OCinBuffalo

Good thing the call was extra boring today. Health care "technology consortium" my left toe. I love it when people first discover an inkling of data warehousing, or any technology, and suddenly think it cures all the world's ills. Maybe next week I'll take it off of mute and get them a clue. It's like the equivalent of Chris Rock's Robitussen bit. Anyway, yeah, I am bored so I decided to play with toolbox here. If nothing else, I get to teach something, so at least my afternoon isn't completely wasted.

Try Chairman and CEO of my company. I used to be a bartender in college. I wouldn't call that proper bar tending though, I think I actually mixed a real drink twice(jack and coke doesn't count). I refer possessively to "my bars" in all the cities I go to because I am treated very well by them. I try to be interesting and cool and I think they respond to that, but it's probably because I tip well and they humor me. I have a "regular" standing at multiple airport bars as well, which is, I think, a cool thing. But yeah, I'm a bartender. I don't think it's possible for a character attack from you to even come close to being valid, so I won't worry myself about it Ok? I have seen the interviews he did on multiple shows, read the excerpts online and decided that Scott doesn't get my money. Have you read it? Or, are you in the habit of paying for BS "just because"? Nobody bought the thing in comparison to similar books, so it looks like I am in the majority on this one. Were you dumb enough to buy it? Have you been to Center City ever? Clearly you haven't. There are so many out-of-work, waiting for the next gig operatives, and they all hang out at the bars, with the lobbyists and everybody else. I don't know why, Philly seems to attract them. It also might have something to do with how many of the countries(and yeah as in many countries all over the world) best and largest law firms being HQed in Philly. I don't think any of it is "Amazing". However, if you are in PR, there isn't a higher posting than PR guy for the President of the United States of America. I guess we can add PR to the list of things you don't know about. No, the private sector is where they go(normally) to get the best and the brightest to work on campaigns. Or, campaign people work in the private sector waiting for the next shot at the big time. Any corporate job pays better than the government. The fact is that it is a revolving door in most cases. Or, you put your time in at the government and then go make the big money in a corporation. Again, they fact is that this guy is done politically, and once his phone book is useless, so will he be.

Let's add National Security Council, State Department and CIA to the list of things you don't know about/have no idea how they work. The NSC is a group of people, not a few, and they advise the Executive branch. First quesiton: WHICH PRESIDENT? The answer is: CLINTON "One of"? Yeah, that means he gets assigned the desk for Iraq or something else. He might have come from State. Clinton comes in and promotes him from there to be an Advisor on the NSC. He gets demoted by Bush 2 in terms of his status, and because of 9/11, but stays on at the NSC. He gets pissed first because of the demotion, and the fact is that 9/11 happened on his watch, and the fact that he was giving bad advice. He was part of the Clinton, "terrorism is a law enforcement issue" thinking and needed to be cut from the program, precisely because TERRORISM IS NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE when nation-states sponsor it or when it involves WMD. Second because the rest of the NSC doesn't think we can take the risk on Iraq, and they were tired of his bitching, they asked him to leave. He then "quits", writes a book, and again, now has his retirement taken care of. Nothing new. Perhaps you don't know, but this kind of staff shakeup happens all the time in companies/major corporations. There are always holdovers that the new crew let's hang on to see if they can mesh with the new folks. The difference is: nobody cares if they can't. They get fired, and nobody is going to buy a book about it.

I'm not spinning....You still haven't answered my question. Lot's of political operatives go on to work for the next guy. I know because in between campaigns they are usually at the bar in Center City Philly. Who is McClellan working for? Which campaign? It's election season if you haven't noticed. All you have is corporate websites, which means he is out. What other conclusion can one draw? He is either good as a press secretary or he isn't. If he can't get a job, he is done, and now he has to seek 9 to 5 life elsewhere. He did a money grab before that = his book, and that's the end of the story. As so many "insiders" have done before him. Again, this has been going on in every administration since LBJ's. There is nothing new, significant, or important about it, unless you don't know that, and are dopey enough to hand over your money. There's no spin here. This is the reason so many people want to be part of the big time. There's always writing the book and cashing in your integrity for $75,000(his signing fee) and whatever % he gets of books sold in McClellan's case. That's pretty cheap, you would think his integrity would be worth more than that, but, you gotta take what you can get. Doesn't the fact that he only got $75,000 when the usual fee is $3-4 million tell you anything?

Of course I know who they are. They just weren't that darn important. Richard Clark was the CIA desk guy assigned and when things didn't go his way, he knew that he would be gone permanently. So, he went out and wrote his book, made his money off of dopes like you and rode off into the sunset. Just like Dick Morris is doing, still, when he was canned from the Clinton administration. The difference is: Morris really was on the inside. In fact you don't get more inside that him, which is why he gets to put out 3 books instead of one, and why he is still relevant, and still making money off what he knows. When's the last time Richard Clark was consulted for anything? Why? Nothing new to say, and, it turns out, a lot of what he did say is questionable and/or nobody cared then and certainly not now. Paul O'Neill is an interesting case, because he actually does know what he's talking about. The problem with him is: his entire opinion is based on the long term = if we don't raise taxes now AND massively cut spending, we WILL NOT be able to keep most government programs going. Some are going to die soon. He is right. But, between the "win right now" thinking in DC today, and the fact that Republicans don't really want those programs to survive anyway, he wasn't playing ball. He is another that was fired, by having his "resignation" accepted. The funny part is that the smart Republicans are using the Paul O'Neill findings to do exactly what they want, kill off the entitlement programs that represent 75% of the entire Federal budget. And they are doing it all based on the assumption that Democrats will be dumb enough to take they bait, which so far, they have.

I'm talking about the big-time political game, or don't you know the difference? Which young congressman with presidential aspirations is going to hire him to be his press secretary? Which Senator? Answer: he is done. Hell, he probably couldn't even get a job at the county level. I got offered a fat job at lobbying firm once because of I what I know. My cousin took one. Doesn't make either of us famous, in front of the camera, or seated at the same table with the main man. It makes us one more sorry-assed guy who talks, instead of does, for a living. Which is why my cousin got out eventually. I am not saying any of it is desirable. I am saying that McCellan thinks it is, and he's not ever gonna get back to that job, ever. I also said that the best he could do was middle management. Working at a 20-person, little known, lobbying company as a VP is precisely that. So where exactly am I saying anything wrong again? Karl Rove used his efforts and turned them into millions. Want to take a guess on how much money he makes with his next 5 books? How about what he pulls in on the lecture circuit? Contrast that with McCellan maybe making the West-Texas middle school assembly circuit. Like I said, he is done in real politics, and he probably got the job he did because of his phonebook = the home phone numbers of departmental under-secretaries. So he goes out and makes all the money he can while he still has a shred of relevance. He might as well say as much bad stuff as he can because the more of that there is, the more $$$ he gets. What's hard to understand here?

You mean like the very same excuses given by the 30 Clinton staffers that "resigned". Or when his labor secretary got the axe? Some nuts even say that he was terminated and that the plane crash was phony. I have said it once and I will say it again, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. The job ain't easy. This is precisely why McCellan was passed over for it and Ari Fleischer was given the job to start out. It requires talent and experience. McClellan had neither, and he was let go because of it. The funny part is this: Fleischer "resigned" in May 2003. They hauled his ass in to testify in the Plame case in July 2003, when McClellan had been press secretary for less than a month? But McClellan was "in the room" and "knew all about it"? How? He was working for Fleischer which means Fleischer he was in the room, not McCellan. Like I said, the guy was a wannabe who only got the job because Ari knew the s was about to hit the fan and bailed before it did. McClellan wasn't in the room for Plame, Iraq, 9/11, none of it. Ari was. So how the F would he presume to know what anybody said? The facts are what they are, and apparently you haven't done the reading, again. And, no, I am not going to do your work for you.

No, I am saying the polar opposite. I am saying that the polling data in question reflects that the country on the whole leans right. Let's call that the "top". If you call the various sub-sets of people, cable news viewers, left-handed people, Montessori parents, all random, non-politically divided groups(the opposite would be lesbian militant feminists) they might lean right as well. Let's call that the "bottom". You are asking if the bottom can be used to project the top. I am saying no way, and I am also saying that this is the exact opposite of what is being suggested = the characteristics of the top are being used to project the characteristics of the bottom. IF the top leans right, chances are reasonable that all subsets lean right as well. It stands to reason that if you take an arbitrary section out of that population = "bottom" = cable news viewers, that the "leans to the right" numbers will hold, because of the assumption that the group has the same spread/random people. It's hard to say that for certain because certain characteristics will be raised/lowered therefore possibly creating a bias in your sample. For example, in order to watch cable news, you probably have to be somewhat successful to: have the time/not work a second job, have cable not antenna, are educated, etc. This characteristics of the sub-set of the original set, all 300 American people, may or may not be reflective of the original set. So, statistically the data may be biased.... ....or FOX just tends to do a better job giving people what they want. Which is my point.

1. Nobody is ever "fired" who works for any Administration. In fact, they submit their resignations periodically and the Prez decides to accept them or not. This is a long standing tradition, for everybody, and saying otherwise is denying history and reality. The fact is he sucked at his job, everybody has said so, on both sides, and the independents. Playing word games doesn't change any of that, and trying to pretend like he quit is the DEMOCRATS talking points. What a shocker. 2. I'm sorry but I tend to believe guys who were actually there, like Karl Rove. They have every reason to discredit the guy, sure, but the facts are that they were there and whoever disagrees wasn't there. McCellan, otoh, has every reason to lie and make himself appear to be bigger than he really was-->$$$$. Taking either side fully at their word is retarded. The fact is that the guy consistently performed poorly, and if it was me, I wouldn't include him in much until he showed me he could handle what I gave him first. He never did a good job at any point, that is an undeniable fact. So, it stands to reason that they wouldn't include him in policy discussions for fear that he might say something stupid/hurtful to the President. Are you that naive that I have to tell you what happens to people once they get near power/$$$, especially when they haven't been around it at all, and then are suddenly thrown into it at the DC level? Hell, Brutus was a close personal friend of Julius Ceasar! You want more historical examples, I got em. This is nothing new. What's new is that apparently there are people in this country who have stopped thinking things through before they arrive and an absolute opinion. Or, they go to daily Kos and have their opinion pre-ordered for them.

Sure I have apples = dumptrucks boy! One isn't the same as the other. The people who watch cable news in general represent a small % of America. No different than the people who send their kids to Montessori school(first thing I thought of). IF you want to talk about the demographics of the cable news %(they are smarter, college-educated, successful) that is another thread. And, the assertion that the country is right-leaning wasn't my idea. I said I thought it was possible, since most of us learn to do things for ourselves in this country as a part of our culture. The poster's point was simple really: if you take any subset of the population, Montessori parents, or left-handed people, for example, the chances are they are going to lean right(presumably = watch FOX) is more likely because the country as a whole has a higher propensity to lean right. So, the other poster was saying that it's shouldn't be a surprise that, taking the subset of the 300 million who watch cable news, they are more likely to watch FOX as well. I said that statistically that makes sense, if we are to believe that the overall views of the whole population tend to lean right. I have seen similar polls produce those results when "values" questions are asked, so there is no reason to believe otherwise. The country leans right, too bad if you don't like it. It has nothing to do with me or my point. I am saying that while the other guy might be right, FOX is simply better at giving the people what they want. Example: as much as you might "hate" Karl Rove, you sure as hell want to tune in to see what he says. Why? Because you know he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the science of politics. I'll put this in college terms for you: How in the hell else is GWB the President for 2 terms and the Democrats the A-hole? I can just see Rove on election night: "sweep 'em, a-hole!" FOX gets the best, Karl Rove is the best = Karl Rove works for FOX. End of story.

No and no, but Daily Kos, and tools like yourself, persist in trying to make a big issue out of what is clearly not a big issue. It's simple really, McCellan is pissed because: 1. He got fired because he sucked at his job 2. Bush didn't support his mom in a campaign 3. They wouldn't include him in the big stuff, because he sucked at his job He needs money because: 1. He got fired 2. He is unlikely to work in politics again and he apparently has no job prospects 3. He did such a bad job nobody wants to hire him, like FOX did with Karl Rove. Most ex-press secretaries have a path beaten to their doors with job offers, not him, because he sucked at this job. Now, I am not saying that everything he says is wrong. I am saying that if you take the above into context when you watch him on TV, like I did when this was a "big" issue for 2 days, you conclude that: 1. He's doing this for money 2. He needs it because this is the end for him = the best the can do elsewhere if he works hard and is lucky is middle management 3. He didn't really know what was going on because he wasn't "in the room". 4. We all knew the Bush plan for Iraq was questionable at best, terrible at worst, BEFORE the book came out. So...so what? The fact that you spend your time on a propaganda website and use anything they say there as "factual" information is the key issue here and needs to be exposed for what it is = stupidity. Why? Because stupidity is a choice and others may not know where your "facts" are coming from.

Nice attempt at using phony stats to make a comparison that is wholly invalid. Watch me do it properly so you can learn: of the % the 300 million who watch cable news channels on a regular basis, a significant majority of them watch FOX, and have been watching FOX for a long time. CNN had a head start in the 24 hours news business and MSNBC had the Microsoft web presence built in. Both started before FOX, yet both have had their market share taken away by FOX...almost fully in the case of MSNBC. The premise laid out was that this is because most of America, and therefore most of the people who have the highest propensity to watch cable news, lean towards the right. I said that may be the case, however, I added that most people want to see the best. Hannity is the best on his side of the aisle at what he does, therefore his is on FOX. Tucker Carlson comes off like a lame-ass staffer at the cheap DC bar, and I have seen them there, and therefore he ended up on CNN and/or MSNBC. Again, your lameness is not a shocker. But the fact that you would try to use stats incorrectly is a new low. Keep trying though, you are amusing me today and I have another call to get on so I can hear somebody else's poor attempt at using stats re: health care, and I am sure to be bored listening to that crap.

So now you are too lazy to read your own link? That you posted? From Daily Kos? I cut and pasted it right off the post you did there buddy: "http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/2...2417/118/557200" Alaska Darin was right(something I don't say a lot) about you, you are a lazy bastard. Oh, and btw, does this count as "stumping me" again? WTF was that?

Too bad I wasn't trying to do any of that, and too bad that you apparently don't even watch FOX, but yet you criticize it? Shaprton and Jackson have been on FOX REPEATEDLY for years. So, by your own standards, Fox is racist, the other channels are not, but those other channels are bad because they have Sharpton and Jackson on, and apparently you don't realize that so does FOX. Yet, they are racist, and prejudiced generally against general people. Still laughing at that one. Too bad Sharpton is on O'Reilly's show almost every other week, and both have been on Hannity & Colmes more times than I can count. Looks like he didn't save you much of anything buddy. Looks like you have a lot of explaining to do. Looks like you need to actually watch something before you criticize it. Looks like you need to start thinking for yourself. What? Too lazy to actually think on your own? Rather have your girlfriend do it for you? (see how that works either way?) Why do you hate him? After your last post, this oughta be good. Tell me specifically why you hate him and you cannot cheat and ask your girlfriend for help. Hint: you might actually have to go and watch his show a few times to find out why you specifically hate him. Y'know like most people actually require that you see the Bills game before you comment on it.

What? You stumped me? Is English your first language? Perhaps you got the literal down but haven't gotten to the idiom part yet? Stumped me, yeah. In the case that you are simply that ill-informed, perhaps you need to do a search on who is behind Daily Kos and who funds it, before you try to make your point with it. Here's the clue you didn't get: it's a propaganda rag the likes of which we haven't seen in this country since the 30's. And yes, it's socialist, no doubt about it. Ya see, I call things like I see them = as they are. You don't like it? Too f'ing bad. If you don't know enough to check out where you get your information before you post it, you deserve every bit of bashing that you get from me and everyone else, and I'll even go as far as say Alaska_Darin gets to wail on you as well. You deserve it, because stupidity is a choice. I have never and will never say that. I say something similar but not the same: "when it is liberals fault they will never admit it, when they are wrong they will stubbornly hang onto whatever failed policy to protect their ideology instead of doing what is right" Yeah, that sounds like me. This is always why I get a kick out of liberals, who by definition won't fix social security by making it at least = to a savings account-->thereby consigning it to failure in about 15 years, giving George W Bush sh-- for being inflexible about his failed policies. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy. It doesn't get any worse. One: I wasn't. That much should have been obvious and reading comprehension is important. I said that O'Reilly uses issues like Jessica's law to attack the far-left, not the center left or anybody else. I didn't say Fox news was far-right. I didn't say CNN/MSNBC was far-left. I did say that they are attacking O'Reilly for having the same views as, essentially lumping him in with, Sean Hannity, and that they get smoked by O'Reilly every time they do. I'm not saying that the two guys are worlds apart, but they differ on many very important issues. O'Reilly consistently attacks the far-right, Hannity does not-->only in cases where they are to the left of him. Conclusion: You missed my point. MSNBC has now become the "attack O'Reilly" 24 hours a day channel, they suck at it, Air America tried and they sucked at it and it got them canceled, and that's why the ratings are where they are. They suck at it because it's a loser's game, and America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser. If they wanted to be the "left of center" 24 hours a day channel instead of the "attack O'Reilly" channel, they should take a page out of his play book and put focus on things that only the extreme right wants, like blocking any and all sex education, and crush them for it. Two: That's possible but I doubt it. The simple fact is that American's wanna back a winner, they want to be on the winning side, and hate losing. They hate lame-ass anything. Fox is giving them what they want. You don't get lame-ass Tucker Carlson on Fox, you get Arch-Conservative, loud mouth, totally phony at times but doesn't care as long as conservatives win, Sean Hannity, and he wins a lot of debates, whether you like it or not. I think a lot of people have a point when they say that Alan Colmes isn't a fair representation of the left against Hannity, but then again, he seems to be coming around. Similar but key difference in O'Reilly: he says he's the people's crusader, he does go out and crusade on behalf of the people. The fact is that he comes down on some unsuspecting liberal whack-job who thought it was ok to sentence a child-raper to 3 months in jail like artillery against a poodle = after all is said and done, you don't even remember that there ever was a poodle, much less what it's name was. How do you vote against them/get them deposed/make them resign if you can't remember who they are? But, nonetheless, there can be no doubt that he is genuine. That's genuine spit coming out of mouth on one of his tirades and real anger at the far-left pussys, I mean, poodles, out there who are essentially trying to turn this country into a lame-ass socialist, Euro lazy-ocracy. Conclusion: the fact is that most of the country does lean right, and the reason is most of the country believes in self-reliance over self-ishness or self-involvement. The original poster's whining doesn't change the ratings, the overall view of America that you should do your own part first and not be allowed to be lazy, and neither does calling all the people who watch FOX "racists". Especially when you are talking about somebody like me, who goes out of their way to get info from multiple sources and multiple formats.

Spelling and grammar aside(and I'm not so sure that you refer to a core when you are talking about people in a unit who share the same job = corps), our entire linebacker unit looked good out there, especially on Monday. The run plays were shut down, the screen plays were as well. The end arounds/reverses would have been for no gain. Now, it's early and the d is usually ahead, etc., etc. All that aside. We should see at least a reduction of 50 yards a game given up against the run. Mitchell and Poz are that good, and yes they are that much of an upgrade. Here's the other thing: we are talking about a LB corps by itself. The other thing that will help profusely is Stroud, Williams and McCargo, Johnson clogging up the middle. It was extremely hard to determine on Monday who was where/who beat who because clearly they weren't hitting at full speed. However, the front 7 looks to be a lot better than I have seen in a long while based on how well they move/their feet move. It's like a school of fish, except they dart towards the ball together instead of away. The coolest part about all of this is it lets Whitner improvise and so he gets a shot at all kinds of blitzes, jumping routes and setting the QB up, because the QB has to pay more attention to the front 7 and he simply can't focus only on where the safety is and throw away from him, like last year.

I think what Kirwan was trying to say, and what Donte Whitner corrected him on if you listened to that interview, is that Hardy looks rough around the edges and that fans shouldn't expect too much from him in the beginning of the year. Which makes sense to a certain degree. However, it's a little early to start saying exactly what will happen after only a few practices, he may have all of this fixed by the first pre-season game. Who knows? I also think Kirwin over-emphasized the mistakes Hardy was making because they were so blatantly obvious. He failed to contrast those mistakes with what was also obvious: James Hardy has a skill set that can dominate at this level and was 50-70% of the way there on the plays where he screwed up. He was thinking, just not quite correctly. I was at practice Friday and Monday. Hardy made some clear mistakes on the field, and yes the coaches were on him. However, it was also clear that the lightbulb was on in Hardy's brain the whole time as well. It was clear that he was thinking and trying to be in the right spot. More often than not he was in the right spot/ran the right rout. Where most of the trouble came was when they started doing motion/shifts. You could tell by his body language that he was thinking through/then doing each step in the process one by one. Obviously he needs to be thinking/doing that in a fluid manner for the timing to happen correctly. The other thing was that he missed a block. Again, he knew where to be and he was there, he just messed the technique part up = he should have been on the guy's inside shoulder not his outside-->from what I could tell. And that's the best example: if there are 10 things Hardy has to do to be right on a play, even when he's wrong and it's all screwed up, he still does at least 6 of those ten things right. That's why when he screws up, it's so blatantly obvious. We see what is supposed to happen because of the things he does right, and we start to expect something, and then it doesn't happen in time, or he goes left when he should have gone right, it becomes obvious to everybody what he did wrong. So obvious, in fact that even my aunts/cousins could see what he should have done, and they know little about how the game actually works. These little mistakes are much larger in their effect than they are difficult to correct. I wouldn't worry about him. All of these things are correctable and it seems clear he has the general plan/plays down fine, he needs work on the details and that stuff will come in time. He can do the job, he just has to get the reps and iron out the kinks, and not let the tough coaching effect his confidence. It's simple to shut a coach up, do what he's complaining about better each time.

He had a great pass breakup today, and it almost resulted in a pick. He also busted through the line on a screen to Lynch that would have resulted in an 8 yard loss. The entire defense shined at the beginning of camp. Lynch would have been stopped for no gain, or maybe a little, 4/5 times. Lynch did move the pile though, but I think that has more to do with the defense letting up just before they hit him. All in all, Mitchell was looking good today against the run and the pass. There is little doubt for me after watching 3 practices that this guy was at least a good pickup. I am excited to see what he does in pre-season and against Seattle, and I hope he turns into a great pickup.

no, I design( and sometimes build = why I was drinking last Friday before camp)this software for a living. It's that my opera build expired and trying to get to second page of a thread on mobile I.E. is a pain in the ass. Time for steaks and manhattans at my Aunt's place. So now I am drinking in the afternoon rather than the morning. This team looks good so far. I think we are on to something with those counter trap plays. The short passing game set those up quite nicely. Cheers!

tool

Ha! I guess I messed up the spelling. Lee Evans started as usual out wide. When the bal was snapped, he ran what looked like a move to the outside, then he went across the field to the left just after Poz was cleared out following Lynch. He beat his man(? couldn't see who, we were on the grass this time) and recieved the ball about 5 yards pas the center and about 8 yards deep. It was a great play design because once he got the ball, it would have been a foot race down the field. He had one man to beat, and Hardy blocking for him.

stroud was doing what he does clogging the middle he was a clear contributor for why th first 5 run plays were mediocre for 5 plays hardy battled mckelvin the crowd was cheering, I'd say it was about tied. hardy ran some good routes and some ok ones. since iam the only one likely to be objective in my group i'd say he had an ok practice. he missed a block once and screwed up his motion/position twice. mckelvin also had a great battle with parrish today. mckelvin is clearly a star player he was consistently involved and while he got beat by a great play from roscoe he really looked good in coverage

ko simspon is our starter mckelvin is playing outiside with the twos unless his man goes in motion then he picks up the slot resume 11v11 edwards in lynch out of backfiled deep fade left td he was doubled and got it anyway. wow. great play lee evans 15 yards on an out lynch run counter trap for td jp in short pass and that's all she wrote

11 v11 1 whitner wolud have nailed lynch in th backfiled 2 reverse to reed for 5 starting te is schouman 3 inc to eavns bad throw 4 mitchell read the screen to lynch -8 yards loss 5 bootleg to shouman nice play 6 lynch counter trap play for probable td jp in roscoe parrish for 40 yard pass down right sideline on mckelvin . mckelvin had great coverage but roscoe made a great play to catch it falling down highlight reel jp gets a delay of game/ didn't know the play 88 ten yard pass 15 yard nice run by wright maybe TD steve johson swwet move to get back to the of scrimmage on a busted reverse 2 nice fred jackson runs parrish dropped good d from mckelvin baker in screen to bruce hall td jenkins 20 yard catch stevie johnson no gain reverse

7 v 7 1. lynch out of backfiled for 3 yards 2. good defese ko simpson 3. lee evans nice catch...route 4. geogrge wilson almost picked it off 5 lynch backfiled for 5 6 good coverage on reed by wilson inc 7 mckelvin fell down and got beat deep by jp/roscoe. 8 mitchell almost int 9 jp throws int to pizza boy 10 jp throws 20 yard pass to 19 11 te throws nice crossing route to evans who would be gone 12 te fred jackosn jumping catch stole a possible int away 30 yd pass 13 te 7 yard out to parrish 14 te 20 pass to reed nice timing might have been gone 15 te looked off safety went to ree great play 16 hamdan to reggie corner int 17 handam small pas tp omon 18 hamdan throws it away 1o baker to derek fin nice play for 20 yards 20 baker to hall he dropped it changing drill