OCinBuffalo

Two things about those short out patterns: 1. You have to crawl before you can walk, walk before you run. The pro game is different and they have to start at the beginning with every player. Getting the fundamentals down first is simply good coaching. 2. These short out patterns are going to be reason Lee Evans catches 10 more TDs this year. If we keep killing the other team with 6-8 yard passes = if Hardy truly is an "always open" receiver, they are going to have to start taking chances trying to jump routes and/or blitz. You couple that with having to respect Lynch out of the backfield/play action/draw, and if Lynch can get his blocking going, that = Lee Evans open a hell of a lot because they can't simply lock onto him with the safety on his side, plus the corner covering him, the whole time. The pieces and parts are here. The only question is whether they can put them together in camp, and whether they actually call the right plays during the season.

That's fine. But consider this: my buddy is 6' 5" and usually around 300lbs, although he said he lost weight(BS ). I have never seen him scared like that, so I dunno. I have certainly seen him whip a lot of ass, usually standing right next to him, so something must have been up.

No because I had no interest in pulling out my wallet or showing any cash whatsoever. I was dropping off a moving van. My buddy was waiting in his car and he said people on the street started looking at him like a mark. When I cam out he's like: "get in" and then it was Dukes of Hazard out of there. I still don't think it was a big deal but he swears we were about 5 minutes away from a real problem. Regardless, there is literally no reason to go there, for anything. Kinda like Camden, except I used to go over their for concerts once in a while, ferry was cool.

I went to Kensington once....once.

I have no idea. Seriously none. The worst part is some little girl apparently got hurt by flying glass. I bet she's not happy to be in North Philly today either, but she's probably happy about not catching some spare lead.

Another reason to stay out of North Philadelphia. Anyway, ESPN just said that Harrison was involved in a fight at a bar he owns in North Philly, some guy who they have had a history of trouble with got in a fight with Harrison in the bar. Things went outside, and according to the other guy, it was OK Corral time. Apparently Harrison has a .50 caliber handgun(holy crap) and shot this guy in the hand. Harrison told the police that he was in a fight and that he heard gun shots, but didn't say he was the shooter. They found the .50 at a carwash that Harrison owns 3 blocks away. The law in PA says that the owner of a gun is automatically charged with a misdemeanor if it is used in a crime. Apparently Harrison has a carry permit and had 25 registered weapons, and they tested the the one they found and it came up positive. The rest of it sounded too fuzzy to me, but there is definitely something serious happening with Marvin Harrison.

Gadwin screen capture is one of the best free downloads there is...I snagged this by playing the southpark episode at http://www.allabout-sp.net/, paused it, screen capture-->jpg, and done! Love that episode! Gadwin is cool because you can scale things so that you can meet the oppressive standards of file size here at TBD.

Just when we thought we were done making fun of hicks, they pull us back in....

But I thought you said Republicans always lie and Democrats are never disingenuous? Or are you telling us to to ignore your last 1000 posts?

I talk about no energy policy and you try to change the subject and talk about Iraq. When are you going to realize that nobody is buying these lame tactics, Molson? Where is the energy policy Molson? Where is it? Stop trying to duck the question and show some character for once. Things actually work the opposite of what you are saying here, sorry to say. The fact that Congress has no energy policy is going to hang like a noose around EVERY Democratic candidate, even those who tried to do something about it, and those that are running for the first time, as unfair as that may be, come election time. As far as Iraq goes, you apparently can't admit that you were wrong, not shocking. What is? Apparently you don't know/can't see, that the political progress you say is impossible in Iraq, is about to happen. Go read the news, from multiple sources, not MoveOn.org, like I did yesterday, and let me know when you are done. BTW, that's all I did last time. Now, you wanna go round 2 on who sees things objectively and therefore whose predictions are most likely to be right, vs. who is blinded by ideology? Or are you still smarting from the whipping you took when I told you the surge was going to work and it did or when I told you that the Sunnis were flipping over to us? You can say what you want, but whenever you get done talking, the fact will still be: the surge did what I said it would and the Sunnis dropped a ton of dimes on the terrorists. And now, the Sunnis, if they are paid off in cabinet positions, are about to join the government and get down to business, and they, just like Hillary said we, "have a lot of business to do". Still laughing about that. You wanna make a wager this time? Easy money for me, how about a $1k? I better not, you need that money for your therapy. Look, it appears that you are either so racist or so affected that you actually believe that the vast majority of Iraqis would rather keep screwing with each other rather than raising their family and working at their jobs, the same as us, and putting this all behind them. That goes against human nature and their culture. But, I suppose that's not a shocker either, especially for someone who wants to implement the abortion that is known as full-blown socialism here, which doesn't have a good human nature track record either...and goes against ours.

And "taking the high road" by choosing to run your mouth without actually taking time to understand the issue at hand or others' views on it, constantly attacking people, and providing no substantive content, or not actually reading, understanding, and considering the source of the articles you incessantly post, is such an attractive set of options over: 1. providing viable solutions, 2. contributing good ideas, 3. actually addressing the issue in a manner that works best for all and keeping the cheap shot to a minimum 4. taking a second to think objectively about who is saying what and why What was I thinking questioning your supposed "moral superiority"? And how like you to not hold anybody other than Republicans, Independents and rational Democrats accountable for our troubles. As if 70% of the Federal Budget we can't afford isn't currently comprised of far-left liberal entitlement programs. Your solutions have been roundly condemned because they don't make any sense! Excuse us for not wanting to repeat past mistakes of the "geniuses" FDR and LBJ. Or, at the very least we ask that any "solution" be looked at in terms of it's effect beyond the 4 year term of it's Presidential author. But go ahead and play the victim, as though we are picking on you personally and not picking on your ideas. I've got news for you: there are ways to get to universal health care, but they depend a hell of a lot more on what people like me do than on what politicians and lawyers do, and I guarantee none of it has to do with just randomly raising taxes. In fact, macro-economic swings = more money/less money, and especially more un-funded mandates from the Federal level/regulations, will only create a larger problem and will solve nothing, until the root cause issues can be fixed. You want a full explanation? PM me, I dare you. Those of us who actually provide solutions for a living know not to treat our ideas like our kids, have the self-confidence to recognize a better idea than ours when we see/hear it, and incorporate it quickly, because we are paid for results, not "being right". In other words: we have what's known as intellectual honesty and intellectual maturity, and we know it's about winning, not credit. Until you develop those qualities, perhaps you should leave the solution providing to those of us who do it for a living. You can call me "high and mighty", but I put my money where my mouth is and am doing something about this, every day. You can call me cocky, but I sincerely doubt anybody wants to buy something from somebody who thinks their stuff "might work" vs. somebody who knows, and therefore says, it will. If I wasn't confident about this, I wouldn't be doing it and wasting everyone's time. You are talking to a professional change agent, but I am supposed to be afraid of change, or somehow unable to deal with it, or unprepared for it? If you had any idea what I actually do, you'd realize how staggeringly silly that statement is. Yeah, I get distracted by things like lapel pins, or gay marriage. Perhaps it's time for you to realize that those of us who are against wholesale socialism for socialism's sake, and who actually are working to fix things rather than B word all day, are just as smart if not smarter than you are, and certainly nowhere near as petty. I have already picked, Molson, years ago, when I decided to chuck my pampered corporate existence and start doing something reasonable about these problems. And this morning, in 2 minutes, just like every morning 7 days a week(well, not after I go out), I will be acting on that choice.

Wishful thinking as always. Hey Molson, how about you explain Congress' 10% approval rating, which is now 27 points lower than Bush's. This should be fun. You do realize that you can't simply wish this poor performance away, right? Perhaps it's time show some character and admit they they have done nothing, nothing at all, about the issues that you supposedly care so much about. Where's that energy policy they promised? You know, the reason we absolutely had to elect them or else our economy and environment would suffer catastrophe? It's been a year and a half. I know gubment is historically slow but a year and a half? No excuse for that, none. And why? Because almost all of the Democrats who got themselves elected on "BushBad" have no worldly idea how to do the job. Their isn't one Daniel Moynihan or Joe Lieberman in the bunch, but a whole lot of John Murtha pork spenders or a lot of loud-mouth schit-talkers who are great at complaining but can't even provide a single solution that isn't laughed off by the experts, or anyone else that possesses common sense. Wait, who else does that sound like? Worse, they haven't even tried. They haven't even produced something and MADE Bush veto it, and then taken their case to the people(um, the obvious tactic given Bush's numbers). Right, once again the obvious has apparently eluded them, and you. So sorry but again, there is no excuse for this, certainly not Bush. You are absolutely dreaming if you think Democrats are going to make gains in Congress this year. And, if a Democrat wins the Presidency, get ready to lose Congress all over again in 2010. What's worse than bad ideas? No ideas.

Hey I am merely saying what she said. I don't need to rely on my parents either, and paid for most of school on merit/my money. The point is what she said is a clear departure from the usual, lame-ass, class warfare BS. I guess what I am saying is she didn't go back to the old chestnut: "rich people didn't earn their money anyway so it's ok if we steal it from them". The fact is that most "rich people" worked hard to get that way. But the real wealthy pay hardly any taxes at all, since their money is coming from the profits of ownership = a zillion tax loopholes, rather than the kind of income that comes from a paycheck and is pretty cut and dried. That's the funny part, to them we are all poor, and like Boss Tweed said: you can always get half the poor to kill the other half. The liberals need to start targeting those who don't contribute anything to society other than their bodily waste after their "charity" dinners, rather than going after people who have worked hard to make $250k a year. Example: name one positive thing of substantive benefit to others that Paris Hilton has contributed to society besides a great subject for a South Park episode. But wait, oops, most of the do-nothing wealthy are liberals! I wonder why? Couldn't be that they'd rather have the $300k people pay all the taxes they should be paying, um, Heinz family and Kerry, nah, I'm sure they know better than us why they should only have to pay 15%. She said specifically that the personal income tax for the top bracket is going to be raised to "90s" levels, which is around 38-9% for all $250k and above people. That's a 6 point uptick for that bracket from today. But it's not that simple: in fact some "rich" people are paying more right now than they did in the 90s = those who make over $300k = 39% as opposed to 37% under Clinton. Most people don't realize how many brackets there are once you get past $100k. Of course the tax laws are as straightforward as a ball of yarn, so this can be spun all over the place. I also think it's hysterical that they never just go ahead and make it 40% = would make the math easier = as though they think we don't know that $19.95 = 20 bucks, and therefore we will be fooled by "39%" <> 40%. WRT, FICA = Social Security tax = Payroll Tax(not the same technically but that's what they called it in the interview), she didn't say how much she was going to raise it specifically. O'Reilly said: "Well, it sounds like you are going to raise it 8%, so that totals up to 14% increase in taxes for me." She basically said that she wasn't sure about 8%. I got the impression that she intends to raise it, but she's not sure how much yet, and doesn't think it will be as high as 8%, but that she also didn't want to be pinned down on an exact #. Interestingly, she invoked Reagan( cue: Molson_Golden tearing hair out) of all people and said she would do something similar to what he did.

While this was billed as a deathmatch, I gotta say that it has been anything but. I thought that was the most reasonable exchange of ideas I have seen out of two very polarizing people in a long time. Hillary gets a B+ for doing this, so far, might even be able to get an A depending on tomorrow. Not saying that she's right or wrong, but she did a hell of a job looking willing to deal with problems and not too aloof, or smug, to deal with the very reasonable questions she was asked. And unlike the far-left pukes that try to duck every question, change the subject, blame everybody else, she actually answered the questions frankly. Overall, this can only help her. Again, she did a good job of showing me something other than bumper sticker logic, and she actually owned up to a 6% tax hike on income and "more to come" on payroll. At least that is honest. However, the only thing that sucked was he just flat out told her she hasn't done sh-- for upstate and that things are worse than when she got elected, instead of making her say what she had done. That was a mistake in my book. And she said that she has done some things and supported others, but he let her off the hook by saying "we have business to do". I find that hysterical, especially for all those near-socialists out there, that their potential candidate is referring to her activity as "doing business". I thought that was a no-no = "Bush's fault". All in all, this was a good idea for Hillary to do, and she actually showed me she knows how to get things done even with people who aren't her biggest fans. Most importantly she flat out said: "Rich people should take pride in making a better economy for our children"(implying that they should be happy to pay more taxes), and I actually think that's what she believes. Nice to hear that presented that way instead of the usual "rich people bad, rich people greedy, no rich people have actually worked to make themselves rich, they were born that way" nonsense.

I like all of this because we have a reasonable COMPETITION at almost every roster spot except MLB, RB, and OL, and of course Lee Evans. We have proven, serviceable backups for those except O line. Really almost everybody but Evans, Lynch, the O line and Poz(kinda) is going to have to earn what they get. The upside of all the injuries last year is that everybody knows that the backups can play. O line is a bit of a concern though. We have to have continuity at the O line and I don't see any value in changing more than one guy each year, unless we have what we had in 2006. However, we could use a couple of guys there to make me feel better in terms of depth. However, they must be taking the time to convert Matt Murphy to play tackle for a reason, if he wasn't worth the effort then the Turk would've gotten him, right? And it would be great to see Bell make the roster and be a good backup while he's learning. For the Fowler haters, don't forget that Whittle is supposed to be able to play center. Preston is to, if anybody cares. In most cases, whoever starts this year will have to have earned it in camp, or has already earned it last year, which is as it should be.

While we're at it, get some new commercials. Although it looks like they are changing things up recently. Now we get to hear about Bulldog's sleep apnea Darth Vader mask, instead of how he likes to do yardwork. Yeaaaaa!

Ok, but in doing that we don't get Stroud as easily. And Stroud is better than 2 Walkers as it stands right now. Not that being without Alvin Bowen's pick would have killed us, but, as of where we stand right now, it's certainly handy to have had that extra 5 to give up.

You forgot that crazy trick play calling Mularkey, boy did making him a head coach add sizzle. And who can forget those sizzling plays that made Mularkey famous. You won't see plays like that in the NFL for a long time.

Ever hear of Tutan Reyes, Peerless Price, or Anthony Thomas and the rest? All stop gap, all gone, minus one = Melvin Fowler. The fact is that there were so many holes on this team that we even had to keep Tim Anderson around for a little while. I don't think we will ever really be able to comprehend fully the mess that this team was in when Levy/DJ took over. The fact that we went 7-9 in the first year was really a back handed achievement. I was one who thought Walker might be the right guy for the D, after all he went to the Bears for the same reason we wanted him = penetrating tackle, not space eater. But the minute he started with the contract nonsense I was done. As I have said before, we traded: McGahee, Spikes and Holcomb for Poz, Stroud and 7th round picks. Steve Johnson is one of those 7th picks, imagine if pans out, or is it Bell?. Either way, we easily won that trade regardless, it's not even close. If Bell or Johnson do anything it's merely icing on the cake.

I don't know that story. Is that why he's such a douche? I figured it had to be something like that. His insecurity when trying to talk about the Bills is palpable.

I really don't think you know how to read. What part of, "it's a two part reply" do you not get? I said your post was asinine because it was, regardless of your point, to the point that it detracted from it. Separately from that, I am responding to the false choice set up by the OP = "make the Bills or it's Iraq for you" in a manner that actually explains the reality of his situation, rather than using all caps and spouting nonsense. That's it, that's all there is to it.

It doesn't stop there, in fact it gets much worse, both the things that are part of the formal training and the things that you won't see on 60 minutes.

I do but I still wanted Flutie to play, if nothing else because I liked the fact that he was a winner. RJ was clearly better measurable-wise, but he either couldn't get it done, or he always got hurt. Either way his confidence was crap, and it was obvious that the rest of the team saw that. Ultimately all we accomplished was looking ridiculous...but it was fun yelling "Flutieeeee". I never in a million years thought that would bring us Frankensloe, Donahoe, and the mess that followed.

Yeah, right, but I still don't see how what you wrote isn't asinine. So, what's the point you are trying to illustrate with your expert literary skill? Because it's really not that ironic, in fact it's kind of silly, and based on the rest of your posts, I decided to edit mine so that you would better understand this situation. Oh I think I see what happened. You didn't pick up on the fact that my original post is a two parter separated by my "Anyways,". The asinine comment was for you because your post doesn't do much for anyone. The rest was for the rest of the thread. Maybe I'll use bullets next time...my bad.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Perhaps a trip to dictionary.com and a search on the word irony would help? The fact is I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. Edit: Hmm. Perhaps this will help--> you do understand that the Army has Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Psychologists, hell, they even need dirtbag software Project Managers once in a while, right? Where do you think most of them come from? That's right, West Point. More insight: many of those who graduate 3rd in their class(like Viti) get to choose one of the open slots available(just like a reverse draft, they have so many slots for each thing, i.e. 5 slots for going to Medical School, and picking starts with the top). So, if Viti wasn't playing football, he basically would have the third pick of the slots available. So, essentially he could do whatever he wanted, go to Iraq with the Airborne and serve his 5 years(or stay in and be a General someday), or go to Wharton and work in Ordinance/Supply for free, he would just have to pay in years of service(big bucks when he gets out), or go to Medical School and in that case he might as well stay in and get his 20. Does that make it clearer? This guy has a boatload of options available to him, and NFL football is merely one. In all cases, this notion that getting cut = one way ticket to Iraq is ridiculous, unless he chooses it, which, given his cadet rank, is actually the most likely. Edit: perhaps that's the irony you are referring to?