OCinBuffalo

No way I want him here. He is a practice hero, game wussy. He's the guy that does everything/drill the coach says in practice perfectly, but still can't get it done in the game, because he's simply not good enough. That's how he ends up getting a chance to start every year for the last 3, even when every reasonable person knows that he's not going to win the game for you. I don't want that influence anywhere near Trent.

Yes! More QB chaos for the Jets! I have been wishing for this to happen, but I honestly didn't think the Jets would be this dumb, again. They haven't been able to get over the fact that Pennington was done 2 years ago. Now, in true Jests style, they make a bad problem worse, by getting a guy who at best has 1-2 serviceable years left. He brings with him a ton of baggage that will instantly be converted into even more chaos the minute he pulls out of the Newark airport onto 95. These guys have been fooling themselves with pop-gun Pennington for a long time, and, we are talking about the NY Jets here, the undisputed champions of terrible personnel moves(Detroit is still 2nd place). It's quite possible that they make this move and then not even start him, and while that would be hilarious, it wouldn't surprise me one bit coming from the Jets. 2 career days for our new and improved defensive backfield coming this season. The INTs will be like mana from heaven, no matter who starts, because there will be even more QB chaos all year. I'm going to the store to get some popcorn and check out the Jets boards. I bet there is already a Favre vs. Pennington thread going. Oh man, the fans in NYC, this is going to be fun..... Of course I could be wrong here, but I highly doubt it on this one.

Suffer Dolphins! Suffer!

Sure that's true. You would think that there would be a safety rout called that Brady could get it to, and there probably was, but he couldn't get it there. That and in addition to the monster pass rush, they probably covered his primary safety valve with zone and he couldn't work fast enough to find the next guy = broke their system. I don't think Brady is anywhere near as good without his "system". You break the system, and/or you hit him enough times and Brady becomes the "JAG" he actually is, which is why he belongs nowhere near a discussion of Joe Montana, Steve Young, Marino, John Elway or Jim Kelly(the greats I've seen so far)-->the more you hit those guys the better, not worse, they played. Brady does belong in Warren Moon/Terry Bradshaw/Phil Simms land, however, because all of them were system QBs who had success. Can anybody honestly say that they didn't come away from that SB thinking Brady was soft? What if that was Steve Young? Eli Manning looked more like an "all-time" QB in that game, especially on the last drive. Eli f'ing Manning? Anyway, in this you have less pass rushers that my QBs have to think about. You don't have any LBs unless you are planning on leaving one of my guys uncovered, or splitting coverage outside/zone and hoping your guys get to my QB before my WRs can stretch the field. That's the thing = I see this largely coming down to how much ground(space) my 6 WRs can create and work in 3 seconds-->more space = harder to cover vs. giving your guys 3 seconds to get to my QB. The other thing is: who has outside contain? Is there an outside contain? With only 3 pass rushers, there's a hell of a lot of extra room on the outside. If my right TE/T can get a good cut block on his DE, then there's nothing stopping my QB from running at least 5 yards to the outside. Is there? Your DE have to work extra hard to rush but also contain. Oh, and draw plays would be devastating if nobody is covering in the middle of the field. That's why I said Doug Flutie-type or Vince Young-type QB. You want a guy that can improvise, get the yards, and get out of bounds so he isn't taking monster, 20 yard running shots from your DBs. Imagine if Doug Flutie had 5-10 extra yards on each side of the line of scrimmage, he'd run around all day. Obviously this is not Drew Bledsoe's offense, he would be quite possibly killed out there.

Ok, for fun I will play offensive co-ordinator. My biggest concern is time/space on the field and making sure my guys don't get in each other's way, or allow one of your guys to cover 2 of mine. To stop this O you need 6, at least decent, cover guys who will be in single coverage the whole game unless they get help from one of the 5 remaining guys as a "safety" of sorts. I think that catches most teams off-guard in terms of depth at D-back. You need 8 DBs to play this right. If all 6 of my WRs are above average, and you only have 3 above average DBs, that creates a mismatch without having to do anything else. Are you going to keep that many DBs on your roster, just to play me once or twice a year, when you have a full schedule of traditional offenses to deal with? Instead of setting up mismatches with shifting and blocking schemes, this does it with the roster. You could run a zone, and if you manage the routs right, it might allow you to cover 2 of the WRs with one guy, thereby freeing one extra guy to blitz. Timing would be critical though, because that coverage would only work for about 3 seconds at the most. Then again, I would think that unless you don't mind taking the risk on any one of the 6 cover guys falling down, getting beat badly, etc., you would want a safety on each side(hence the 8 Dbs thing I said above), which leaves only 3 guys to pass rush/stop the run vs. three blockers. If both my QBS can block/take a hit then I add the other QB as a pass protector as well. It's tough to blitz consistently, and you'd have to do it with one of the DBs, while the safety came down to cover the CB's? man. So now it's blitzing DB vs. pass protector QB. I like my chances blocking a smallish DB with a normal sized QB every day of the week, especially since my QB sees you coming. I also like the fact that my QB is getting hit by a DB instead of a LB. Of course, all of this assumes that my O Line can block. But given the # of WRs, they would only have to be solid for about 3 seconds, if I use a "west coast" mentality. In fact, I would teach my guys to try to read the blitz, have the QB from the blitzer's side head towards the sideline, and throw quick screens to him. Essentially laterals, that would get the ball away from your blitzer much faster than he can run. Then my "receiving" QB can either run behind his WR blockers, or he can throw to one of them. It sets up a very nice "keep away" game. Do the CBs try to cover their men, or do they go after my screened out QB? Don't forget that because of your blitz on this side, you have 3 DBs in single coverage. If I set all the WRs on that side on "fly" routes, you are looking at nobody in front of my QB for 10-15 yards when he receives the ball, and all your guys running away from him at top speed. If I had a Lorenzen? (Big, fat QB used to be on the Giants, now on the Colts)-type QB who could block and run with the ball and who would be barely bothered by a hit from your DBs, and I also had a Flutie-type, quick QB who could also throw, then I think you'd be in a lot of trouble with your blitzes.

Hey, dammit, that was my next installment of this thing.

Newsflash: I couldn't care less what you call yourself, and I don't care about parties. I am calling you a shallow, ill-informed, propagandist who doesn't think for himself! There. How's that for praise? Still waiting for you to explain how Sharpton and Jackson being on CNN is "bad", but it's still better than FOX, but how you don't know they are also on Fox, yet you hate fox. You're on the hook, worm, wriggling will get you nowhere. Still waiting on you to demonstrate, other than Colbert, any evidence that proves any prejudice on FOX. Still waiting for you to explain how they have equal #s of men and women anchors. Still waiting for you to explain why FOX dominates their market to the degree that it does. Still waiting for how you explain calling all those extra viewers "racists" without knowing any of them. Reading back through this, it's hysterical that you can call what I wrote a "cripple fight". Elegant Elliot, I can see that. But, I suppose that is probably the best you can do, so we'll give you an affirmative action B- for the effort. We wouldn't want to harm your self-esteem or anything.

I talk in circles? Al Gore's version of Global warming isn't concocted? I'm not serious? hahahahaha! This board is great for a laugh some days. The simple fact is for all of your twisting and spinning and obfuscation, only Finknottle has acknowledged the undeniable truth. Both issues are the same in that we have questionable information to go on, and therefore a tough decision has to be made. Tough decisions are what they are, and only a giant hypocrite or blind fool, thinks making a tough decision and being wrong = lying. Now, if man-made Global Warming is the hoax that it's shaping up to be = new evidence from ships' logs from the 1600-1700s talking abut increased storms and unusual sudden warming in the 1730s.......I wonder if that will mean it's OK for people to have bumper stickers that say: "Democrats Lied" or "Environtology, the new BS religion/science" or "Green People Took My Money" or "Where's the GW, Al?" I don't think it will be OK. I would think that anybody who had those bumper stickers was a petty, agenda-driven drone, who was more concerned about "being right" and/or gaining power, than the welfare of the country or his/her fellow citizens. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out....

Tried it. Before I say anything else, the new site looks great. Ok, enough praise, now on to the issues Are you using frames or specified pixels instead of %'s? The reason I ask is I see huge tracts of whitespace on mine in between the sections(divs?) of the page. I am using mobile ie(MSIE 4.01). Other than that, the graphics look fine, and it seems to operate fine. Stop me any time if you know why , if not.... Looks like there's an issue with resizing your divs/frames/whatever you are doing. Are you using some sort of content management system? Sometimes those things mess up the CSS stuff and/or include a standardized template unless you tell them not to(and a myriad of other BS). For example, underneath the Bills schedule, on my phone I can see the "OpenCube Drop Down Menu (www.opencube.com)" content label. (btw, just curious...why them?) Sometimes 3rd party widgets can get tricky but I don't think that's what this is. It looks like this browser/version is interpreting the layout wrong, or you are doing it(javascript resize function?) in javascript/dhtml that isn't supported by this version of I.E., which means this browser would simply ignore it = no resize = white space. I suppose I could look at the code and see, but it's 12:50 and I am tired of looking at code today. However, I'm willing to help. It's easy to figure out what is supported and what isn't javascript/dhtml for what version, and I have all that stuff handy. Suffice it to say that IE is purposely downgraded, especially it's support of javascript/dhtml, by handheld companies/microsoft because they don't want people building platform/device agnostic mobile-web apps like you are or I have. Turns their devices into commodities/makes .net irrelevant, they don't want that, and therefore they keep trying to force people to use their development environments/their java runtimes, to lock people in to their devices/.net. It's stupid, and it solves nothing, but that's nothing new from hardware companies and it's SOP for Microsuck. Also, let's be clear, I hate mobile i.e. and I haven't updated my opera...just bigger things going on right now. However, I figure most people are going to use whatever comes with their phone, that's mobile IE, and that's why I raised this.

240w x 320h verizon(starcom) xv6700 I think that's pretty much a standard on most of the tft screens out there. Especially on smart phones that support pocket pc(pocket crap). I have to be on Verizon so I don't get an iphone until later I guess.

Hey, I don't even ignore you although there has been cause on many occasions.

Perhaps that's what he meant by saying change = him changing, not the country. I fully believe in him changing, again, and again. So I guess that's "change you can believe in" All kidding aside, no reasonable person can argue that he hasn't changed his positions on some key issues, multiple times. Oh, and dev/null: Careful, I posted something similar a while back, and the obamahanis don't like it when you bring up the fact that there's no way in hell things should be tied, ever, in this race. There's simply no way the Democratic candidate should be close to the Republican candidate. I still don't understand why they decided that Obama was a better candidate than Hillary. A blind man, locked in a trunk, at the bottom of the ocean could have seen that. But, when you consider the nonsense that the Dems pulled in 2006, the over-reaching and sticking with tired, bad ideas no matter what, that they are almost always guilty of, I suppose it's not that surprising. Like I told Molson_Retard, a year ago, if the surge works there is going to be political fall-out for Democrats, and now, this simply confirms it. They used a war going badly for political gain, now that that the same war is going well, they will have to suffer the political loss. This is rapidly descending into Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche all over again. So much for change. Right now it looks like nobody gets my vote, again. Like I have been saying though, I want to see the debates! Where the F are they?

China, you mean the country that burns 5 times the coal that the rest of the world does, soon to be 10 times? The same country where our athletes and reporters have been warned about extreme pollution and to wear masks on certain days? Yeah, they are "ahead" alright. There is no single country that pollutes worse than China, and they are way "ahead" of us on that. Hell their pollution is ending up on our West Coast. Yeah, it's that bad. Germany is doing what they do, getting good at manufacturing cars that use alternative fuels, but.....they are still manufacturing cars, which still puts carbon into the air, so I fail to see how that is an example of "ahead"-->again, if we are to believe the enviro dogma. I keep hearing about these "new" technologies. Certainly burning coal is not "new". Edit: Nuclear power also isn't new, but I bet its the best alternative we have.... Beyond that, what exactly are these technologies? Solar panels, windmills, what? None of those are "new", they are old. Where's the real new stuff? Suddenly this is starting to sound like the .com companies that failed. I know, one of the ones I worked for(for 3 weeks), claimed they had "new technology". Their "new" technology wasn't "new" at all, in fact it didn't exist. Edit: I agree that the Iraqis are a risky bet, but so is doing anything about Global Warming when I can't even get a straight answer from my PhD cousin on what is actually happening. She says nobody really knows and a hell of a lot of work still needs to be done to find out. So if both are risky bets, why is one ok and the other not?

I get to ask questions, this is America after all. Sorry that it's making you uncomfortable, but it also requires you to think, which is it's intent. "Fighting" Global Warming will not be any kind of economic "benefit", ever. It's economic cost will always outweigh any benefit it might provide. The only reason we are considering taking immediate action is because of the potential natural disasters it can cause. The long term economics mean that things will be very bad for a very long time, with only the possibility of things getting good again, someday. We are considering trading that for ensuring that we don't have crazy weather that might kill a lot of us. Al Gore is a nut as evidenced by his wanna-be JFK, get rid of combustion engine in ten years scheme. It's an embarrassment that he would even presume to put himself in the same room with JFK, never mind the same stage. Serious environmentalists should dump that guy because he's not in this for them, he's in it for himself. There is no doubt that the Iraq war was terribly conducted and terribly planned. But now that it is a reality, and with the very real possibility of things going well there, having a real democracy in an Arab country has a huge upside. It sets an example for others to follow. It also proves that it can be done, that no culture, however dogmatic, is impervious to freedom. It sets the fascists around the globe back 20 years. However, was it worth it? I don't know. We won't know for some years to come. For all this wonderful symbolism, it's also very possible that a democratically elected Iraqi parliament and/or president tells us to f off, on multiple occasions, which they will be fully within their rights to do. So who knows? None of this is the point. The point is both decisions are about taking immediate action based on questionable, at best, completely wrong, at worst, information. I want to know why it's not Ok in one instance, and an absolute must in another.

Yeah, I have one too, but it didn't tell me which lots were closed. And I forgot to set all three addresses into it. So it didn't help me once we had to go to the next lot.

Great! If you keep this up then you won't ever learn anything new or see different perspectives on things. You'll be a shining example of somebody who only tolerates those who totally agree with him. But of course that's not fascist or anything. By the way, how's that applause machine working out? In fact, if you really get good at this, I bet you can have all of us on ignore by the end of the year, and won't that be fun? You can post whatever you want and you'll never see anyone's replies. This is fun! I get to call you a tool, and you can't talk back! Great plan! You really outsmarted us on this one!

Ha! Still waiting for you to explain yourself as to how you can "hate" something you clearly don't have any idea about. Your entire approach here is the ultimate example of a crippled mind. But go ahead and continue to believe what your girlfriend tells you to think. Don't bother actually seeking information for yourself thereby obtaining what is known as an Informed Opinion. Unfortunately it appears you are probably too "special" to even understand that concept. This thread is a fine example of it "Generally prejudiced against general people" That's still funny. And of course we are still waiting for an explanation on that one.

Clearly "better safe than sorry" has been our government's doctrine through every administration, on both sides, wrt to many things. The fact is, we used the same premise for invading Iraq. It all boils down to: after 9/11, we could not take the chance of some idiot gaining WMD, and "it's better to be safe than sorry". We went with the best intelligence we had at the time, and made the call. Of course, it was also about oil. Most of you are being crushed by $4+ gas prices. How would you like $10 gas? Because that's what you'll be paying if these terrorists(or the new Barbary Pirates) win, for the same reasons it's $4 right now, only those reasons will be amplified. Now, if we are to believe the intrepid hunter of ManBearPig, or the now-minority of scientists who say that Global Warming is man-made and cause for immediate action(I think it's safe to say it's real), then we need to take immediate action. According to ManBearPig's hunter, we need to get rid of the combustion engine totally in 10 years. That immediate action will mean the loss of jobs and a general hit on the economy that might even cause a depression. The fact is that the ramifications are unknown, and man's effect on the environment remains unknown, no different that we weren't even 80% sure about WMD. However, every time that a political person is put on the spot by data that says that man isn't involved, we end up with the same argument = "It's better to be safe than sorry", even if the whole thing is a hoax, because "our world will be cleaner anyway". Now my question: How can one say it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, yet at the same time demand immediate action on Global Warming, without singing up to be the Hypocrite of the Century? The fact is that both represent taking action using the best information available at the time(apparently, but I'm not sure any of it makes sense any more). Both decisions represent the "better to be safe than sorry" doctrine. If we are to believe that Global Warming requires immediate action, even though we don't know it's our problem and not the sun's, for sure, how is demanding that action any different than when people demanded action against Saddam?

Nothing like a great thinker contributing the best he/she is capable of....

Reading through the thread here...I dunno. Maybe I was just so excited to actually be there that the little things didn't bother me. I agree with the busing thing to a degree = it's annoying driving around trying to find the lots, especially when they end up being full and you have to find the next one. I got past it the first day, but I had to ride it the next. I can see the reasons for it. I'm guessing that the Bills probably got some heat from the locals who don't want "strangers" parking on their streets. Especially for the night practices. Also, the way things are laid out there I can see where it might create a traffic nightmare, especially once practice was over. This would be no biggie if it was one or two days, but creating traffic problems for a month would be mighty annoying to me if I lived there. Then again, if I lived there and all I had to do was walk to practice, I'd probably tell myself to STFU and enjoy it, and take the extra traffic in stride the one month out of twelve that it's a problem , plan accordingly and remember that life is too short to get worked up over somebody parking their Honda FIT on my street. Somehow I don't think that's the likely attitude in Pittsford, though. Once the bus got going the windows were down so I didn't really think it was oppressively hot or anything. I suppose air conditioning would be better, but I don't think it's necessary for a 10 minute trip. The bus was a bus = what I expected and I didn't think it was bad at all. The one suggestion I would have is: we went to three bus lots trying to park and only found a spot at the last one. We had three cars of people and that was a giant pain in the ass driving around with all the nonsense lights, etc. It would make sense if the Bills did a promotion of some kind that told you which lots were full and where to go next. If you already have this, nobody knows about it. You could do it on the radio kinda like this: "Hey this is DJ Bob and the Mendon Lots are full, you've gotta go to Sutherland. You can get directions on your mobile phone by using google mobile maps and (insert directions here = I think by next year that feature should be ready if it isn't already). This camp lot report is brought to you by D-bag Chevy, come take a stroll through their lots...." Whatever, I'm not a marketing person, but you get the idea. Or you could do it as part of the text alerts that the Bills send out on phones anyway. It wouldn't be hard, and I know it's not, to configure the system to only send texts to people who sign up as "training camp" users, and toggle that status on and off so they only get the messages the days they go to camp. Give them a login as part of their Bills Backers account, or whatever, there's a lot of ways to do that. It would be even easier and better in terms of custom functionality, to simply set up a part of the website for mobile users and have a system that could do real time data, was designed for handhelds and could allow Bills employees, or players for that matter, to get people any info they wanted easily and instantly. (so here's where my pitch comes in pm me if you want to know how )

As I have already stated, he wasn't involved. He says he was, but Ari Fleischer, not so much Scott McClellan, was called to testify 1.5 months after he "really(as in 'i gotta go')" resigned. Ari knew the s was going to hit the fan, and so he bailed, leaving McClellan to deal with it. I think this whole "hung me out to dry" thing is dubious at best. He wasn't involved in it, so how could he know what was true and what wasn't? Certainly he didn't fall on any swords, as again, he wasn't involved. Ari might have been. His premise that somehow his credibility was ruined is laughable = "Hey Scott, you are the press secretary, the day you took the job your credibility was ruined by definition, A-HOLE!" The simple fact is all that Libby was busted for was a lame perjury charge, the same thing that Bill Clinton was impeached for, and not for treason or anything else, because the special prosecutor couldn't prove anything. So, if you want to make this a big deal, then you have to also say that Bill Clinton's lies were a big deal, and he should have gone to jail as well. Somehow I don't think you will. Also, this whole thing is bogus anyway. Valerie Plame was using her position to bring politics into policies that politics should be nowhere near. Why they went after her this way I will never know. If it was me, and I found out what she was doing, I would have sent the FBI, arrested her, and let her explain why she sent her husband on a mission he was in no way qualified for, and who his clients were, to a secure intelligence tribunal. If they came back with a guilty verdict, I would have assigned both of them to work in the lowest, sweaty ass-crack gig I could find, permanently.

Sorry, I was actaully called on for something important. Rare on a Wednesday afternoon. The ax-grinding part is simple as well. The guy was fired and now he wants to get back at the guy who fired him. Incidentally that would probably be Bush's chief of staff(don't know who that is right now), not Bush himself. The thing that gets me is that this is probably more about McClellan's mom than anything. As I understand it, the Bush group didn't support her in a primary and/or backed the other guy. That would make me pretty angry, especially if I really was out "lying"(as if that is something new for a press secretary) on their behalf to reporters. So, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he had an ax to grind, which also happened to mean decent $$$ for him. Edit: you don't have to be competent to have an ax to grind, btw. Look at the guy who sued because he said affirmative action "pushed him too high" and that he wasn't able to do the job he was given, because he wasn't competent for it, and got fired because he couldn't do it. There's an incompetent ax-grinder if there ever was one.

Very easy. What if he, because he's incompetent, doesn't know that he's wrong? Or, he's not "lying" but exaggerating his role in policy decisions in order to make himself appear more relevant = higher profile = more $$$$? What I am saying is that in the press conferences I saw, he looked awful, and that's with an untrained eye. I think of Ari Fleischer in general, or the public beating the new girl gave that left-biased old bag front row white house reporter, and I think "good". I think of McClellan and I think "bad". And that was all before the book came out. I think those things not because of politics, I simply think of who's doing a good job and who's doing a bad one. The simple fact is that the only reason McClellan stayed as long as he did is: Bush's confounding loyalty to his people even when they need to fired immediately. Think Rumsfeld, and then think McClellan. Edit: oh, and of course my message seems "mixed" to you, it's because it's based on reason, not ideology. Fascist liberals aren't used to/don't have any critical thinking skills, so I'm sure this is difficult for you.

Right, as opposed the minor degree's worth of classes from you on the "sh-- you don't know about". Do yourself a favor, re-read this thread.......... Find anywhere where I say: Scott McClellan is a liar? How about Scott McCellan is wrong? Or even George Bush did a great job and Scott McClellan is trying to sabotage it? Notice you don't see that anywhere, now do you. You don't because: 1. I, unlike you, am a reasonable person. I do not let BS ideology anywhere near me in any form, from one side or the other. I merely deal in terms of truth first, compassion second. 2. How would I know if McClellan is telling the truth? How would you? The fact is neither of us do, and there's a heap of evidence that says: "use your f'ing head Elegant Elliot, it's probably wise to take this with a dumptruck full of salt considering the circumstances". The evidence is calling Elloit. You gonna listen? 3. We all know Bush has screwed up here, we just don't know if it was strategically, or merely tactically or a little of both. We also don't know to what degree. And, most importantly IF things ultimately go his way, there will be hell to pay politically. This is why you have Obama with 3 different positions on the surge, changing daily. He simply cannot afford to look like the "boy who cried wolf" or worse, the boy cried in general when things got tough. You don't like Bush, that much is clear. But what is also clear is that Scott McClellan is an ax-grinding incompetent, and using him to make any point is lame.

No. His contacts were shot when he got on TV and f'ed up. Hell, my sister and I were waiting for my dad to go out to the bars with us one time and I was flipping through channels. I landed on him and she suddenly started talking about how bad he was at his job. She's apolitical and she works in PR. What's it gonna take for you to understand that sometimes people aren't up to the task and you have to let them go? I don't like it, but I have done it all the same. It is what it is. Only, in this case, they guy has a high profile job, that some people care about, and some people can use as political ammo, so he gets paid the big bucks for telling his "story". Doesn't change the fact that he sucked at his job, was fired because of it, and nobody will touch him in politics ever again. Hell, even without the book he was probably done, because he sucks at his job!