Bmwolf21

Yeah it's showing in mine as well, so we'll keep our fingers crossed. Strange that the NFL Network schedules don't show it but the daily lineup does...

Doesn't show on their schedule. LINK LINK 2 EDIT: But it does show on this daily lineup schedule: LINK 7:00 PM NFL PRESEASON GAME LIVE 2008 NFL Preseason Game: Buffalo Bills vs. Washington Redskins (LIVE)

Rite Aid? Who would have guessed it? Overpriced, dirty, poor selection, can't find an employee if your life depended on it...

Damn. The DirecTV bill is already heavy under the weight of the Sunday Ticket package. I don't know if I want to add another $12/month - that might put the wife over the top.

Is there any way to get ESPNU on DirecTV without adding that Sports Pack? I want to watch some of the CFB games on ESPNU this year but I don't want to add all those other channels. Anyone have any luck getting just ESPNU?

The face looks more like Vinny Testaverde....

No, he's not. He's trying to force the Pack, to dictate where he'll line up under center this fall, he's not trying to find "somewhere" to play. There are teams that will take him, but they don't meet King Brett's standards. If he really wants to play "for the love of the game" then he would sit down with the Pack and work out a deal to a team outside the NFC North who could be a legit playoff/SB contender with Brett under center.

Is the Pack a better a team with Favre at the helm and not Rodgers? Most likely, yes. Should the Pack have to deal with BRett's wishy-washy bullschitt every offseason, flip-flopping like a politician before finally making up his mind? No, I think that game has run its course. Essentially Brett screwed around, couldn't make a decision, then when he did the Pack moved on. So now he wants to play and the Packers are supposed to drop everything and welcome him or trade him to one of their division rivals? Awfully self-serving and egotistical, IMO. Adam hit the nail on the head - Favre belongs to the Pack. He signed that contract and since the NFL put rules in place to prevent guys from trying to retire to get away from their current teams, he's stuck as the Pack's backup or he is staying retired. If you read my previous post you'd see that I never said the Pack should trade him wherever and he should just deal with it. I find it hard to believe that some middle ground can't be found - you're telling me the only team that wants Brett and the only one he'll accept a trade to is Minny? Then yes, tell him to piss off.

I'm disgusted by the grandmother's and mother's stupidity (or indifference?) but it hardly holds a candle to the feelings I have for monster that punched a toddler with a closed fist and burns her with a cigarette. It's a lot harder to be outraged by the stupidity surrounding this jackass.

Congrats!

Which proves this isn't about coming back for the love of the game and is just another example of it being all about Brett. Every year, the same BS -- "I might retire, I might not, maybe, maybe not" now he decides to retire, then a month later realizes he wants to play, unretires and wants to Pack to just give him up to a division rival? If I were the Pack I'd be telling Brett to piss off. If he was really interested in coming back to play he would work with the Pack to find alternatives to his dream job in Minnesota. I was a big fan of Favre's for a long time, but the last couple years have really tarnished his image, IMO.

Bingo. I'm not sure who else is interested, but if he's really about coming back because he loves to play, then take a trade to Tampa, to the Jests, to the Panthers, or whoever else is interested in him. I'm not advocating the Pack be vindictive about the whole thing and ship him to Oakland or the Fins, but I find it hard to believe that some middle ground can't be reached here.

I just think Body Armour might be a little, um, restrictive, for what they're trying to do on the field.

Someone should put a bullet between the eyes of that waste of oxygen and be done with it.

Do you mean Under Armour?

The only part I agree with in the whole post is the idea that these are two idiots who probably were never going to make it in the NFL, since they apparently thought playing in the NFL was a birthright and not a privilege, and thought it should be handed to them when they wanted it. But like it or not, the NFL is going to hold them up as shining examples of why the age restriction works.

Honestly I couldn't care less about the crap Clarett did. Maybe we should start a poll to determine who is to blame for Williams' situation. It's the NFL and the NFLPA; no, wait - it's the NCAA. Nope, gotta be Clarett. When does Mike Williams take responsibility for his career? Who forced him to sign with an agent, knowing that once you do that your NCAA eligibility is gone? He took a chance when the courts ruled in Clarett's favor, and the NFL got an appeals court to overturn the ruling. Williams gambled and he lost. And along the way he became fat, lazy and apparently disinterested in football. Their college situations might not be the same, but the end result of their NFL careers are - they're both out of football right now.

I don't shed a single tear for these guys, and I don't think the year off is to blame. If these guys were supposedly mentally and emotionally mature enough to handle being NFL players, then they would have gone somewhere - one of the agents' training compounds, for instance - and kept their noses clean and worked hard until they got into the NFL. Instead they hung out with the wrong crowd, didn't train as hard as they could have/should have, and they screwed themselves. I agree that the NFL should have honored Williams' draft status. That being said, I cannot believe that Williams was not warned by anyone that if he signs with an agent and the NFL gets the courts to overturn the earlier ruling that he'd be schitt outta luck. Neither of these players are blameless, but the NCAA and the NFL get more of the blame.

I don't disagree about the NCAA (as I posted above) but Williams and Clarett's failures essentially reinforced made the NFL's argument - that younger players should be excluded from the draft and NFL because they aren't physically, mentally or emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibilities and demands of the pro game. I don't see where the NFL gets "blame" in this. They didn't want either player in the draft, and IIRC only let them in after a judge ruled they couldn't bar him from the draft, but that decision was reversed on appeal.

The NCAA is another group of flaming jackasses who seem to make decisions by spinning a "wheel of outcomes." No consistency in their arbitrary decisions. I thought it was the Jags...

Another "I'll challenge the NFL's draft age rule and show them I can play in this league" youngster who fell on his face in the pros. All he and Clarrett have done is given the NFL more ammo to support their minimum draft age rule.

Finally got to see it Tuesday. Loved it. Couple thoughts (and since the movie has been out for a few weeks now, I'm not masking anything in hopes of hiding any "spoilers." If you haven't seen it, then read on at your own risk, although my comments here are generic enough that they don't really give anything away): -- Maggie Gyllenhall/Rachel Dawes was uninspiring throughout the movie. The role was bleh, and the actress is incredibly plain looking. I've Googled her to see if there were any pictures of her anywhere in which she looks attractive, but I've come up with nothing. I don't need a supermodel ADA, but she's about as attractive as Kirsten "Snaggletooth" Dunst. I would have much rather seen Mrs. Xenu back as Rachel. -- Ledger's Joker was amazing. I can't even express how good I thought his performance was, and I really like that he didn't turn into a whiny beyotch at the end of the movie like Nicholson's Joker did. He was calm, cool, collected and defiant right to the end. -- I liked that they didn't go right back to the BatCave and Wayne Manor like nothing happened at the end of Begins.

Yeah same here. It's not the first time a family has lost their home after the makeover and probably won't be the last.

We absolutely save money. Until Acme opened up here a couple months ago we shopped exclusively at Giant Eagle, and we've watched their prices blow up over the last couple years, and they seem to have blown up faster than other stores/inflation. When we come home we can shop at Wegman's and pick up a lot of stuff much cheaper than we can get it here, but we never have that kind of luck with Tops and their prices. As for the view of Tops/Wegman's - I do think there is a divide on both. I can't speak for Rochester-area people, but my impression is that Buffalo-area people feel like Tops is more expensive and got away from the stuff that made them successful, especially when the Dutch company owned them. I mentioned in a previous thread - I worked at Tops for almost 10 years, but when Wegman's started establishing themselves in the Buffalo area my wife and I pretty much stopped shopping at Tops. As a result of Tops alienating customers with high prices, dirty stores and that Martin's experiment, Wegman's really grabbed a foothold in the Buffalo area and a lot of people like them more than Tops now. At least that's the impression I get from talking with friends and family when I'm home.

Maybe down the road I'll check it out again, to see if they've cleaned it up or worked out the bugs, but for right now you can add me to this list. Color me unimpressed.