eSJayDee

I believe Campbell blocked for FG & XP. Euhus I think was on the KO ret team, maybe others, although I might be mistaken about that.

Huh??? Up until this week Reed has been injured & out. This past week, he managed to catch 2 balls and then back to his old self dropping one that was catchable.

If you view the role of our education system to be to teach the neccesary skill set to get you to function in todays society, looks like she's doing fine. The kid knows how to Google , right? That's about 2/3rds of the battle

Yeah, I thought TDs response was pretty amusing when I 1st read it. Perfect politician-speak. Didn't answer the question at all.

I was absolutely positive we would kick the 'Boys butts in SB XXVII.

1st, I realize that this is unlikely that roster size will be lowered (primarily due to the NFLPA influence). I just think that in many respects, the game was better when it was simpler. I don't see this (your 2 starter scenario) as a problem. Although they might not be ideally suited, but an OT can play G, DE DT, etc. w/ little or no drop in quality. Further, the dropoff of having a fast LB playing S, an agile S playing CB, or a big LB playing DE is minimal. I think the only thing that might happen is that you'll see less ability to vary your formations (i.e. no 5 WR sets, 8 DBs, etc.) which is agruably a good thing.

No. Although I'm not advocating going back to the days of 2 way players, I don't think it's necessary to have even as many players as we currently have. You only have 11 on the field at a time. Even if you seperate Off & Dee, allow for 2 spots reserved for P & K, that means that w/ 46 it allows for a reserve for every starter.

I bet you'd get more hits in this thread, if you put the aforementioned Charlize in the Topic as opposed to Drew.

??? Never heard of Peter Sellers or Geoffrey Rush?

I caught a few minutes while flipping. AFAIK, that was the 1st time it was on, which is unusual in that a movie like that I would think warrants a Saturday night premiere on HBO. I intend to watch it though. I'm a BIG fan of the Pink Panther movies.

I believe you failed to take into consideration the possibilites of Indy &/or SD losing their remaining 4 games. I realize each have low probability. I haven't figured the odds yet (let's wait at least another game), but the way I look at it, there's 6 teams that can be 'eliminated' & we need 3 to do so (& of course, us winning our remaining 4).

I just heard that there win today was their 1st road win against a team w/ a winning record since 1990! Wow, & we thought we sucked on the road.

He's good, but I've gotta think Butler was much better.

Why the @#$^%^ would you have to pay to attend a company Xmas party? Are you talking about taxi &/or sitter that you'd have to pay if you went out anywhere?

Like most polls, a simple Yes/No answer is insufficient. 1st, how many millions are relative to what? Say $20m over a few years and being an elite world class athlete versus the alternative of $20k/yr & absolutely no athletic ability? In that case, I'd vote yes. Under the more likely scenario : As above w/ steriods vs. maybe a $3m and being a '2nd tier' world class athlete? For me, no, but I suspect this is where people who greatly value athletic prowess & success are in a position to swing & vote yes. For me in my position, the extra 2" of vertical jump to improve my volleyball game, or the extra 10 yards off the tee in golf, that steriods might garner certainly isn't worth it. Like most value questions, this debate/question is far more complex than can be adequately analyzed by a simple Yes/No response.

YES That's it. Thank you.

I recall seeing them at We-Bee-Toys & my sister mentioned them (for her son/my nephew). They come in 2 categories, the real ones that I think are for kids a bit older, & a more basic model for kids closer to his age (5). Thanks.

I thought I heard them say on the Entirely Sabres Report that until recently, he had been on the Giants PS.

Well, he started off as a TE. He wasn't among our 3rd best, & wasn't likely to be anytime soon. (IIRC, we had a FA rookie TE, Tauffalt or something, that I was impressed w/, too.) He had promising potential, so he was put on the PS. Given 8 weeks of work or whatever, he improved to the point where he was good enough to warrant a roster spot (primarily as a ST player & OT/short yardage TE).

Actually, I was kind of nervous about what sort of 2nd half adjustments JG was going to make. They were so effective in the 1st half, I was afraid they were going to try & outsmart themselves. I think that's about the 1st game where our Dee has been stymying (sp?, or is that a word) in the 1st half. (Maybe the dull-fins, but they don't count.) They played very well in the 2nd as well.

It's called a suicide onside for a reason. If you catch the interior of the front line snoozing & running back to block - perfect, easy recovery by the kicker. If they're actually doing what they're supposed to do, well, what happens to the kicker is why it gets its name.

I think the main question you have to ask yourself is, "Do you feel lucky punk?" No, seriously the question is how long you intend to hold onto it. You're interested in minimizing your cost of driving it. Consider that you're essentially 'renting' or paying for how much you're gonna use it. If you're going to hold onto it for many years (i.e. until it's essentially worthless), it's simple to compare it to a new 2005. What's the relative value of the warrantee/service; also the difference in equipment. This should be a relatively simple thing for you to evaluate. Now, if you're only going to hold onto it for a year or 2, guess what, when you trade it in, you're going to be trading in a 5 yr old vehicle & it's value will be based accordingly. So it'll probably end up costing you more than driving a 2005. Since the vehicle is 'new', I suspect that the dealer will be basing it's price accordingly, albeit w/ hopefully a steep discount. In which case, it will only make sense to buy it if you intend to hold onto it for several years. Good luck.

Get a different job. Simple solution! Priorities, man.

I can only assume that the primary reason for drafting Anderson was to replace Fat Pat. This seems to be TDs MO in that he drafts a player a year b4 he needs to replace a soon to be expensive FA. Obviously SA & PW are top notch. Edwards seems to be able to contribute as well (I think he has like 4 sacks). Bannan is competent, so that's why Anderson is constantly inactive. Sorta seems like TD subscribed to Levy's old adage that the only good rookie is last years.

I don't know if that was a fumble or not. I meant to look it up in the stats after, but forgot. It's entirely possible that he had already been ruled down &/or forward progress stopped on that play, in which case there was no fumble.