OCinBuffalo

Still not denying anything I said huh? Make sure you mop up before you leave there skippy. For the record, I have only lived in cities growing up or working, except in high school, but that was cool because I learned to play lacrosse well enough to pay for college there. Buffalo is the smallest city I have ever lived in. I haven't and won't live in a dopey suburb, and try to pretend I'm "from the city". Buddy, the women thing? Really? Hysterical. My friends/co-workers would laugh their asses off at you, I have to remember to email this around. Since there's no way for me to respond accurately, without sounding bad(or good, depending on your perspective ), let's leave it at: women seem to like men who are men, over candy asses trying to impress them with their weakness...a lot more Since cities are populated with so many candy asses... I don't know why you are complaining about using political terms...on a political message board. I have been using the term "far-right" a lot recently, if that makes you happy.

Really? I thought that only applied in cases where the asset was going to an entity instead of a person....but I guess I am wrong. Also, doesn't a gay person's beneficiary technically qualify as "not family", and therefore not subject to the normal restrictions and limitations on transfers to family members? Anyway, mark this down as the first real argument I have heard where a marital benefit either doesn't exist or can't be accomplished in some fashion. Hmmm, I went and looked this up. Had to go to a law firm's site to find it here. So yeah, they do lose the step up, but they get over on the limitations. But my point still holds: why am I looking at a law firm site to see this instead of a "Gay Marriage Good" site? Because there aren't very many. Instead, it's: "you either support gay marriage or you hate gay people". Funny how the "you're either with us or against us" mentality was only bad when Bush said it, but it's perfectly fine if the far-left says it.

Nice to see that you are still so affected....but then again, why would that change? Slow day working at your Wilson Farms-like job? Not much going on? Still pissed that you have everything in common with McVeigh, while I have nothing in common with either of you poorly raised, hick-ass, uneducated tools? Being paranoid about a 2 month old post isn't going to make you any more able to compete in this world. Time to stop blaming others for the fact that you suck at life. Time to stop demanding that we give you free schit you don't deserve. Your crappy existence is your own doing, and it's on you to change it. Chasing me around this board only makes you look even more pathetic. Damn I guess that post was even more effective than I thought. 2 months and it's still fing with you? Now that's hysterical. Ahh, the fun never stops. I eagerly await your response.

Audio Link here Lots of screaming back and forth about possibility of "extras" being at the airport instead of real fans. In regard to that: "If it wasn't on TBD, it didn't happen for the Bills...." at around 9:50 Just thought I would give them some props for mentioning this site in a positive light, especially after the 20 page thread last week. "I said D-bag, you're allowed to say it!" :thumbsup:

Bastards! Stop ruining my fun. You know I'd be there if they would have let me in. I'm planning on doing the live training camp reports the first couple of days again.

I know, I am just deflecting his sarcasm and getting back the the First day, first team work, first big throw = 45 yard TD. That's a hell of a good start.

Hey, I'm just writing what a guy who is there said. He said it was a strike, and he said he "threw it into the outstretched arms of TO for a TD".

ESPN just reported: Edwards throws a 45 yard strike to TO for a TD. Media and team doing a lot of ohhs and ahhs

For those of you going/annoyed by booers at the HOF, there is a simple solution. Whip out your cell phone cam and take pictures of the booers, post them on any of the free pic sites, and link that here and elsewhere. They want to boo? Ok, make them famous. Let's see how cool they are for booing when their friends find out, and, let the people with photoshop/etc have their fun. Doctored photos get emailed around, laughed at, and sent around some more, sooner or later somebody recognizes somebody, and the hazing starts. The tools can boo, and while I don't support some sort of physical confrontation to stop them, I do support the public humiliation of: cowards who hide in a crowd and boo, and, the classless. The beauty part is: posting the pictures is exactly as classless as booing Ralph, so it ends up even Steven. So yes, there is something people can do about booing Ralph, and the "real" reality is: there's nothing booers can do to stop it. Have fun booing.

Thanks for completely missing my point. The far-left is making up a right that is not guaranteed anyplace in the Constitution and was purposely left to be decided by the states, just like all other property issues. Then they lamely attempted to force that view on others. Then Massive Fail. I guess what boggles my mind is the final outcome = 35+ states now with anti-gay marriage laws hardly seems to be "helping" gay people who want to get married. IF I was in that group, I'd be pissed as hell = "Thanks for the 'help', idiots". You f with the bull, you get the horns. Far-left people think they can f with the bull, and then call the bull a racist/bigot/(insert bad name here) and that the bull won't give them the horns because it is scared to be called those things. What the far-left idiots don't understand is that they had already gone far past most people's tolerance for calling wolf(or bigot), and that we patently don't care what they think or say about us. The result, 35+ anti-gay marriage laws, speaks for itself. The bull gave them and their agenda the horns in a big way. The smart thing would have been to patiently explain their views at town hall meetings, campus lectures, debates etc. To encourage the religious people to engage in high-minded debate, and to take their case rationally to the American people and ask for our understanding and convince us of their position. The OP is asking their question, thus the point of this entire thread, precisely because these idiots didn't do the smart thing and tell him where they were coming from, before setting up the false choice of "you either support gay marriage, or you hate gay people".

I don't care about what they want to do. I don't feel sorry for them, nor do I feel any hatred for them. Along the lines of Dev/Null-->perhaps they need to be careful what they wish for? The fundamental problem with the entire Gay Marriage argument is this: they already have all the legal rights, or reasonable substitutes, that straight people have. Consider the "we aren't allowed in the hospital" argument: Complete BS. You can make anyone your health care proxy. Once that person is, they not only are allowed in the hospital, they are allowed to make all decisions regarding care, including life and death, same as a spouse. Making someone your legal proxy can be done verbally or in writing, and health care proxies have all of the legal rights of a spouse the instant the patient says so. Consider the "we can't inherit" argument: Complete BS. You can make your will out to anyone. And, while that will can be contested, if it is done properly it stands. Consider the "health insurance" argument: Complete BS. What insurance company in the world doesn't want to have MORE premiums? Hell all of them have already created "significant other" coverage. Why? Charging more for the gay partner, and the insured themselves, due to the additional "risk factor" of being gay, makes a hell of a lot more money than getting sued because you only cover straight couples. Also, insurance companies would much rather pay to cover your gay partner, AND KNOW YOU ARE GAY because you have one, than not know you're gay. This way, the next time you apply for insurance, they get to jack up the rates. And on and on. I have yet to hear one rational argument for gay marriage that points to a specific right gay people don't already have. Remember, I said above that I don't care either way. But, not caring and pretending like BS isn't BS are 2 different things. It's such an issue due to the following: 1. Far-left pissants decided that they were going to "be courageous" , start telling people that gay marriage was going to be acceptable and that "if you didn't agree then you were a bigot", and force their agenda on us. They hoped to score political points on those people who stood in their way. They figured they would pass laws in a couple of states, with the intent that this goes to the Supreme Court , and personally attack people for political gain until it did. 2. The far-left, being as f'ed in the head as they are, didn't count on the fact that most people think they are idiots, and that their ideas are worthless. And people especially don't like being told how to think, even in California. 3. The far-right, seeing an opportunity to crush the far-left, got their PR people moving and overwhelmingly passed laws in 35+ states against gay marriage, with the intent that this goes the the Supreme Court, but existing law would be on their side. 4. The far-right, stupidly, instead of taking their win and going home, decides to keep running their mouths every day, and suddenly turns gays into "underdogs". This country loves the underdog. Far-right idiots lose the 2010 elections based on this and other stupidity, thus ensuring that this goes to the Supreme Court, but now with some court decisions that favor the other side This ends up at the Supreme Court 9/10 times. The far-left once again foolishly miscalculated their position in this country and the Court strikes down gay marriage, due to the fact that, as I said above, the far-left cannot prove that gays are short any TANGIBLE rights. Aside from Kelly's intangible "right to feel a certain way", which isn't a right at all, the Court will find that no equitable rights to life, liberty or property are being denied by not letting gays get married, and all that will be accomplished is wasting lots of money and time.

I do not pretend to know the will of God. That's what you pretend. I worry about what I do and I leave it at that. What other people do is between them and God. If you want to talk about law, that's different. Murder has been illegal in every culture, in every religion, since the beginning. Apparently God didn't have to tell the Hindus or the Buddhists that killing=bad. I wonder how they figured it out without people like you around to tell them? You don't get to bring the sword, nor do you get to decide who is a sheep and who is a goat. That's Christ's job, and I am certain the Son of God doesn't require input or guidance from you. Sorry, but in my life, at work, in general, I tend to focus on what the boss says, and not what the guy carrying his water says. If I was concerned about theology, I suppose I would go to confession more often, since I can't find where Christ said that I had to step into a box on Wednesdays and then say this prayer, this way, this many times, or I was going to hell. Christ said homsexuality was an abomination. He did not say the people themselves were. Not a difficult concept to grasp for the sane. So if a woman who is walking home from work gets raped and decides to have an abortion, she is personally responsible for what exactly? Walking home? Working? Not being married and at home? What natural law of man did she break? Why should abortion be 100% illegal there, Mr. "I know what God is thinking"? What about the kids in my mom's class, whose mom is a junkie/hooker and whose dad is in prison nearby, who starve over the summer because they only get to eat at school, and therefore do bad in class = summer school = at least they still get to eat? What are they personally responsible for? Being Hungry? They are 12-14. What if they steal so they can eat? What if they steal clothes so they can have some sort of self-esteem/not freeze? They get caught, so now they have a record, but nobody cares one way or the other what happens to them, so why should they? They aren't bad kids, they have just realized that they don't matter at all to their parents, and that would screw with anybody's head. What natural law of man are they breaking? Unless somebody steps in and teaches them that their childhood is over, like it or not, and that they have to start doing for themselves, now, and how exactly to do that, they are screwed, and will be treated like children or punished like adults, the rest of their lives. I am happy to pay taxes for programs like my mom's because of the cost/benefit alone. Paying, locally, not Federally, for that program compared to paying for little Johnny to spend the rest of his life in prison isn't even close. That's not just cheapest thing to do, or the responsible thing to do, that's the friggin moral thing to do. It's pay a little now or a hell of a lot later, and if you can't see that, they you are retarded, plain and simple. BTW: my mom hates the teacher's union on all levels and swears that it keeps good teachers from staying and enables bad ones. WTF are you talking about in terms of "I can't see this"? All I do around here is bash on unrealistic, do-gooders(but end up being do-badders) who think that they can "wish" solutions into being because things "should" be that way. They say things like: people "should" get a "living wage" and other nonsense, but provide no viable solution as to how exactly that wage should be paid for, other than taxing money from people that have earned it and not taxing those who haven't. The difference is: we need to give = opportunity to people until they are 18. After that, driving everything off of personal responsibility is fine with me. A kid can't learn to be responsible and figure out how to get his act together, in our culture, if he's starving and there's no electricity. We're not some 3rd world country full of weed smoking trinket makers and subsistence farmers where that's ok, although the far-left keeps trying to make that happen, because "those cultures respect the earth". Wrong. There is such a concept as "nuance" and the world is not as simple as you, or the far-left, would have us believe. It's both of your child-like temper tantrums when the world acts like it is = complex, and not the way you wish it was = simple, that exacerbate our problems, not solve them. Just because you wish your simplistic, all-or-nothing, so called "principles" applied in every single situation the exact same way sure as hell doesn't mean that they do. I think you have confused the words Principle and Value. A principle, like adultery is 100% bad every day, all the time, is not the same as valuing religious beliefs like eating fish on Friday or wearing a towel on your head. You may have different values than others, but we all have the same intrinsic principles. The only people that don't are known as: sociopaths. One person may value family more than money, the next just the opposite. It doesn't make the first stupid, or the second greedy. Neither is immoral, or dumb. But, if either murdered somebody, then f them, because they denied a principle. Yeah, talking about Davy f'ing Crockett in this day and age is a sure fire way to win the next set of elections

This would matter, if I was a Republican, but I'm not, so you can blow the RINO out your azz. I am difficult for party hacks on both sides to deal with, because I demand that they deal in concepts that are difficult for their affected brains to grasp: Common Sense, Logic, Accountability, Permanent Solutions, No un-intended consequences, no make-work "jobs for votes" corruption, no phony science, no phony "charity" hiding real contempt, and especially no fake religious piety cloaking hatred for those whose only crime is that they are different. I also don't suffer fools very well, as evidenced by the tone of my post above. Let's see how foolish you are. How about you explain to me how overtly hating(what else should we call it?) gay people, instead of merely hating what you consider to be a sin, and every other sin, helps your party, when the far-left uses it to make you into boogey-men? In return, I will explain how and why the far-left agenda of forcing gay marriage on people backfired so massively. I am still astounded by their stupidity. Stupidity is a choice, and they made some incredibly dumb choices for a group of people who love to think of themselves as "smart".

This is what I am talking about WRT to the far-right. Yeah, let's ignore the fact that the far-left was able to BS their way into power by "voting for before voting against", are now on the verge of ruining the country trying to "save" failed ideas like Medicare and "Union Power", and instead waste our time on why we care if Mike touches Steve's pee-pee. Let me ask you this: when the inevitable increase in moral corruption, that is a direct consequence of socialism, comes to this country, and Mike is still touching Steve's pee-pee regardless, are you going to feel better knowing you "took a stand", even though that "stand" cost this country dearly, and created even MORE of the behavior you are supposedly against? With Rule #1 from Jesus being "treat others like you want to be treated" in mind, how in hell can you justify/glorify treating gay people, who you don't even know, like people who can't be around kids? Do you understand that every time you guys do this, the far-left gets to say "see, our retarded ideas are OK because...um...well look at their retarded ideas"? How in the hell do you think that Gay marriage/abortion/and all the rest are more important issues than weakening this country militarily, economically, and it's citizens financially? How in the hell do you think that giving away(literally just giving it away) real power to an obvious crackpot like Nancy Pelosi is "worth" your retarded social agenda? Every single time we as a country get a chance to lay a permanent beat down on socialism and end it here once and for all, you guys turn into the moles in Whack-a-Mole. Well I hope you are happy, because I guarantee you that acting like this has created the very opposite of what you intended = far-left socialists, not real Democrats, in power. How much of your agenda do you think they will support? On the plus side, they have been doing even dumber things than your "team", so hopefully their "infallible" stupidity backfires the same as yours. Sorry fellas but I have a lot of pent up frustration with people like this and it's high time they answered some of these questions.

And all this time I thought I was the only "irreverent" bastard who thinks Gettysburg is a little funny. Historical sites were mandatory as part of any family vacation, and I was goofing with my dad saying the same things my first time there when I was 15. IIRC My mom was not amused with me standing next to the bathrooms and saying "and here's the memorial to the guys who shoveled schit in the wagon train". The 12th Schit Shovelers from Vestal,NY. Love the Speer reference. And taking the sub-referenced shot at the Nazi neo-paganism. Where's the ACLU separating church and state? It's NOW Federal land, right? There can be no doubt that some people's need for attention has sent them around the bend. Mass Media Munchausen's(sp?)? I bet there are even people running around today who wish they were on one of these flights just because of the attention they would get.

I read the whole thread. Really. Interesting debate. My questions: 1. What do you all think the root cause for this predicament is? I think I know what it's not: it's not pressure from the far-left, that was after the fact because they couldn't have known the specifics about this until Obama talked about it first, it's not political cover for Pelosi, that was after the fact too, it's not dealing with a difficult issue "pragmatically" , he only started acting "pragmatically" AFTER he changed his mind. My answer is below. 2. Aren't Dems afraid of over-using "the party of No"? Marketing-wise: If you classify your competition as one negative thing, you then have to set yourself up as the opposite, and stay that way, or you look like a hypocrite, or worse, you look naive/clueless. Right now, the opposite of "the party of NO" isn't looking so hot. It will be interesting to see if the Reps counter with Dems = "the party of whatever" or " the party of no...direction". Unrelated Observation: I'm not sure Pelosi is sane after the last time I saw her speak. Objectively now, she seems unbalanced. Crazy(Pelosi) scares me much more than silly(Bush). That Congressman that called her mean and crazy...looks like he's not so far off. Perhaps it's just stress or realization that Medicare is every bit as bad as I have been saying(so yeah West Wing fans, let's use a failed program that is going to be bankrupt in 8 years to nationalize health care, Yes We Can! It's just a TV show, idiots.). Dems better do something about her and Biden, 3-4 more of these things and it's big trouble. Ultimately I think the root cause of all of this is Rom Emanuel. This "get em" mentality simply doesn't fit with Obama. I think Obama's behavior is clearly reactive, which is why he's looks indecisive. He is reacting to Emanuel's jackass political agenda, and trying to deal with it since it has blown up and created problems he didn't have before. New problems = need for taking a different position.

Yeah, but I know for a fact that NYS medicaid = prime rib and the rest of the country = mac and cheese. This is because NYS politicians make it so. As usual, the unintended negative consequence = attracting the entire nation's elderly, poor, sick, etc. for the last 30 years, outweighs positive intentions. It causes us to raise taxes and drive business away, while at the same time smugly saying things like "but it doesn't matter because NYS is elite/the best in the country at (insert service here)". The second part of that statement, the part you never hear, is "NYS is best in the country at smug hubris and driving business away from everywhere but NYC and the Island". NYS is no longer the Empire State, it is now the Infrastructure State. 30 years of the unintended consequences of those who sincerely want to do good, but don't possess the wisdom to do so properly, speak for themselves.

Innocent until proven guilty. He could just be "riding his bicycle" literally, and not in the creepy, Queen song, figurative sense.

No BS. Naples is very, very nice.

#1 are you sure? In this economy wouldn't there be a lot of people willing to finance him? So many people "in cash" right now, that's a hell of a lot of money just sitting around. I bet he could get a private placement or something similar provided the NFL allowed a "group purchase" with Golisano as the majority owner. But, I wonder if he would have to sell the Sabres to pull it off. #2 good point, maybe we should be careful what we wish for #3 What are you talking about? NY politicians are GREAT at growing jobs = make work, government union jobs that require a 9% income tax(and the 100s of other taxes) to pay for. You should be happy to pay these taxes, you are creating these jobs, and it's your patriotic duty to support "infrastructure"(make work) jobs

Lay off the acid???

We are all used to the rehearsed "athlete-speak" responses to reporters questions, "help the team win", etc. And for 99% of this video: Fred Jackson talking about his contract, that's precisely what we get. His answer about Rhodes is classic "athlete speak", same with the O line question. But...look what happens 7 minutes in: the TO question comes up. Fred's body language changes all together. For the last 40 seconds it's a different interview. That looks pretty sincere to me, or else Freddy is a master actor. So on to my questions: 1. Do you think he's really excited about TO being here, or is that an elaborate act? 2. If he really is that pumped, what does that mean? 3. How much value do you place on a guy like Fred's(a player not a coach, UDFA, etc.) opinion? 4. Is Fred right to be that excited? Just thought it was interesting how his whole body lit up when he answered that question.

The final arbiter of all stats models is: can they be used to accurately predict future results based on REAL correlations or causation? Kneeling on the ball doesn't cause you to win the game, it's the effect of winning the game. Before you can hope to suggest any kind of predictive model, in fact before you can even start any real comparison, you have to make sure that your raw data is pure, and not likely to be blatantly skewed by consistent outside influences = playing at least 9 of your games inside each year = makes people think Dante Culpepper is a SB winning QB, and then some idiot signs him to play in the AFC East(and against the AFC North that year). Sorry dude. Still laughing at Miami... However, you can make consistent adjustments to raw data, just like the Football Outsiders do. Proper statistical analysis of football can be found here. I have nothing to do with these guys, I just recognize sound statistical work when I see it. Even more important: if you are going to create a relationship between sets of data, then that relationship needs to be consistent, otherwise, all conclusions based on that relationship are a waste of time. For example(and this is just one of many examples I can give, for that certain idiot out there), KC Joyner's latest foolishness attempts to relate O line to RB success. The problems he has already built into his "model" are the relationship between Point of Attack blocks missed and Non-Point of Attacks blocks missed, and then trying to relate that data to yards per carry, with no adjustments for quality of defenses faced, and no adjustment for quality of the running backs in question. The first problem is: he is treating POA blocks the same as NPOA blocks. I think we can all agree that we have seen plenty of running plays off the Left Tackle that are completely unaffected by the success/failure of the Right Tackle's block and vice versa. KC treats all missed blocks the same in his "analysis", and QED that's a major flaw. One way to adjust for that would be to assign an arbitrary multiplier to weight the effect of missed POA blocks heavier, but I don't like arbitrary multipliers(see: why half the country always has a stats quibble with the BCS) A better way to do it would be, once again, do what the Football Outsiders do and let that multiplier be determined by the actual data itself, similar to the "defenses faced" adjustment below. The next problem is no adjustment for "defenses faced": The Outsiders use "expected" averages and %s in the beginning of the season based on team defenses from the season before, and then gradually replace those #s with actual #s, decreasing the "expected" #s weight each week. By week 7 they are using all real data. By then, the actual data is now statistically relevant, because, similar to batting average, defenses have played enough games for their #s to be reliable performance indicators. The last problem, although I am certain there will be more when KC "finishes" his "analysis", is that you can't compare 2 moving targets, O line and RBs without some way to hold one of them constant, or build a consistent relationship between them, and use that relationship as a constant: otherwise, it's chaos and means nothing. IF we are attempting to study O line quality, then there has to be an adjustment for quality of the RBs that can hold them as a relative constant. I am aware that you can't get this perfect, but you are also wasting everyone's time by treating Ladanian Tomlinson the same as Ricky Williams. Consider: "With Denver's O line, anybody can run behind them and be an all-pro". IF we believe that, then the O line is the constant, and we would measure RBs success against that O line. Consider the Converse: "Walter Payton/Barry Sanders could run behind old ladies and still get 1000 yds". IF we believe that, then the RB is constant and we would measure the O lines success against the constant performance of the RBs. The only thing you can do is compare the same RBs and their O lines year to year. But...don't we already know if the line is better this year vs. last year? There already are stats for that: individual blocks missed, sacks allowed, total offensive yards, Scoreboard, and 3rd down conversions. So again, what's the point? KC might as well be telling us that dome/good weather teams throw the ball more often and that good weather makes for better passing....oh...wait...he already did. Based on the "predict future results" test, KC's "math" simply doesn't pass...or did Tavaris Jackson not suck miserably the last 2 years?

Hooray! That's it, just Hooray!

Simple. I said pick any decade and the Steelers have been better in that decade at everything than the Pats. You brought up the 80s and I laughed at you for it, because the Pats almost got moved due to sucking so badly in the late 80s. So...however "bad" you think the Steelers were in the 80's, they were, once again, better than that Pats*. What's hard to understand about that? At no time have the Pats* been better than the Steelers in terms of coaching/developing players. I believe they just won another SB....right? Nobody is a superstar/HOF player in this league until they get coached up. You cannot name one. Even LT and Ray Lewis had to learn. The guys who "don't need coaching" = Reggie Bush. So, there's no such thing as "drafting a superstar". There is such a thing as drafting superstar potential and developing that player. Bill Belechick avoids superstar potential by trading back, year in and year out, and prefers to draft lesser talent that he can push into his system. Avoiding having to coach greatness = a great coach exactly how? I have no idea what you are asking. I am simply saying that you either pick Brady or Belechick, you can't pick both. If Belechik got lucky then, that makes him lucky, and Brady can't be used as evidence that he is a great coach. Yawn. Go back and watch the playoff games the last 8 years and see exactly what I am talking about. Adam Vinatieri kicks the game winnner!!! Tom Brady watches from sidelines, because he got stopped on 3rd down! Defense just has to hold the other team with 3+ mins on the clock. What? Did you forget about 3 years ago when Brady threw for 3 INTs on the way to allowing the greatest comeback in AFC championship game history? At any point in the entire 4th quarter, he could have done anything, and they would have won...against the Colts defense??? AUFKM? Obviously I didn't review what???? So you're a "don't tell the whole story guy"? "Brady was just 16-for-27 for 145 yards"...yeah he "won" the game alright... and the defense got the turnover that allowed for that mind-numbing collapse by the Rams D. No turnover...no win. Defense got that Rams team to give them the ball 3 times???? Are you really going to use this as an example of Brady being "great"? I'll give you the last drive, but really???? SI Says what I am saying right here = "The defense won the game, etc." Yes, the exception to the rule.....now explain for me what has happened every other time in the playoffs? How about 4 years ago against San Diego, when Brady had his ass saved by an idiot CB fumbling away the INT Brady just threw him? How is that "great"? And you can call Phil Simms, Jeff Hostetler and Trent Dilfer SB winner as well. Why do you keep bringing up cheating when I have already said nothing about it, 3 times? Ok let's talk about cheating...Is this some kind of generational insecurity? As in: your "great" team is never going to measure up to mine?I am starting to think that is the driving force behind this whole thing. Buddy, nothing is going to make the Pats* wholly legitimate now, not ever. These Pats* with this coach never can and never will be ranked with the all time great dynasty teams. Sorry, but one of the great teams of this decade will always have a *, and there's really no point in arguing against it, you just make yourself look ridiculous. They did the crime, got caught, and were punished by the commissioner. This is reality. Deal with reality, and stop bringing up cheating with me. I don't care, and nobody is ever going to say that the Pats* are as good as the 70's Steelers, or the 80's 49ers/Bears/Giants or the 90's Cowboys. They don't belong in that discussion, because they simply aren't as good as those teams, individually or on the whole. You add the cheating thing and that's all she wrote.