mike1011

You're completely correct. Caldwell and Brown is probably the best WR tandem out there. After watching the game both QBs in that game were pressured all game. JP needs more mental abilities, not more time.

In 04 I wanted to grab Brunell. I would take Brunell with the 3 picks I lost for grabbing JP. With those 3 picks I could have: By virtue of the 2nd round of 2004 Bob Sanders from Indy or Jake Grove. 5th round in 2004 I would gave grabbed Jeb Terry for depth at guard. With the 1st rounder I could have had either (from 2005, and I believe in strengthening the lines above all else): Mike Patterson, Luis Castillo, or Heath Miller. I believe in trying to groom a 3rd to 6th round QB and draft almost 1 a year and stick them on the PT, allocate them to NFLE, but groom one for a while rather than wasting big money, time, and wins on a 1st rounder. If you want solid fill in that will be good, let him come in FA such as a Brees (he was a 2nd rounder), or someone whose career wasn't great as a 1st rounder who will be cheap. They are all over the place.

Some doctors say there is a connection, some say the results are "inconclusive". Well golly gee doesn't it make sense that it could be dangerous? If there's a 60% chance something may happen would you do it? Would you fly with a 60% chance of a connection that flying in a tornado might kill you? While the connection of flying in tornados don't necessitate making a conclusion, it wouldn't be smart either.

I've worked with women who have had abortions. That's how I know, not because I perform them. And to answer your "more important" question there are waiting lists longer than all the abortions committed in this country.

There is a bigger line for couples waiting to adopt than there are abortions in the country. Orphans aren't new-borns and you're insane if you pretend that some kids are orphaned after their parents went wacko and their lives are ruined by bad examples is the same as adopting a new-born. Lines for new-borns have no end. Kids who are orphaned many times has nothing to do with the parents not wanting the children, it's because the parents were misbehaving. No comparison.

Harassing a girl-friend is no big deal unless he threatened her. 98% of men would be arrested everyday. This country goes way too far with punishing people who do nothing.

Pats O-line stinks. Out goes Bledsoe, in comes Brady. --> They look good Chicago's Oline stinks. Out goes Orton in comes Grossman --> They look good Chiefs O-line stinks. Out goes Green (injury) in comes Huard --> They NOW look good Jags O-line stinks. Out goes Leftwich in comes Gerrard --> They looks good. The Chiefs O-line looked terrible. Difference? Huard plays better, quicker and the defense has to adjust. Look at how dumb some of the responses are when you ask if JP should block, be the RB, etc. when in fact the RB and the O-line would look better if the QB was better. If the defense blitzes 7 guys on a 5 man O-line does the O-line automatically stink if they can't block everyone? Nope. When that QB gets rid of the ball quickly to burn the D then all of a sudden the O-line looks good because the D respects such talent. Without it the pressure is coming and you better think quickly. Huard looks good for the reason why Bulger looks good. Cerebral QBs with mediocre arms improve their game on the bench. They watch, fill in, play some games as a back-up, and get good around 28. Gerrard looks ok and he's been a back-up for a long time. He's got better. It's just that simple. Players can develop from thinking on the bench. McNair, Brady, Young et al. are proof.

Statistics, unfettered, are always a lie. Examine how many starters we are comparing? The Cardinals, Jags, Ravens, Cowboys, etc. have had QBs go down just some of the time so compare starter with starter without missing a game. JP is well below average with a higher number of fumbles than even the below average QBs. I too would take Carr, Delhomme, Grossman, Garrard... but I would add Romo, McNair, Gradkowski (pathetic isn't it?), Brunell, Smith, Farve, Huard or Green, and Plummer to that list that you said no to. I think any one of those guys would give us a better offense. I would rather have that quick guy back-up from the Seahawks too if he continues to play well. That guy had great instincts, but he's an unknown. I know JP couldn't have played as well as he did that night.

You keep saying FORCED, yet you don't go to the next question: How is it fair that someone is FORCED to die? Oh, here is some evidence on the mental health of women who have abortions to show abortions cause more harm to the women than people think. This comes from the National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=16405636 How about the connection that women who have abortions have a tremendously higher rate of breast cancer? http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=23506 Who wins in an abortion? Certainly not the women who has them, and certainly not the child.

Your question is like knocking on the door to truth and running away when it opens. Here, don't take my word for it, take THE leading abortionist in this country in the 60's and 70's. He has committed 75,000 abortions so that qualifies him as an expert: Dr. Bernard Nathanson http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html If you deny his stance you are not being rational. How about Joan Appleton's credentials as a RN who performed thousands of abortions and struggled with suicide herself? Her story is AMAZING and her story about committing an abortion using ultra-sound (something that usually traumatizes doctors because they see themselves killing the baby) http://www.danhankins.com/joanappleton.htm This is her quote about what she saw during an abortion personally after doing hundreds of them: And the group for physicians, nurses, paramedical personnel, technicians, receptionists, and security personnel who become suicidal after being part in abortions called the Society of the Centurions in MN who take in thousands of industry murderers because their conscience is causing them to become deeply depressed and suicidal? What can they know? Oh, that's right, you who have such limited knowledge working with that industry of infanticide can tell me who am I, when I have a slew of doctors and nurses who are on record admitting the wickedness of abortion.

I hate right and left labels, but for the sake of discussion I'm on the right. I don't like Coulter, Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the excuse factory for the bad decisions of the President or the Congress in the name of the right. The right lost it's "rightness" years ago and became left. The left went so wacky that anyone who has any semblance to sanity is called the right. Imagine Democrats from the 50's promoting a Social Service system that would involve 1 in every 5 Americans? They couldn't. Wait 20 more years when it's almost 1 in 3 Americans because we couldn't privatize Social Security and run further and further in debt robbing Peter to pay Paul. You can't privatize SS because people can't invest their money, the gov't needs it because we are all too dumb to do it correctly. If that's not Socialism I don't know what is. Don't pin the right for not apologizing. I don't need to apologize for them, they are a disgrace for not accepting reality that Bush wasn't truthful and no amount of pointing fingers at the left will allow them to escape they screwed up. Because they are famous they are seen as the true right, but I can assure you the true right still exists in guys like Buchanan. He's a real conservative. He doesn't need to apologize, he said the war was a farce, that borders should be the concern, and that the trade imbalance is going to destroy the country. He has some "liberal" ideas, when in fact they were always part of the right until recently.

And the 14% of businesses it will affect? How about the fact that most ma and pa shops are under the table and now there will be more and more small companies paying under the table to avoid paying taxes on their employees? It will affect a lot more than 14% of business. Small businesses as a class are about 2-30 employees. Now it won't affect business that are 15-30 employees, but it will affect business from 2-14. That includes small diners, restaurants, ma and pa stores (hardware, antique, etc.) and the list goes on. People are clueless because most people work a job and have never owned a business, and if they did own one it's in the past tense. It's going to affect me, that's for sure. It won't put me out of business, but it will force me to outsource my work to large corporations for things like marketing instead of giving to the local community. I can see raising it 10%, but certainly not 40%.

jarthur, You slam against celibacy by the Vatican unlines your vast ignorance the rate of destroying innocence in youth by homosexuals is higher in public schools, rabbis, and protestant ministers. Start your crusade against teachers first, then we'll talk. Celibacy does not create homosexuality. That's not only fallacious, but stupid. You might want to learn what an ad hoc fallacy is.

You run the ball with A-train right at Freeney who always goes outside for his angles to the QB. You gash the left-side until Freeney stops cheating. You spread it with 1 TE on the right side for occasional rushes to the right side to help whoever is RT. 3 receivers every down with only 3 step drops for the 1st half when passing. Play quick slants and let the receivers use their quickness. Get Parrish involved with screens and slants. I would use roll-outs 20% of the time just to help out the right side of the line and develop different looks so they can't pin their ears back and smack us. In the 2nd half you keep the same recipe with the exception I would run a few fades by Peerless to keep the safety deep and then keep gashing the left side as Freeney wants sacks during this contract year. On a 2nd and 1 you go long to Peerless to show we aren't bluffing. Even if it fails it keeps them honest. If all else fails begin to pray.

So someone has to die because of their transgression that doesn't involve the death of the rapist? You have to admit, such logic is fallacious at best, very dumb at worst. We are not talking about the life of the rapist, but the innocent life that did nothing to die. What happened to the right to live for the innocent? Oh, and by the way, more women have psychological stress disorders after having the abortion than bringing the baby to term. It's a proven fact that most women deal better with a child from the product of rape (as the baby is a comfort), than the horror that they killed their baby which is innocent. It's just a fact. The vast majority of women suffer from incredible psychological trauma after an abortion. I should know, I've seen it first-hand and it's very sad.

Self-defense of the unborn? You forget that someone dies in the process. It's not self-defense to kill innocent life. As your mom used to tell you, "2 wrongs don't make a right."

Because rationality has to do with a high percentage of agreeable Americans vs. principles of thought and facts. I never knew if the majority of people believed up was down it really made it that way and such people were rational. Fascinating observation.

Liberals are the most closed-minded of all. When you mention Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution you hear it's a religious belief when it fact it's not. Evolution is simply a theory turned into infallible in every way without proof of macro-evolution, or without current species mutating anywhere on the planet. Abortion is a women's right to "chose", but chose what? When someone is pro-life they chose life. To chose a choice is tautological and intellectually dishonest. They chose death, and where are those people who support a child's right to live in schools? They don't have a platform in public education and I have never seen any teacher explain the mental ramifications of abortion, which is exceptionally high, or the increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortions which is supported by 3 independent studies. If a corporation doesn't want to hire a homosexual they call that discrimation. Why can't they be open to our decision that it's immoral? Why must lawyers sue us into their belief that it's morally neutral? If Christians hire Christians only it's wrong and descrimating, but if Masons hire Masons it's ok? Do you want case example? You can't mention Christmas or a Nativity scene now in school, yet they had Muslim sensitivity training after 9/11. Kids get thrown out of school for pro-life t-shirts yet if you wear a Marilyn Manson shirt such incidents aren't an issue. Men cannot have strictly male jobs (like firemen), but if a male applies to Hooters why shouldn't they hire him under the same auspices? Frankly, you are blind if you don't see the hypocrisy in the matter.

It's simple... you can have an abortion at 13 without parental consent, but God forbid if they give you aspirin.

That makes so much sense. Things can't be awesome when 90% of the population live downstate and make the rest of the state over-taxed, legislated, and find people who don't want to live here or be landlords. You should eff off.

So murder is ok with exceptions? If you are raped or violated by incest you have the right to murder an innocent life? Makes no sense.

And about half those yards came in the 4th quarter when we were down with few points on the board. I'm not impressed.

Exactly, you don't spend a 1st, 2nd, and 5th round pick on a guy who can play managed games. You pay that much to get a guy who can make plays and win games with his ability that surpasses mediocrity. Most of us would be happy with consistent mediocrity of 200 yards a game, 60% completion rate and a 5:3 TD to INT ratio, with 6 fumbles a season. Most of us would ecstatic if that was the case. Instead we are happy when he didn't turn the ball over once, 100 yards passing, and no real offense to speak of. Funny how I said (not on this board) that I wanted Brunell more than any QB when he was available via FA because he was affordable, still serviceable, and we could have kept our picks. He's not great, and an easy pick to bash, but can anyone honestly tell me it was a bad thought in comparison to what we have now?

I'm sorry, but if Rodney Harrison was on our team I would want him off the team. His cheap shots, intentionally hurting other athletes is way beyond what I would call acceptable as an athlete. I'm happy he was hurt on a play in which he was giving someone a face-mask, which points out the fact that he always cheats. Even on the play he wasn't flagged for it. The man is a disgrace to football. Hit hard between the rules, but don't cheat as badly or as viciously as he does.

She's part of the reason I plan on doing less business in NY and more in TX. I expect more taxes in this state as a result of people like her.