ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

I sure hope Jeff Tuel doesn't read this.

Well if they're going to blend in with the real fans, they're gonna have to have sex in the restrooms at least every now and then, just like those teachers did.

There is no "perfect" power ranking. But if we win the Super Bowl, and after winning the first regular season game the next year Kate Upton announces the rankings and goes topless just before saying we're at # 1, that would be close enough for practical purposes.

If you want to time travel into the future to see next week's Jets game, you just need to move really, really fast. But if you want to go back and watch the Carolina game again, you'll need a wormhole: http://gadgets.ndtv.com/others/news/time-travel-possible-but-only-to-the-future-english-physicist-419370

Maybe this is why it seems strange: It's 1% based on current market value for new owners, but there are lots of people who bought CA homes that have seen their property taxes go up 2% per year since purchase, but their long term appreciation rate go up by far more than 2% per year. So anybody that bought a CA home before or at the early stages of the bubble now pays annual property tax at a rate of significantly less than 1% of current market value. That brings the average rate for all taxpayers (including recent buyers and people who bought long ago) down below 1%.

For a state by state comparison of average property tax rates as a % of market value, based on 2007-2009 data, see: http://local.dexknows.com/property-tax-rates-by-state-find-out-where-you-rank/

I think Buddy was napping in the back of one of the wagons. Ralph was too cheap to buy him a cot for his office.

l picked a small, lesser known email provider based in part on its stronger than usual privacy policies. Recently, they shut the service down and posted the letter below on their website - - Be afraid, be very afraid: http://lavabit.com/

Alternatively, could be: Rubber ducky escapes tub - - discovers miniature world.

Just when you think you've seen it all:

If we all pitch in we could make this happen - - who's with me?

Well if you're thick, I am too. It's not uncommon to find conflicting opinions online about salary cap issues, maybe because the CBA is so hard to fully understand that there are only a few people who really understand all the details (I don't). If I see anything from a league or other reliable source that seems to definitively answer the question (either way), particularly if it cites to a CBA provision, I'll try to remember to come back and post it here.

If you're gonna kick the guy just do it - - they added psycho-logical torture to the physical abuse by letting him know now what's coming later in the week. Kinda like - - "Wait till your father gets home!"

1 Take a closer look at what the Seahawk blogger wrote AFTER he communicated with McIntyre. Here's the relevant part: http://www.fieldgull...kings-rolloever The phrase I bolded above contains an obvious typo when you look at the numbers. Yes, the Seahawks blogger said that "the 2013 Seahawks Adjusted Cap worked out to be $143M" - - but that makes no sense. He wrote that blog entry on July 17, 2012, at a time when there was no way for him to know exactly what the 2013 Adjusted Cap figure would be. That's why his very next sentence states - - "Right now the Seahawks are spending $134.5M in 2012 salary cap, and have $8.5M in cap room." 134.5M spent in 2012 plus 8.5M in remaining 2012 cap room = $143M as the adjusted cap figure for 2012, not 2013. The first time I posted the Seahawks blogger's entry I inserted "[sic]" after the word 2013 to indicate that there was a typo in what the blogger originally wrote, because he must have meant 2012 at that point in the text. So in fact, although there was an obvious typo, the Seahawks blogger was indeed trying to analyze what you characterize as a "re-rollover" situation. He concluded that (1) the Seahawks rolled over $21M from 2011 to 2012, and (2) were on pace, if they didn't make changes for the remainder of 2012, to roll over the $8.5M unspent portion of the $143M 2012 Adjusted Cap to 2013. If the Seahawks blogger agreed with your interpretation of the rules, he would have concluded that the Seahawks were on pace to be unable to roll any $ over to 2013, because the $8.5M of 2012 Adjusted Cap room they had not yet spent was less than the $21M that the Seahawks rolled over from 2011 to 2012. 2. I wonder if the spotrac link you posted is simply trying to say, if we use the above Seahawks numbers as an example, that after the Seahawks rolled $21M from 2011 to 2012, they can't roll BOTH the unspent $8.5M and the previously rolled $21M into 2013. Note that the Seahawks blogger moronically initially thought that if the Seahawks rolled over 21M from 2011 to 2012, they could ADD the same 21M to what they were on pace to rollover from 2012 to 2013. 3. Although that interpretation of the spotrac link would reconcile the seemingly conflicting position of the ProFootballTalk link I posted earlier in this thread, I don't know if that's what spotrac meant. But I do know that the salary cap rules were the subject of prolonged bargaining between the NFL and NFLPA before the 2011 CBA was signed, and if any rule prohibiting what you call a "re-rollover" exists, it has to be in the CBA. If it's in there, I can't find it, so until somebody shows me a CBA provision to the contrary, I think you're wrong. 4. The CBA is not as long as the US Tax Code, but it's about as turgid, so I acknowledge that a prohibition against what you characterize as "re-rolling" could be hiding in there somewhere (with a pony ). 5. Agreed. 6. Are you suggesting that the 2011 CBA was modified by the NFL and NFLPA in 2012? - - that may be the only way a new salary cap rule that wasn't mentioned in the 2011 CBA could arise later.

Maybe we are getting all tied up in semantics about what it means to "re-roll" unused cap room. The following link is to just a Seattle fan's blog, but it relays a tweeted explanation provided by Brian McIntyre (a guy who writes a blog on the nfl.com site). It shows that a team's unused cap room from 2011 can be carried over to 2012 and added to the league-wide standard cap for 2012. That higher, combined figure then becomes the team's adjusted cap for 2012. If the team spends less than its adjusted 2012 cap figure in 2012, it can then carry over the full amount of the unused 2012 adjusted cap to 2013. Each year a team can only roll over the unused part of that same year's adjusted salary cap to the next year, but there is never any need to subtract out the amount of unused salary cap from some earlier year. http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/7/17/3165014/nfl-salary-cap-team-rankings-rolloever The above explanation seems consistent with the previously cited section of the 2011 CBA (linked above). So for the Bills, any portion of the team's current adjusted salary cap that doesn't get spent this year can be rolled over to next year, even though they did the same thing last year.

I keep reading in various threads that unused cap room can't be "re-rolled" into future seasons, but I have never seen a link to back up that claim. Maybe there's verification for your interpretation of the salary cap rules and I just missed it, or maybe the "common wisdom" is more common than it is wise. I don't consider what my own search found to be the final say on the matter, but consider this: http://profootballta...-automatically/ And I've actually read the cited section of the 2011 CBA, and it says nothing one way or the other about whether unused cap room can be "re-rolled:" http://images.nflpla...les/2011CBA.pdf All of the salary cap rules are contained in the CBA. It's possible that some other section of the lengthy CBA prohibits "re-rolling" unused salary cap space, but if such a provision exists, I haven't seen it. Do you have a link to support your interpretation of the rollover rules? If not, can you show me where in the CBA it prohibits "re-rolling" unused cap space?

Not a bumper sticker, but it should be:

I'm not a "let's all march to the same drumstick" kind of guy, so yeah - - "renegaded."

In a thread now renegaded to the dustbin of history: (http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/137603-school-district-named-after-bills-heroes/page__hl__%2Bbills+%2Bheroes), I pointed out that if you're gonna name a school district after Bills heroes, you could do better than picking obese backups. If you don't happen to live in Steuben County, I'm talking about the Jasper-Troupsburg Central School District: http://www.newyorkschools.com/districts/jasper-troupsburg-central-school-district.html Today's events have proven me right. I can understand why they kept the name even after Jasper was cut, because Troup was still on the team, and they probably had lots of forms and letterhead to use up. But I don't see how they can avoid changing the name now that Troup is gone, too. If they want to stick with the lineman theme, they have limited options. Nobody's gonna name a school district after Legursky. Williamsville North and Williamsville South have first dibs on Kyle and Mario, so they may be stuck with changing the name to the "Dareus-Carringtown Central School District." "Carringtown" is a lttle touchy-feely for me, but since even the fat kids get participation trophies these days, maybe they can slim down if the name makes them feel loved.

"I'm an idea man Chuck, I get ideas, sometimes I get so many ideas that I can't even fight them off!"

I think Leinart could actually be useful as the on-field QB. He threw 2 INTs yesterday, but in both cases, those throws would have been on the intended WR's frame and catchable if the defender had not intersected the ball's path. They were not wildly off-target throws - - just ill-advised ones. Both throws presumably went exactly where Leinart intended them to go, but he made a bad front-end decision when picking which target to throw to. I think the bigger problem with Leinart is how suspicious the NFL watchdogs would get if he started wearing this new helmet and his performance skyrocketed. I like the idea of a Fitz/EJ or Fitz/Tuel combo, but unfortunately Fitz is on the Titans roster, right? So the off-field guy would need to be currently available. How about Joe Montana? His anticipation was excellent, and like Fitz, he used that mental ability to compensate for unexceptional arm strength. Who wouldn't want a return to the glory days without having to take the hits? On the 60/80 percent arm strength thing, we could probably just put a resistor in the loop to attenuate the signal. It would just be a matter of linearly scaling the signal - - we're not talking about putting a man on the moon or some other form of rocket science.

Game of Thrones is fiction. This is science.

I don't care who gets the credit - - I just wanna beat the snot out of the Patriots for a change. As the article clearly states (I even provided the relevant excerpt), it only works if both parties have the device "on or against their heads." Even if you are wearing one, I'm not, so your signal was ineffective. So you might as well take it off.

Welcome to the new world, my friend. The article I linked is from the Washington friggin' Post. Among others, it quotes "Duke University neurobiologist Miguel Nicolelis." And if you missed the fact that Hackett already has a degree in neurobiology: http://www.wgr550.com/Bills--Hackett--From-neurobiology-to-NFL-OC/15360055 Who better to push the NFL talent frontier?

That's the kind of low-tech thinking that's allowed the Patriots to own us.