FireChan

The Spurs are like a team of Fred Jacksons. I hope they win 50 more.

So you don't think Wilson would've been as successful with Arians instead of Carrol? Same question with Luck/Carrol. Like I said, I don't know how much substance is here. Why did Wilson "need" Carrol? Or Luck "need" Arians?

What was yours?

Off the field he may be different, but I always assumed he was one of those coaches who would jog backwards with the team when running laps.

Harbaugh was a rah rah guy and Luck did well with him in college. I think this is totally revisionist. Just because it worked, somehow they fit. I don't see it. Does anyone even know Wilson's personality? All I know is that he's a very religious guy, who has acted like a spokesperson for the NFL since day one. You missed the point.

There are different responsibilities for being the guy.

You can definitely fluke into the playoffs, but we're speaking more in generalities.

Foles was a good QB. Schaub was good for a bit. I wouldn't consider the Browns and Rams to qualify.

Golden State will not win the NBA Championship. Golden State will not win the WCF. The Spurs have had the best 16 years of any franchise in recent memory.

It's still a passing league, and the best offenses, the offenses who can, most consistently and often "pick it up when the defense is down," are teams with good QB's. Name some offenses in the last five or ten years that had an offense good enough to help a poor defensive showing without a good QB. Maybe AP's Vikings?

It's my contention that consistent QB's ARE good QB's, John.

Remember when everyone gifted the KC game to Orton's record because we had a terrible end zone fumble and a terrible PR fumble (something that was NOT Kye Orton's fault)? I don't. It's all terribly biased. "EJ just needs Seattle's defense." Okay. And you're right, both sides need to answer the call for the other. But a good offense is only going to be able to answer the call with a good QB. Everything else, as usual, is just noise.

The real hilarity is the pseudo-profound idea that they're all Muslims, even if they don't all believe the same things, so they are responsible for the actions of another in that group. Talk about an arbitrary division. Why don't we make people from the same family responsible for each other? Or folks who shares 50% of HLA proteins? Or, in a broader sense, live in the same country? If I'm a white Polish-American living in Montana, should I have had my flashlight out to try to find the Unabomber? If not, some blame lay with me, right?

So all we need is a historic D.

Some would like to believe that cutting Palmer in favor of Orton wasn't because the back-up might have to play.

It's a clear analog of the situation that we are currently discussing. You don't see the parallels of two fringe, religious groups taking passages uncommonly cited or followed from their holy text, and following them zealously? Answer the questions. Also, let's see some direct quotes from Justice. Not "something along the lines of," that's not good enough. He doesn't want them to just condemn, he wants them to "join the fray." Because God knows, if there's one group of folks I want fighting terrorist zealots, it's pious, peaceful civilians.

Are WBC members true Christians? Is the moderate Christian community condemning them as not true Christians enough? If they were killing people, would you expect my Presbyterian congregations to "join the fray," in order to get a pass?

Elaborate.

So you wrote that entire thing up to say that there are some Muslim extremists who kill people?

That was satire? Full of some truth? So, let's hear what was "true." And, to be honest, I stopped reading about halfway through, and skimmed the last sentence. Was this also satire? Were you simultaneously calling OC's post dumb, and saying he "makes a lot of sense," all on one page? Maybe you were playing the long con. Agree, then satirize, then pull back the curtain. Fingers crossed.

I don't get it.

Nah, please don't.

What?

You can exert on control on all of the bolded. Funny thing about "things happening to you," is that you can procativey do something to avoid the negatives or reach the positives. A big no-no was the Ayn Rand reference, by the way. Also what's "100% the opposite" of an absolute?

While this is true, it also might have resulted in Marrone/Whaley's dismissal. Whaley as a GM is responsible for everything the coach he hires, does.