Rubes

I don't know, this is truly turning into a puzzling story. Thousands and thousands of football viewers are completely dumbfounded by the lackadaisical approach the Eagles took on that drive. Time was wasted in huge chunks. Incredibly poor decisions were made. With the Super Bowl Championship on the line, the Eagles played the final few minutes like they had no interest in really winning the game. This was then compounded by the questionable onsides kick, and the questionable punt coverage afterward. Then, we start to hear reasons. Not just from anyone, but from players in the huddle. Offensive linemen, wide receivers. Making actual claims about sickness, heaving, calling plays for the QB. Still, no explanation as to why this all continued without any intervention. Why the QB wasn't benched for someone who could actually call plays. Why the no-huddle wasn't used when it clearly was called for. All I seem to hear is: a) McNabb still threw a TD pass on that drive, with 1:48 to play. b) Not using the no-huddle really isn't the reason they lost that game. c) They were up against the defending champs, isn't that asking too much? Now we are hearing from McNabb that he really wasn't sick. No heaving. No play calling from other people in the huddle. WTF? Maybe this is McNabb trying to save a little face, to avoid taking too much of the blame because he was sick at the time his team needed him the most. Maybe so, maybe not. Regardless, it still leaves too many puzzling questions unanswered, and nobody in the organization seems to have any interest in clearing things up. It's more than just McNabb and his mysterious illness, other people are saying strange things and it just doesn't add up. I am mystified.

Do they have a "negotiation" mode where you sit at a table and yell at player representatives?

Hey, maybe he'd make a good third WR instead of Reed?

That's how many people DIED from influenza in 1918, or thereabouts. It was a global disaster.

No problem...you're essentially correct regardless, it's just that you can't really compare the 400 bazillion with the 700 bazillion since they represent different time periods. Still, the point that you make is correct in that it will end up costing a heck of a lot more than it was originally 'sold' to.

Yes, but doesn't that pretty much cover everything except his stance on taxes?

I can appreciate that honesty.

No way they put the Bills and Pats on a MNF game, the only possibility is if it's in Buffalo, but even then...there's nothing to suggest we can put up a good fight against them yet, and ABC isn't going to want another game like last year's Sunday nighter. I do think the Bills and Jets makes a good matchup, though. We split the series last year, and almost pulled it out on the road. If we have a MNF game next year, my guess is this one.

I'm too lazy to go back to the thread from yesterday, or to read through any of the responses today, so I'll just wait until this question gets asked again tomorrow. And the next day. And the next...

Cool! If you like the outdoors, but prefer to live in a city, I cannot imagine a more perfect place.

Well, not that I disagree with you or anything, but IIRC it's not the "same" period exactly. The new figure takes into account two extra years (2014 and 2015) which weren't counted originally (in 2003, I believe). Of course, the cost of the first two years is much less than the remainder, and the cost of future years gets higher and higher as the number of beneficiaries increases. So it was probably just a convenient way of making it sound less expensive than it really is. But that's what this government is all about, selling their proposals using bad and/or misleading data. I just find the smirkness of the Republicans on this board amusing, considering the current Republican administration has strayed so far from traditional "Republican" ideals.

I'd be interested to hear a thorough explanation of this comment...

Who are the Beatles?

Well, it's significantly warmer and sunnier than Buffalo. We are in the desert, after all. As for the mormons, there are certainly plenty here, of course, but they make up less than half the population in Salt Lake City. Then again, I can see how people might be turned off by living among really nice, friendly, conservative Republicans. Like I said, keeps the cost of living nice and low around here.

Yes, as we said yesterday, any player can give themselves up on a play by kneeling or sliding, and they play is dead. On the other hand, I'm not sure why the clock kept running. It shouldn't have, since the play result was a turnover.

I guess they decided to change the name from the original "McDrew".

You guys really don't know what you're missing here in Salt Lake City. But that's fine with me, keeps the cost of living nice and low...

Looks like those drug rumors might be true...

Perhaps just as important as having more time for the final drive is the fact that, had they scored their TD quicker, they wouldn't have had to try the onsides kick. Instead, they kickoff deep, hopefully stop the Pats to force a punt, and they then get the ball around the 30 (or better) instead of the 4. If I was an Iggle fan, I'd be throwing up all day.

Do you have to use it by a certain date?

And this is all I have to say about that

Gotcha. Carry on!

I can't figure out if I should be praising or hating the Pats. Seems like if I do either one somebody here's gonna come out of the woodwork. P.S. I hate them

Someone said it earlier, but there was discussion a while back that, if a player is running in the open field near the end of a half or game, and it's clear he won't score AND won't get tackled or out of bounds before the clock runs out, he can take a knee and call time out immediately. Similar to the 'taking a knee' in the end zone on a kickoff.

I guess that depends heavily on your definition of "decent".