don't let NC get away just to save a few dollars and get a #1 pick. A bird in hand ....

Really ? http://www.superbowl.com/history/boxscores/game/sbxxvii

Fabulous post ! I agree completely.