Jump to content

eSJayDee

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,835
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eSJayDee

  1. Canadian men (all married) between 35 and 60, including two that don't drink

     

    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.)

  2. But what do you advocate, if 2 starters at one position have to leave the game due to injury

     

    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.

  3. 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).

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...