eSJayDee

Right now (or this past season), when Drew is playing well, the offense reaches the level of mediocrity. The QB is the primary (it could be argued how much) component of the O. When Drew plays poorly, we suck. (This could be a chicken vs. egg thing). I would certainly hope that a 1st round QB like Losman has the talent to elevate the offensive production beyond the level of mediocrity. If not, then we made a mistake in drafting him at such a price.

I don't think the duration of his contract is the issue. Typically, when a coach is offered a 'promotion' (i.e. position coach to coordinator, or Coord to HC), a team is obliged to let him go. I believe this is no longer a requirement, but you might otherwise be left w/ an unhappy employee & considering the effort that these guys are required to expend (like 100 hr work weeks), that's a bad thing.

The thing you're failing to consider in your equation, is how likely is a better outcome than a chip shot FG attempt? This takes into consideration how likely our poor offense is against a great Dee. It's 4th & almost 2. What's your probablity of converting? For us, I'd say maybe 50-50. Let's say we do convert, there's probably only about a 50-50 chance we score a TD. So you have perhaps a 25% chance of improving your outcome (granted a failed attempt likely yields better field position than the resulting KO.) relative to better than 90% of getting the 'automatic' 3 pts. (If MM thinks it's less than 90%, Lindell should have already been replaced.) Considering how much time was left, the 'certain' 3 was the more prudent decision.

Actually, from a subjective standpoint, I think he does quite well at holding onto the ball. I think you'll find that a significant %age of a teams fumbles are when a QB gets sacked. When you get hit and you're not aware of someone coming, it's pretty excusable to fumble. (Unless you're protecting the ball, in which case you're not ready to throw it.) If he has a problem in this regard (which based on the amount of screaming I do at him, I feel he does), it's that he's not as aware of impending hits as he should be. (Yesterday's fumble being an excellent example.)

I am afeared that PW might not be back. Again, certainly from the heart, I'd like to see him return, but look at what we have behind him. Edwards is pretty good & also we drafted Anderson (IIRC, our only Dee draft pick) who has seldom even been active. It seems to be TDs MO that he drafts a replacement for a player one yr b4 that player leaves. If PW comes at a reasonable price, I'd love to have him back, but I think JJ or at least another addition to the OL would be a better expenditure of our cap resources.

It would be pretty easy to circumvent this 'feature'. The simplest would be just to leave your email client on & have it request emails every 5 minutes or so. If you're concerned about safety doing that, you could write a simple batch command or something that waited a few minutes then sent out a 'ping' request.

It was still on DirectTV this evening. IIRC, there was an announcement sometime recently that some TimeWarner system was discontinuing them. Do you have TW?

I believe it was Preileau(sp?) that dropped that. He dropped an easy INT during scrub time recently, too. He might be a good tackler, maintain decent positioninng, but he's one of the reasons we didn't get too mant INTs last year.

If he's not RFA 'til 2006, then this really doesn't have much impact on his value I don't think. Top notch KR don't make that much above minimum wage, maybe about $2m/yr max. Decent CBs make $5m; starting quality CBs are a bargain at $2m. He's our starting CB now & probably likely to remain so next year. How well he does at that will dictate what sort of $ he commands.

Wasn't Michael Milkin fined like $550,000,000.00?

I seem to recall seeing that we've only given up 12 pts, in the 3rd qtr. Saw another stat that we've recently outscored our opponents like 66-3 in the 3rd.

If you're referring to the original model from the late 50s early 60s, I'd give a thumbs up. Although I'm not particularly familiar w/ them, from what I've read, they're a very nice meld between luxury & performance (for the time) along w/ great looks. Truly a classic. If you're referring to the models that are currently made, I wasn't too impressed. I test drove one a few years ago & it's drivetrain reminded me of an overstressed K-car. For that sort of money, (I thought it was like $30k), you'd expect more.

"Don't worry, I was a sniper in the Marines. Or maybe I was a pilot."

I think you asked 2 questions so, I'll answer this one. The easiest way to visualize this is to look at the chance it doesn't occur and subtract that from 100%. If a team fails to lose at least one game, that means they win both. The odds of that (independent) are 25%. So the odds of them losing at least 1 is 75%. You want to know the odds of all happening together, that's .75*.75*.75 =27/64=~42.8%. I was a math major, BTW (concentrating in calculus, though). Also, give SDS the gold star. He got the answer 1st. I figured it was easiest to figure the answer myself than to go over which previous posts were right & which ones were wrong.

I don't think so, unfortunately. But technically, yes the ball was kicked and the result was a TD for the receiving team. That would make 6.

FYI, Best I can figure, there's no extra taxes or anything on Directv. I can't imagine how your township or whoever can manage to tack on a franchise fees or anything similar.

Indy won't rest their starters, at least on offense. Manning wants to get his 70 TD passes.

That might not be the case. Much like how I would assume we would have liked to retain Sammy Morris, Price might prefer to go someplace where he would have a chance to start. I guess his status largely depends on Jennings & whether or not we (& other teams) consider him a starting caliber T. It's unfortunate that both he & Jennings are unsigned. I'd say it's pretty important that we sign at least one.

Oops. Never mind.

It depends upon who DEN loses to. For ties between teams outside the same division, after head to head, is Conference records. Right now, we're 3-3, they're 3-2. If we sweep, we'll be up to 5-3. Assuming DEN loses one conference game, it then resorts to common opponents. I'm too lazy to figure that one out.

Yes, I think an argument can be made in that regard. It appears that the package that JP is working w/ is not a 'complete' gameplan and he has had limited exposure to 'real' game situations. IIRC, he only had one true drop back pass which resulted in a broken play & him taking off running for a FD. (All around Kudos for him on the play - smarts & athleticism.) Granted, this exposure certainly does him more good than sitting on the bench and an argument could be made that it's best to expose him to elements of the game a small piece at a time. But he (& perhaps more important for our discussion - we) still don't have experience of running a 'complete' offense where the primary goal is to score, not eat clock.

Yes, LASIK several years ago. I have 'issues', primarily that glowing/halos that you read about. Overall, I'm very happy I had it done, but consider it a gamble. You might be among the majority that have negligible negative repercussions and lose essentially nothing (except the need for glasses), then again, you might be in among the small percentage that have significant problems. I, along w/ a significant percentage, fall somewhere in between, where what you gain relative to what you lose is a trade-off. From my perspective, if you currently wear contacts (I can't as I'm too sensitive/squimish around my eyes) and have no problem doing so I can't imagine it worth the gamble. Likewise, if you already have 'good' i.e. like 20/40 or 20/50 uncorrected vision that corrects to 20/20 I'd reccommend against it. I'm assuming you're asking 'cuz you're contemplating having it yourself. Try & research so that you make an informed decision. (Seems like you're doing this.)

I have version 5of the Reader. If, under the Edit menu, you 'select All', the 'Copy', you can then paste that text into WordPad or something similar.

Canadian men who don't drink? That sounds mighty suspicious. If I were you, I'd check into your liability for possibly harboring terrorists or something. (Just a joke.)