HurlyBurly51

Hmmm.....Interesting that the song came in at 1:38 when the over/under was 1:43.

You try fixing that line

Count me in the pleasantly surprised camp. His purple rain in the actual rain reminded me of a great concert back in the day at Rich when The Who started playing love reign o'er me and the skies opened up. I always enjoy that kinda schitt!

That SOB cost me $50 in my squares

You're getting enough estrogen jokes. The part that caught my attention was the ridiculous discount. Why don't your friends just offer to treat you to the game for your birthday? Seems if they're willing to go to extreme discounts, why not go the extra mile and just offer it up? Might've gave you just enough leverage in your lame argument to go out on your B-day. Just saying.

I guess I shouldn't really get on Marv too much about this....it's obviously a tough concept to grasp

Who said anything about Marv being fired? Of course, most mortals in their day to day jobs would get fired over such a colossal mistake. And the statement above contradicts itself - don't question his moves, but the "promise" was flat out stupid?

What?! One fatal flaw - no CB on day 1 - impossible!

It's different because you can bet they are competent and shrewd enough to not give away the only leverage a club has under the CBA, so next year they wouldn't just let him bolt for nothing in return.

Exactly. Marv needs to be called out on this stupid mistake and raked over the coals for it. Guys usually get fired for mistakes of this magnitude, but I'm sure this will be glossed over because it's Marv and he's old.

Count me among that crowd as well!

The real question is: Why the hell did Marv even make the agreement to begin with? He did not need to give up the one tool the CBA gives him, because Nate would've had to come in under his Franchise offer sooner or later. Instead, now he lets one of his best assets walk out the door....for nothing in return. Not good business sense, and when Nate does leave, Marv deserves to get skewered over this mistake. We could've drafted Nate's replacement with the pick we would've got for him, and still got the DL or LB we need in the 1st. Oh well, guess we are good enough to afford to give up something for nothing, even though we had the tools all along to at least not leave the cupboard bare.

He was on my flight the day after the Jets game - glad to report he looks very healthy!

Tony's not dead I mean c'mon, they gave Edgar a silent count last year.

Didn't see him tonight, but noticed they also didn't give him the "silent count" last week. One would think Curtis would've gotten the famous silent count.

Sounds like a familiar philosophy....

Classic stuff.

Wrong again. Do you know Soprano? Otherwise, provide a link.

That's actually 100% false. He wanted to move him over to the left side when TD was here, but was vetoed.

You know what they say about experts...it ends with "and they all stink"

Meanwhile we're throwing away the tools the CBA gave us to help us try to be competitive.....

Season 5 was my first foray into the world of 24, and it hooked me. I went back and watched seasons 1-4 on DVD, and wish I would've done that first. But I just couldn't resist watching season 5 unfold after that premiere! So I guess I'd say enjoy season 6, then go back between seasons and catch up on the history. It's pretty cool seeing the characters develop and how the various relationships were built, not to mention every season is just plain kick ass!

I'm with you on this. Just not a real smart move by Marv to give away the only tool he had to provide any leverage in keeping your "franchise" player. Nate would've eventually had to come in last year under his franchise offer, so there was absolutely no need to give up the right to use it again. Dumb. When Nate walks I hope Levy gets skewered over this, because he deserves it. Sorry, but in this market, you don't just let your best assets walk out the door for nothing.

Just a hypothetical question here re: rules. Say Seattle got the ball back on the 1 1/2, and on their next play Dallas stuffed Alexander for a safety. That would have given Dallas the lead by 1, and Seattle would have to kick from their 20, which is normally punted. Obviously needing the ball back, is there any provision in the rules that would've allowed them some type of onsides kick possibility? Can they kick it off instead of punt, and still try to onsides it, or do they have to punt?

Dude, don't even get me started on this one. I agree wholeheartedly with you. Since when does it make business sense to let one of your best assets walk out the door for nothing, when you had the tools all along to at least get something in return if it did indeed happen? Stupid, stupid move by Marv on this one. Sorry, but he screwed the pooch on that one. Nate would've ultimately had to come in under his franchise offer last year, and we woud have retained at least the right to franchise him again if for no other reason than to gain the leverage to trade him. Unforgivable. Nate and his agent are laughing - all the way to the bank.