eSJayDee

Apart from the fumbles, I don't see any substantial improvement (in his stats). A couple of % in completion isn't much, the 0.4 ypa can be almost exactly explained by a single 83 yard bomb, the sacks & INTs are almost the same in %age. His TDs have improved, but the #s aren't so substantial that they can't be explained by typical deviation. That said, I think that he (along w/ the rest of the offense) are playing better, which IMO is attributable mostly to an Oline that's more capable in pass blocking.

Didn't the cap go up like $20+ mill this last yr from 70 something to $101m? If this is the case, and he made $31m LAST yr, expected profit for THIS yr (& subsequent yrs unless something is done) may well be only around $7m.

Another way of looking at it - We have a "relatively" worthless franchise; it's maybe worth "only" $300-$400mil. If you had that sort of money, what sort of ROI is $7m? About 2% - far worse than you can get in the bank. Businesses like that can't prosper in the long run.

What I meant by that is roughly speaking, a QB will have about a 3% INT %age. On 25 passes, that's 0.6, or rounded up to 1. (Outside the RZ, Losman is ~3.3%, which equates to about 0.8 if that stat remained consistent.)

I'd be inclined to file that under "mean nothing". He's only had 25 attempts, so any #s really aren't too statisitically relevent. I think you'll find the high rating is attributable mostly to the fact that he has no Ints, whereas he 'should' have about 1. Were it to be the other way, i.e. 2 Ints, that would lower his rating to sub-std. Frankly, I'm rather surprised that those other Qbs aren't better than they are. In the Red Zone, you'd figure they're TD %age would be MUCH higher than on passes from other areas of the field.

As vball chicks go, Gabby & Kerri are attractive, but they pale compared to Rachel Wacholder. I wish I could find better pics, I've got one on my PC of her 'good side' Rachel Babe Another A 3rd A 4th

I start at the bottom. Always have. As for depends on the height of the tree. I think you focus on eye level & below (the presents underneath are the important things ). So if you have a tall tree, anything much above 6' is less important.

I would assume you can add Anderson to the list, too. (Big time star, huh ) Read an article that he's part owner of a pizza joint & works there.

Fun for all ages!!!

INAL, but I believe sending something like this thru the mail is considered Mail Fraud, a federal felony. (That is assuming it isn't for real ) I would consider it irresponsible of the local police to tell you to just 'rip it up'. Although they are not the appropriate entity to investigate and in all probability the proper authority (PostMaster?) is too inundated to do anything about it, it should be left to you as to how far you wish to pursue this.

Hey, we really are #1 in one key stat: Not the pixie guy Okay, maybe it's not 'key', but it is a stat that you can be proud of.

I can see it now, a new warning on fireworks packages - WARNING - Not to be inserted in your anus.

Outta curiosity, why don't you drive? It's certainly WAY more convenient, likely cheaper and probably not substantially less time overall.

Nice work. A few comments: I'd tend to discount the Brady stats, as their offense is predictated more on 'quick' passes. As for your observation that JP has no room & relative to the other QBs, waits for the last possible second, it'd be interesting to see hurries & hits stats. Now let me add this, which is largely a subjective opinion, I think most times, Manning has as time as he wants/needs whereas it appears that often it appears that JP is getting rid of the ball out of necessity rather than desire. How much of that is attributable to the particular QBs skill & how much to the talent of his supporting cast is open to debate. (Also how much different schemes come into play.)

Is it really bestiality if the dog was dead? Isn't that necrophilia? A dog AND dead. That's just sick.

When we brought him in, he wasn't earmarked for 3rd string, but yes I'll concede that he's probably one of the higher paid 3rd string QBs. But bear in mind that w/ the salary cap over $100m, that makes an AVERAGE salary over $1.8m. I don't recall the specifics of his cnt (I would've guessed closer to $5m), but I would guess that we had to throw him at least a $1m SB, if not closer to $2m. So beyond that, it's certainly reasonable. Also, i still think the hopes would be that come NEXT year, he's 2nd string.

I don't think our problem is w/ scouting in this area, but rather w/ coaching & possibly in some instances that we paid too much for the players. Specifically: Clod : He started for us w/ mediocre results on a mediocre team. The fact that he has managed to stick in the league to 10+ yrs is indicative that he's at least decent. BJ (we all know what that stands for) : Mistake. Plain & simple. RJ : The guys got the talent. Problem is a combination that he can't "get it together" & he can't/couldn't stay healthy. A very dear price to pay for a largely unproven unknown. Bledsoe : At the time, he had been playing for ~10yrs & had been VERY prolific. He might not have been the QB he once was (a combination of the game changing & his diminishing skills), but given an adequate supporting cast, he was an adequate QB. I consider a 1st round pick a reasonable price to pay for a starting caliber QB especially when our other alternatives were much worse. JP : Again, the guy appears to have the talent. It remains to be seen if he can get it together. However, we paid a dear price for the right to select him, especially considering the bust rate of 1st round QBs. Holcomb : What's wrong w/ him? We signed him for free & I suspect his salary is quite reasonable. By my estimation, he's a top notch BACKUP QB. Nall : Again, we got him for free. Reasonable salary. Who knows how good he is; he's inexperienced, is in a new system (for him), new team, & he was hurt for much of preseason. Actually WRT wasting $, I'd say our worst moves were extending Bledsoe rather than jettisoning him at the time and also having RJ & Dutie making obscene $ at the same time. (I won't argue that extending RJ basically b4 he had played a down for us was prudent.)

I haven't seen Whitner often do anything wrong, so from that, I'll conclude that he's doing at least a competent job. He does make the occasional good play, too. I FREQUENTLY see Simpson late arriving in coverage. I don't know what %age one can reasonably expect him to be in on those plays, but since his %age of being 'almost there' is so high, I'd be inclined to assume that's he's lacking. Also, a few times he appears to have primary coverage he has been beaten. To conclude, I'm happy w/ Whitners performance, but Simpson leaves something to be desired. IMO at this juncture he's inferior to TV, but I'm hopeful that by years end, he'll be at least that good w/ hopes of improving further.

I think Preston typically plays more RG & C. Possibly w/ Fowler iffy, he spent more time practicing at C so they gave Merz the LG pos? Just as an aside, I did see Preston on the field at one time. I couldn't tell what pos he was playing though &/or who was missing.

If you read the article that someone linked to, it appears (to me) that indeed this 'cloak' bends light AROUND the object, so that you do "see" what's behind it. Ergo, the applicability of like bending "radio" signals around a building.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. My Audi has the same size all the way around, but I'd be surprised if say a AWD Porche does. I think if anything, I think snows are less expensive than good tires, although I haven't bought any in yrs. Bear in mind, that by using snows, you're saving the tread on your good tires thereby extending their life. Unless you're paying someone each spring & fall to change your tires (but of course you'd rotate your tires regularly anyway, right? ), if anything, I'd think using snows would save you money.

Okay, I don't know much about livestock, but doesn't a "cow" refer to the female? I would assume that humping is only a male act. And if it was indeed a female cow, why did they censor out the naughty parts (THere ain't nothing down there except udders, right?)?

I'll guess no, but I probably was by '94. I can remember talking to my ISPs tech support & him wanting me to use something called a 'browser' & me refusing cuz I didn't want to subject myself potential viruses. (IIRC, I used a terminal emulation program like ProComm from DOS.)

The problem w/ that is that Neufeld is also our backup FB. There are instances when having 2 TEs &/or a FB is very desirable (i.e. we often use 2 TE formations, also FB and sometimes 2 TEs w/ a FB) & cutting either Neufeld or Everett would've left us very thin at 2 positions. I think w/ the std practice of having most players that dress actually play in the game OL is the best position to remain thin as you typically want to go w/ the same 5 at all times & the subs are just bench warming until injury. However, I will concede that if we thought we could safely stash one of our "promising" rookies on PS, it might've been prudent to retain another experienced OL. Then again, maybe in mgmt's opinion. all the OL sucked & at least the youngens have a chance to improve & the more work they get (in practice primarily) the sooner they'll improve.

So is the Catholic church & the USGA