AKC

I missed it, this is from the Press Release: "has been bothered by a right knee injury since spring mini-camps. "He's on the PUP list until he gets healed up a little better," Buffalo coach Mike Mularkey said Saturday night. There is no date set for Thomas' return."

I think if you wanted to make an argument of Donahoe's positions of strength in draft analysis it's CB where he'd rate the highest- I like KThomas and he should be 350-400K cheaper agains the cap than rostering up an old vet like Mickens.

I've always been indifferent as far as Kirwan's work is concerned, but his linked article seems well reasoned. While it's for slightly different reasons I also think a prediction of 8-8 for our 2005 team is the most objective conclusion one might reach considering our current roster and schedule.

Step on the BDogs you stop on the Reelands- you step on the Reelands you step on AKC! The Simon Bolivar Museum? The "Bowl-I-Var" lanes? Since my mother was born in Richburg (and my cousin Dave still lives there) I can actually walk to Hungerford Park, which was abandoned in the 1960's. I prefer the summer months to do it though ;-) Thanks for the mems-

The trade-off could be to our benefit if the scrim was any indication- Gandy apeared to be the "Anti" Jonas Jennings- an awful Pass Pro slide, great feet North/South and range in the run game plus a low center of gravity. A good running game will kill a pass rush, we could never develop a good running game simply from good plass blocking on the left side. Gandy is just another int he evolution of this- Villarial and Benny sandwiching the fleet and effective Teague, now getting possibly adding a T who can pull across the field.

I have no concerns about Villarial or Teague, the most consistent players on our line last year along with Jonas. The good news is Benny IS big as advertised and he has pretty good feet considering that, but it seems clear why McNally likes Gandy with his excellent foot speed north to south- he had him pull to make the OUTSIDE contain block on a right side run in the red zone drills and you have to have solid confidence in your left tackle to ask him to get there, especially before the runner arrives.

That's a very good report, I'd only add that Gandy was our only OLineman who was regularly facing a quality opponent and for the most part he held his own. It's true Villarial had a tough outing- I couldn't tell if he's just playing through a ding or what but he didn't appear anywhere ready for the regular season yesterday.

That's a frightening thought yet is certainly seems within the realm of possibilities that the bloated "Royalty" surrounded by the Saudi Welfare State of the bored, unemployed and idle "citizens of the Kingdom" could be toppled if protection isn't in place for the Feifdom of Saud. A tenuous foundation for the future of the region by any measure.

Now, you have Bin Laden and his faction, fresh from what amounts to victory in Afghanistan staring at a few hundred thousand foreigners sitting within miles of Mecca. Like it or not, this was viewed as one of the ultimate insults, and to compound problems, it was sanctioned by a Wahabi regime. Double blow to the true believers. They were positively incensed. This is an important benchmark within the history of this situation. Why? Because this is where Bin Laden and friends declared war on America, and also the Royal Saudi Family. At this point, is where they decided to export their war, to our shores, and attack us in the Homeland. That, boys and girls is significant. In 1993, a truck bomb goes off in the World Trade Center. Before this turn of events, there had never been a significant incident on American soil. A lot of hype has been given to 9/11 being when the world changed. No, it changed when a rental truck exploded in a parking garage in Manhattan. Facts. Not opinions. You certainly understate the Afghan situation as "what amounts to a victory" when that in itself is arguably the critical event- a modern high point for the "opressed" Arab who had now moved a Super Power out of his region, and even more important, although not without local regional resistance, came the opportunity for the Wahabists to "play house" in a country. The catastrophic decision of the Saudi Royal family in allowing the Wahabs control over a large part of the population in Saudi Arabia, while allowing the Wahabs and especially the extremeists among them to thrive also left the Wahabs itching for total control of Saudi Arabia, something the Royals there were forced to insulate themselves from. This itself is the situation that incensed the Wahabs- to be granted the free hand to implement the laws of Islam on all except the ruling class. The U.S. at the same time was keeping the Saudi Royal family well protected with modern military equipment. The Wahabs came to see anyone who kept them from total rule in Saudi Arabia as their enemy- and none would be a bigger enemy outside their region than the U.S. While the presence of our troops on Saudi soil was additional provocation and made a nice rallying cry for Bin Laden, slighted because the Royals had denied him the privledge of kicking the Iraqis out of Kuwait, the actual "infidel" was already well established as the single largest barrier to radical Wahabiism at the time. What remains difficult to refute is that the concurrent implementation of Sharia law throughout much of Afghanistan offered the radicals the prmise of what they could have if they could do in Saudi Arabia- with all the resources they would gain if they could defeat the Royals- if they could only remoce the largest impediment in the U.S. With or without the U.S. troop presence during the Gulf War, an inevitable clash with America was predicated on the expansive desires of the Wahabs. I take some amusement in being told that my statements are uncorraborated opinions with no merit, because much of the information I use comes directly from the interogations of captured Al Qaida leadership. I suppose that the Washington Post might have better information than AQ themselves, but I doubt it. The accounts of contemporaries of the radicals and the statements of the radicals themselves show directly their interest in booting the Royals at any cost and furthering the implementation of Sharia Law- not to mention the actual execution of their goals in Afghanistan. Those same interrogations support the ideals that the goal is to push their law throughout the region and then beyond, so no matter what the logic offered by them, whether most of them cry "infidels on our soil" or as Bin Laden has said "they dropped bombs on inncoent Japanse civilians", no matter the justification, if you read their interviews and study all the information offered by those on their fringes but most importantly theiur own public speeches- the ultimate goal remains the same: the implemenation of Sharia Law, ultimately to the world. Many around the world have tried to distort this into an excercise of "what did the West do to make them mad" when in it's simplest and publicly demonstrated form the the answer is we're obstrcuting their goal of domination of their region and hence, their ultimate goal they feel their religion compels them towards- killing all who do not accept Allah and their faith and forcing those who do to live under Sharia. So far, we haven't been doing so badly since 9/11. No attacks on our soil since- yeah, I'll give that at least a not "doing so badly" None of this can be done turning a blind eye to the rest of the world. Things have to be done in balance with other objectives in mind. Has anyone noticed how nice India and Pakistan have been playing together lately? Anyone think this is an accident? Think the PRC is pissed? Ireland is another perfect example of the ripple- Gerry Adams was smart enough to realize that long time U.S. support was bound to take a dive and he positioned Sinn Fein to look more committed to the process than the boneheaded Orange Order. Its effect is still carrying the Republicans there closedr to their goals. It's very hard to show patience when the reports of things getting blown up are splattered in the news daily, but this isn't a question of "whimps" not allowing for things to be done. As has been mentioned to this point ad nauseum, there are hundreds of inter related pieces to this puzzle, and ignoring any one batch of them to jump on the others is not going to solve the problem. While there's obviously much we agree upon in the lead up to the present situation, I have to disconnect here because of the nuances I see driving the other side- their real goal being crystal clear IMO means they can not be negotiated with- it would only lead to a summit, for instance, upon where they'd be demanding 10 Nuclear weapons from every Western Nuclear power in order to stop, which they would simply turn around and use to further terrorize. Clearly the value of Democracy is in a wider variety of opinions being considered in solving problems, but history here teaches us that the we've been a far more efective nation at battling an enemy militarily when those opposed to the action temper their public statements for the good of the fighting persons. None of this is Kumbaya. The US is going after this in terms of being the big kid on the block, no matter what anyone wants to think they know. We are going shove our influence into every corner of the globe, as much as we can and within our power, basically to make folks do what we want them to. This can be done gently and it can be done violently. The enemy has chosen the script for this one. Once again, I use the phrase "all elements of national power". This is not a strictly military mission, nor can it be. It also involves politcal, diplomatic, economic and informational activities. It's also not going to happen in a matter of weeks, months or even years. But, until something drastically changes, it needs to happen or the US becomes irrelevant. A more subtle change in the attitude of the average Muslim, a drop in the apathy level (or just as likely the shot of pride they probably feel that "one of ours" is getting over on the big man) would probably have the greatest effect on turning the movement around. Our own Muslim population has been too young to affect it here, but there are many promising signs in England where they have a well-entranched population of Muslims who are at many levels acting responsibly. IMO it will require this action on the part of the average Mosque visitor to take hold in the ME, and in that the support-and especially their own ability to recruit- will turn the radical Islamist into a diminishing instead of growing phenomenon.

I've just watched the first few series and I agree Gandy looks fine- he got a little hung up on a double stunt but made his way back for a shot at the man sliding. He showed good feet in run blocking (as Benny did on that side too) and he moved OK in pass blocking. Granted he doesn't have a smooth slide- but there was some good formation work done that limited his exposure to it when we did throw. McNally has a great grasp on setting his talent up. Great to see Campbell making a chip and catch right out of the chute. He's more important to us than is generally supposed. The 1 DT with 3DEs on passing downs was............interesting. It's hard to figure what we gain by forcing Sam into the extra down when he's pretty clearly on the wrong side of 400 pounds right now. While like Ted Washington he can actually play that ballooned up I fear like Ted it'll make him more susceptible to injury. Anderson made a great slip off a block and wrap up on the runner on his first play. I wish I could say something good about Edwards run D in the series I've seen but instead he's been pushed off the ball with single teams on more plays than not. Watching more later on-

I went to the same schools as Jimmy Carter for Nuclear Power Plant Operator/ET in the USN. Since you've entered the conversation with your neck gripped tightly by your asslips I'll guess you also won't be the first who disagrees with me to offer one single fact to refute my position- why don't you share your particular difficulty with my pro-U.S. position? Or will you simply prove to be just another Vacuum Poster- lots of opinions with nothing of substance to support them?

You'll have to enlighten me- in the real world facts trump information vacuums and despite all the theoriticians on any side of any argument there remains no single greater authority than history. Better to check out Bollywood or it's local equivalent if the truth makes one too uncomfortable.

I posted into this string using indisputable historical facts to support my suppositions. You responded with no substance and I called you on it, whereby you set out a list of questions again with no insight and the inference that the "complicated" nature of the world today made things too difficult to rely on history as a guide to resolve the Islamist radical movement. I again dispute your contention regarding history, a history replete with far more "complicated" times such as the Roman Empire's collapse. I used my historical examples to support my position that there are times when the best among us must choose to fight for our way of life to survive, and this is always when the enemy we face is one who refuses to respond to the combination of a real threat and diplomacy. I went so far as to point out why this enemy has proven he has no interest in diplomacy- his stated and exercised goal is the implementation of his religious law upon all in his region and then the balance of the world. I've also pointed out that there is ALWAYS a Whimp Factor involved- it doesn't matter whether it's WWII or the French and Indian War. I didn't say the Whimp Factor was always bad- I only insinuated it's bad once we realize that we must fight. The problem with the WF is that it becomes the dog chasing its tail- we now must finish this fight- most Americans realize it and the wisest and most courageous world leaders realize it too. Now the WF is affecting our recruiting, and that's bad, especially if you're one of the kids who have already commited and are fighting overseas. Now the next set of recruits to show up to serve at their sides are guaranteed to be taken from a smaller pool of choice for the services- and that sucks. And interfering with recruitment during war is unpatriotic. It's that easy. It's that simple. And it's that true.

You answered a post of mine with nothing, and then followed that up with absolutely nothing until I finally coaxed you to put SOME type of persective into a post which ended up proving you have no grasp of history. Then you return to posting nothing- agreeing with everyone while disagreeing with everyone- with the single caveat that you suggest others are "over their head" in pointing out your lack of substance. It's alot like one of those old blow up punching clowns- as far as it gets knocked over each time it's hit there it comes up again- full of nothing but air but still begging for another pop!

Perhaps- if you ignore the words in his post and fabricate your own meaning. I'll ignore the moron if you'd like to explain exactly how pointing out his false assumption of some "especially tenuous historical circumstances" are a mischaracterization of the exact words he wrote in his post.

Translation: "My methylphenidate is wearing down and I need another pop just to maintain myself at a remedial level".

Be careful or I won't let you sleep in there any longer ;-)

Reality is hardly an argument- the world is and has been a complicated place throughout history with meandering power centers and alliances. To somehow try and make the recent past some "high mark" moment in this natural and historically recorded tide shows an absolute lack of understanding world history. Does the author have any idea who the Ottomans were and the impact of their Muslim control of much of the modern world, including all of the Arab nations until early in the 20th Century- does he acknowledge the effect of their collapse on the balance of the world or does he show no signs of intelligent life by stating ignorantly that today, and only today are there dynamics which make our approach to solutions impossible to structure based upon other actions in history to quell movements like the radical Islamist movement of current times. One need not go back too far, as I've outlined in no timid way in my previous posts, that what was required of the last major movement put on us by the Nazis was to face it down with force. Once again and has happened thoughout history, the movement eventually required that the whimps stand aside while the courageous took over. I'm good with the whimps who haven't figured this one out yet to stand aside- I'm merely asking that this current whimp movement shut the %$#@ up so that the recruitment for the Islamists is made more difficult and our most courageous can get it over with in the most expedient manner.

Harts used to dress my deer. I presume it's their famed Ring Bologna? PBR? I figured your family was well off but you've now proven it to me ;-)

I'm sure you'll have the proper items to fully enjoy it: 2 dozen Texas Hots 1/2 Keg Genny Cream Ale A ride to the dam above the Sinclair Sleeping Bag 8 dozen ears of Simon's Corn 10 spent tires A young thing from State Street to keep you warm tonight

You can look back a little- for instance the greatest value of Nazr Hakeem to the Super Bowl Rams and the Rams in general at the turn of the Century was the respect safeties had to give him right off the line and the room that gave Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt underneath. Their offense did a great job exploiting the advantage by checking down to quick slants to Hakeem all season long and killing opponents with his RAC. If you back a safety up even a couple of yards his lessened effectiveness down low in both the run game and on your 1 and 2 wideouts is substantial.

I'd consider offering you English lessons if it wasn't so painfully obvious how poorly those before me had failed!

It's surprising that you would give any merit to the windy, vacuous and ultimately ignorant post by BIB. You don't have to go far to realize that he doesn't understand a thing about history- let's take his opening premise: the world has become a pretty complicated place. He who wields influence, one way or the other has shifted dramatically over the last 15 years. We're about the only ones left from back then who still does. People forget, for example, that not only we and the USSR but the entire world was aligned in some form or fashion according to the cold war. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it created many voids and opportunities - and also made the world tremendously more complex. Sounds more like somebody skipped history class here- starting in about the 3rd Grade. So his premise, the whole foundation of his argument, is that it's only since the fall of the Soviet Union that the world has become "aligned", "complex" and rich in "voids and opportunities". That’s all real nice to say- if you completely ignore all of written history from the moment the very first common border between two sovereign nations was established. The author goes on to build his opinion around this wrongheaded and wholly innacurate massive delusion, making his opinion mertiless- you know- you can't build a house out of donut holes. His is the kind of speculation that might attract flies, but it won't attract anyone who considers the lack of historical understanding of the author.

Actually I'm 11, which would make me the the intellectual equivalent of you and BIB combined were it not for the intercalary dynamic of my delivery.

Is there an echo in here- or is that just your head?