BRH

Yeah but his house looked like sh--!

Just when I think I'm out... they pull me back in!

Did they not provide shuttle buses for this event or are these people too good for that sort of thing? For the PGA here they didn't allow ANY on-street parking within a mile of Oak Hill. They tried their best to nail people parking in Pittsford Plaza and sneaking over to the drop-off entrance near the 16th green, too. The lady I told you about had a sliding scale of prices during the week. Something like $15 for the practice rounds, going up to $20 on Thursday and Friday, $30 on Saturday and $40 on Sunday.

We were very careful to declare our income from parking and rent that year (we rented our house to a corporate group for Tuesday and Wednesday of that week). I doubt everyone else was so scrupulous. Eight dollars for water is !@#$ing criminal. I felt guilty selling water bottles for $2.

Everything you just said about Baltusrol applies to Oak Hill as well, except the fees and costs are lower (this ain't Northern Jersey). I parked cars on my lawn for the 2003 PGA (I live about 100 yards from the third tee). On Sunday a guy drove up and said he didn't want to pay $20 to park on my lawn but if I let him park there for free he'd give me his extra ticket. I think I made out pretty good on that one. A neighbor who lives on a corner lot of my street and East Avenue sold pre-paid reservations to park on her lawn during the PGA. Because they have a corner lot they could get more cars on the lawn; I heard she cleared 12 grand for the week.

Not enough pictures.

Hi Rudy.

Can't do that. I got 8 of the first 12 and then 30 of the last 88.

Didn't he last about two weeks working for Jimmy Kimmel before crawling back to Bristol?

Come on guys. Simmons was just excited because he thought he might have found somebody for Tom Brady.

And what is Gene Frenkle doing on the Sports Guy page?

Que es Sarah?

Really? I thought he sat back in his chair and it folded up and he fell between the seat and the seat back, and hurt his hand trying to break his fall.

Respectfully disagree. This is a guy you want on the field as much as possible to stretch the field for Moulds and Evans, as well as to provide yet another reverse threat. Plus the article in this morning's D&C quoted, I think, Willis as saying that Parrish has one of the best arms on the team. Not too far-fetched to imagine him posing the same kind of threat in that department as Antwaan Randle El. I can't imagine any reasonable scenario in which he WON'T be the third wideout. Even if his hand is still dinged, put him out there and make defenses think.

Unfortunately I cannot confess to the same thoughts because of my age and all. But I hear you, brother.

She may not be the only one. Jenna von Oy looks a bit lighter on top now, I'm ashamed to be able to say, than she did during her later years on "Blossom."

No schitt. The last year people around here took any kind of unbridled joy in winning was probably 1988, after those horrible mid-'80s years. Ever since then it's been "well yeah they won, but they didn't win by enough" or "well yeah they won but _____ looked like crap" or, lately, "well yeah they won but they couldn't hold a candle to those SB teams."

Stay tuned for "Taking JJ Arrington And Acting All Pissed At Buffalo: The Story of the 2005 Arizona Cardinals Draft."

I know. I'm 36 and still have the Picture This LP and cassettes of Sports and Fore!. I was only busting on Pooj... I'd probably have gone myself (like I did to Van Halen last year ).

Some of these should have had a notation: "after implants."

Oh my God! Regular people were there? You mean the Judge Smallses of the world had to rub elbows with the Danny Noonans last night? The horror.

Let's put it this way: The Giants of 1991, 1992 and 1993 couldn't have beaten the Bills in those seasons' Super Bowls. The only chance they had was in 1990, and they made good on it. The Redskins of 1991 were much better than the 'Skins of the preceding year and the next two years. The Cowboys of 1990 and 1991 weren't yet at the stage where they could think about making the SB, let alone win it. Remember, they were 1-15 in 1989. When OJG says "several" teams from 1990-93 could have beaten the Bills, he seems to be including all four years' worth of the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys in that calculation. I say that the years they won it were the only years they could have won it. After the Cowboys of '92-'93, the Redskins of '91, the Giants of '90, and the Niners of '90-'93, who else was there in the NFC? The Eagles? Please. The Packers? Not there yet by a long shot. The Bears? They were done. That leaves the Cardinals, Wayne Fontes' Lions, the Vikings, the Suckaneers, the Aints, the Rams, and the Falcons. Any takers? Didn't think so. The NFC during the early '90s had two dominant franchises each year, a couple of average ones, and a bunch of crappy ones. The distance between, say, the Cowboys and Niners of '92 and the bottom-feeders of the NFC that year was considerable. They had plenty of "off weeks" in their own conference. Please let's not generalize a couple of great teams into a "dominant conference."

See my post immediately above yours.

Is that Weck a la Quayle?

Probably because some of your brethren are so insecure about their narrow margins of victory in the recent SBs that they have to expend multiple paragraphs of hot air in denigrating another team's success.