Spiderweb

I really like Williams blue collar work ethic, but heck keep in mind that he has been a integral member of the leagues worst run defenses in the league for multiple years now. I thought after 2009, we could not get any worse against the run so why not try a 3-4. We were worse. Williams is not a run stuffer, but more of a penetrator and as penetrators go, he's light years less effective than say Sapp, or Randle, or even Sam Adams was. It almost sounds like I don't like Williams, I do, but I can't help from remembering many a run between him and Edwards, and him and Schobel the year before. Our LBs didn't help much, but I'd like to see him not getting pushed out of a hole a sight more often.

A rather poor attempt at spinning the issue. Reasonably well run companies do make profits year in and year out. Sure, they're are some exceptions from time to time, but profitable years far exceed non-profitable years. I could have cited others, but I began with Exxon and GE both as as having not paid any income taxes, while being very profitable, and even worse, GE claimed 1.1 Billion in credits. Yes I have issue with this. I also have issue with "trickle down" economics, often spoke of in years past as Voodoo Economics, Regan-nomics, those very same policies championed by our own Jack Kemp (may he rest in peace). Promises of greater profit to a company, leading to or because of greater productivity, resulting in better wages for the employees simply has never materialized. Those dollars were totally absorbed by the top 1-3% of the income earners. The middle class over the past thirty five years or so has lost more than a hundred dollars a week in inflation adjusted wages. It's long past overdue to put this myth to rest. I would also submit it's long overdue to put another myth to rest, which is that the top 1% are the job creators and we must ensure they get tax breaks to spur employment growth (thru investments of the top %). That as well as not worked. We do however have many jobs in both manufacturing. software, and services that have been shipped overseas eliminating jobs for USA citizens. Again, the only profiteers of this has been the top 1% or thereabouts. When a nation's top employer is Wal Mart, low wages, very limited benefits to no benefits, it is not signaling good times for the huge majority of citizens.

It's a matter of balance. Their rates should be lower as the small businesses, unlike the GE's and Exxon's cannot write off what they do or structure themselves off shore (taking jobs away from the USA by the way), end up paying considerably higher percentages. Lower the rates, even considerably, but everyone has to pay. Everyone wants a strong Defense, roads, bridges, police, fire depts, most want schools, reasonable health care, etc., etc., etc. It all costs money. As a note, profits haven't correlated in more jobs in a long long time. Where there is a direct connection is with the personal incomes of the top 1% of individual incomes. From making 8% of the total income in the USA 35 years or so ago, the top 1% now makes 23 % of the total annual income and that's growing (exceeding inflation), whereas the middle class has lost approximately a bit over $100.00 a week in incomes (inflation adjusted) during the same 35 year approximate period. Jobs? Our business moguls have exported more jobs overseas and those taking their place are from the likes of Wal Mart, our number one employer. That's sad.

Yet another misinformed. While I agree wholeheartedly that the NFL should not receive one time of taxpayer money, you really might wish to consider what others pay in taxes around the world. The USA is actually on the low end individually. Where we have higher rates is in corporate rates, yet this isn't very meaningful when companies like Exxon and GE (and a host of others) paid nothing, zero, nada in 2009. In fact while GE paid zero, they also gained 1.1 Billion in credits. Our corporate rates should be lowered, but to pay ZERO? Tax rates

I would have to debate that Joe Ferguson's rookie year was of any redeeming value, even for a rookie. He had a 44% completion rate, less than 12 passes attempted per game, 4 tds against 10 interceptions, and a QB rating of 45.8. Yes, he was reasonably proficient in handing off to OJ and Braxton though.

A bit shortsighted, or maybe you are a cruel person. I would ask then how would this type of arrangement effect those already retired from the game, with their physical well being already in serious jeopardy? Let not forget their contributions to building the game into what we see today, and their lack of having been recipients of a pay scale system today that might be to afford your premise, without getting into additional flaws in your premise. I must admit a bias against a system that's a throw back to a day when no one cared about anyone else but themselves. That's a dangerous system bound to fail as we are seeing around the world today, and throughout the history of mankind.

Whether the NFL is or isn't similar in operation as would be a socialist society didn't need to be interjected into this discussion, unless you feel so inclined to take every opportunity, cheap or not, to make your political statements. To say the idea proposed by the OP is wonderful (and here's why) or it is preposterous (and here's why) would have been far more contributory and civil. Personally it seems more than a bit misguided.

That swings both ways. To those who go to the polls, the responsibility for our national debt (approximately 80%) should be born by those who have voted for Republicans. Regan virtually created deficit spending. In his 8 years, he manged to more than triple our national debt, a debt to that point had taken over 200 years to accumulate. Daddy Bush continued it. Then the bell-whether of them all, GWB added in the neighborhood of 5.5 trillion to it. To vote for Republicans on the basis of debt reduction is a classic example of insanity. To do the same thing over and over, but expect a different result. The GOP has absolutely no problem with debt so long as those dollars are going to the rich and big corporations and not to the common man/women.

One could throw in society as well. While it could be argued that the children, the parents and the government comprise society, i would submit it takes on a bit of all the entities and forms a life, a force of its own. It's a combination of the feeling of entitlement, built upon parents who wanted better lives for their children but haven't instilled responsibility and a work ethic in their children, and to a lesser of the government giving them something for nothing, for which most have yet to understand or take advantage of. The clash of the hard right and the way out left where ideologies are held as sacred and lost is the ability to reason, compromise, and understand not only the position of others, but even the understanding of what your own ideology means or having the foresight to see what it will lead to. "Adults" today can't get along, find common ground, or even attempt to work together for the benefit of all (the rich, the poor, the middle class) so as a society do we have the right to expect anything but indifference (or worse) from our youth today? None is so blind as those who will not see is the idiom to describe the political state of our country today as well. Our children are mirroring what we have perpetuated or created.

"f'n"? Reaching for words? I have to give credit to Right-wingers credit, they're consistent. Whenever anyone disagrees with them, out comes the "liberal" tag. News flash to the right. Calling someone a liberal is only an insult in your own shallow, heartless, immoral right-wing world. Strange how those who actually think for themselves, have the capacity to think a bit more progressively, and care about more than themselves are the bad guys. Yet those who fall in line with the right, heel to toe, without thought and a clue, are the good guys. Strange days indeed. Instead of working towards greatness and a better life for all, the right is fixated with making every one as miserable as they are (except the rich of course) .

Typical right wing spin and attacks throughout the replies here. The message Taibbi spoke of rings true. But, when there are those who take to heart the words of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the Fox "News" pundits, there becomes little hope left for the middle class. They have been fooled, hoodwinked , betrayed with a sound bit or two, and will one day wake up and wonder how their "boys and girls" let them down. Unfortunately, those of us who actually seek information from multiple sources, comparing as many points of view as possible, and manage to sort it out, realize the right has sold each and every one of us off to the rich.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: I used to enjoy Miller, that is until he did NFL Monday Football. Now he's slid further into the abyss of the right-wing.

You couldn't resist the political crap?

Did anyone watch Real Sports on HBO this week? It had a significant piece on Victor Conte (Balco). At one point in the interview from what appeared to be Victor's office or home, behind Victor was a signed 90's Blue number 90 jersey. Sure looked like Hansen's, but not quite sure as I didn't catch Hansen's name on the Jersey....... Just saying.... (Phil Hansen was one of my favorite players through the 90's....)

What Moats did do last year, was to show he has possibilities and potential. You are very correct in that he did not set the world on fire. If our other OLB's weren't so horrible, I don't believe he would have been looked upon so favorably by some.

It should have year many, many years ago!

169-170 yards per game allowed on the ground. Pro-bowler and promising second year guy did little to hold that sat back. I like Kyle Williams, but he's not a nose tackle. He's a pure penetrating DT, who might be able to play a bit of DE in a 3-4.

The uniforms presented are simple, yet classy. I often wondered if going to the red helmet actually helped our QB's in spotting our WR's or not. If they do help, then I have no issue staying with the red, but I always liked the white the best with the charging Buffalo.

Thanks, I was wondering what the heck a "drem" was.....

Fair and Balanced with the right means, "my way or the highway". They have a language all their own you know.....

Who knows what lives in the hearts of those at Fox. Heck, I'm not so sure they even have hearts.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........uh, oh, what?.....I woke up for this? .....hummmmmm.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

You said, " As far as I remember, and I was pretty mad about this, so I'm quite sure I remember it right - they never played Pat/Ted side by side in a 4-3. They were 3-4, so it was usually one or the other." Not dismissing your second sentence, but that doesn't change your first statement one iota, which wasn't correct. Out.....

Tell that to the Colts (Peyton Manning), or the Patriots (Tom Brady), or San Diego (Philip Rivers), or Houston (Matt Schaub), or actually the majority of the team in the NFL. A QB only needs to be mobile enough to be able to quickly move around in the pocket when needed.

I was thinking similarly on this as well. Our own, Alex Carrington is a big boy in the 285-290 range and may still grwo a bit more (weight wise), and he is anything but fat. I wonder if the league/NFLPA would ever consider body fat maximums? Seems, this would be helpful to the players while playing and after.