Rob's House

Some of us have watched plenty of his body of work. He's average. Nothing more.

I don't care for this move. The money being wasted on TJax could have been used to sign a player who could add a lot more value. Having two average QBs does not equal one good one. Stupid move IMO.

I mentioned him a while back as a potential sleeper at WR. He played both WR & QB in college. He's around 6'4" 250 LB w/ decent speed for a guy his size and moves pretty well. He's a longshot, but might go undrafted and could be interesting in a TE/WR role.

Sanchez was worse because he was coming off a bad season & was still under contract. Fitz was in the last year of his contract & the idea was to lock him up early before his price went up. Neither was a good move, but Sanchez was far worse.

Have there been studies linking long-term health problems to youth football? Kids don't usually inflict as much damage. I suspect this is at the behest of some douche bag politician who either feels passionately about something he knows little about or is trying to cash in on the hype.

Not sure how much stock anyone puts in PFF rankings, but they had Harris as one of the worst ILBs in football last year.

I think you're doing what most people do and reaching for the most positive way to interpret your political candidate's words/actions, and then deciding to believe that's the case because that's what you would prefer to believe rather than because it's the most likely conclusion. Plus, I'm not referring to just one statement. I'm considering several statements and actions in developing that theory.

Agreed. IOC is missing the forest for the tree. Perhaps golf will pull more ratings than wrestling, but they're inrementally changing the whole core of what the Olympics represents. To me, replacing the highlight events with a glorified scrimmage in a sport where the atheletes don't too much care about the Olympics cheapens the overall allure of the games. Dan Wetzel has a good take on it: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--ioc-s-poor-decision-to-add-golf-costs-wrestling-its-spot-in-olympics-201325406.html

My theory is that it started w/ the post 9/11 unity hangover when emotions settled & people remembered they were still political enemies. Iraq opened the door to the anti-Bush crowd (many of whom see 1960s Viet Nam protests as their glory days) to seize the opportunity. In the midst of all this came a media transformation where the pre-text of objectivity was tossed out the window (largely due to Internet & emergence of FNC airing conservative editorial shows) so the liberal factions of the media went into full swing. Much of the irreverence came from the emergence of non-traditional political coverage like the Daily Show & Bill Maher who provided a high profile venue for unbridled bashing. As the lefts full frontal assault on Bush permeated pop culture (and this part is undeniable: it was a cool & popular thing to hate Bush), the conservatives and Republicans, many of whom were not terribly pleased with a good many decisions Bush was making, were made to defend him just like a girl who isn't happy w/ her bf feels compelled to defend him against attacks from her mother. W/ Obama, now the tone is set (meaning Republicans see what the other side did & aren't receptive to opportunistic and hypocritical calls for civility) and a lot of the distaste for him from the right (and disillusionment from the left) is a result of a guy who was celebrated beyond, any rational justification, more for what he is than anything he did. Also, the fact that Obama basically told the opposition that he won, so tough ****, get in line (specifically the back of the line) b/c he's in charge now, didn't win him any good will from the opposition.

Does anyone else find it annoying, lame, & pathetic the way the congress jumps up to applaud whenever the President says something they agree with? If you can't shout "you lie" is it too much to ask that you sit down & STFU and applaud after the damn thing is over? I can't tell if I'm watching sycophantic idiots eagerly driven by the passions of their prejudice to hoot loudly for their views, or it they're all dutifully playing politics.

This was my favorite of his addresses. My TV was muted.

He doesn't need his pail because he eats the other guy's lunch. YEAH!

Obviously 4-3 MLB in a Dave W scheme isn't his strong suit. Does anyone who's really evaluated this guy and/or is familiar with Pettine's defense think he could contribute if used differently?

Are you stating this as a positive or is this sarcasm?

Sure thing, buddy. Whatever the hell that means.

Huh? No

WTF are you even talking about? What does the KKK holding a meeting somewhere have to do with anything?

How can you be tho inthenthetive?

Just putting the pieces together. The fact that his injury has healed (and isn't disk related) along with him surviving this last round of cuts, being the most complete DE not named Mario on the team, and a salary that doesn't sound prohibitive all makes me think he'll be back. Just to clarify, this isn't an official confirmation. I'll check with my sources and get back to you.

Looks like odds are good Kelsay will stay. http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2278/chris-kelsay

So now you want to sign him because he's known for giving other guys wood?

This isn't from my inside sources. I just pushed the EQ and played connect the dots.

I suspect Searcy & A Williams will compete for the SS spot.

Why we shouldn't resign Levitre: 1. He probably wants too much money. 2. Lack of team loyalty - we want guys who put the team above personal interests. 3. He's named after boner medication. That, when playing along side a guy whose name is synonymous with boner, makes our line a laughing stock. 4. Diversity - With Levitre our starting O-line is 80% white; that seems racist. Releasing him would open the door to becoming more diverse along our line. 5. It will give the appearance of vindication to the "Ralph is cheap" crowd.

I like wtching real sports, not seeing who's best at exercising.