CosmicBills

Credit to Marrone for how he's handled the QB "competition". I don't think there's any doubt that as soon as EJ was drafted, Marrone's fate was tied to the young man's success. It makes sense that Marrone would want to start EJ right away but he had the presence of mind to hold an open competition and let someone take the job rather than annoint it. Sure, it sounded like lip-service/coach speak when he said it two months ago, but he stuck to his guns and EJ has clearly won the job not just in the fans' minds but the players' as well. If Tuel plays well in Week 3 or 4 of the preseason it will make it difficult for him to make it onto the practice squad without another team rolling the dice on him. I think Kolb gets cut and Tuel is our backup with Smith as the emergency 3. Just my two cents...

EJ's got the gig now, right? And if Tuel has a nice drive or two here, Mr. Kolb might be seeking employment elsewhere.

Fair. The element that amuses me the most, and remember this when we get closer to the docs coming out, is the frothing at the mouth from the talking heads on both sides of the aisle. You're going to hear Rush and the Fox News of the world decrying this as dirty politics while the clowns on MSNBC / CNN will be claiming to be completely above the political fray. The reality will be that the Rush's and Fox News LOVE that these docs are being made as much as the MSM that slants left. It's win-win for both sides and a big win for the bottom line of all involved. They like to stir us up. Hell, they focus on that more than they focus on reporting the news these days because an angry audience is an engaged audience. All of that was by design. Just as it was for Fox News when Murdoch started up Sky news years ago. There's a market for that kind of "news", someone will always step up (or down depending on your feelings) to fill it.

(Raises hand)

:lol: The second sentence of that article =

Absolutely true, in fact they rarely fun any of their projects, that's what the studios are for. Both Comcast and GE are publicly traded which creates a corporate mentality that permeates throughout the entertainment division. What that means in a creative sense, or in this case a bio-pic sense, is that the only thing that matters to the executives who deal with development is not the material but the potential revenue streams it can create. They have a mandate they must adhere to and with these big congloms, it's about creating content that can resonate across platforms (TV, feature, print, news). So why Hillary then? Besides the obvious name recognition and her rabid base, Hillary is a polarizing figure. Any doc about her will incite a response from multiple "news" outlets from people on both sides of the aisle either defending the doc or blasting it. This feeds into all the cable news outlets and gives them material AND ratings for the month before the doc comes out and the first week or two after. This ups revenues not just in one division but three. A Chris Christie doc or a Joe Biden doc, doesn't have the same impact on the ratings because neither of them has the ability to incite like Hillary does just by name alone. That's the macro level of it. On the micro level, the level where the deal gets made and the idea gets formed, it works differently. But not much. On that level you'll find more of the ideologues but they don't have the power to greenlight anything or budget anything. They can only bring the material to front of the line. The men and women who really decide what appears on your TV screen every night, regardless of genre, are the most risk adverse people on the planet. They think about the bottom line first, second and last. Content, in the abstract, is meaningless. It's about what's going to generate the most income for their parent corporations. This mentality is why movies these days suck.

As for my take on the topic at hand, count me amongst the optimists. I've been critical of this franchise for half a decade now, but I always go into the season blindly optimistic because 0-0 = hope. Or, now that I look at it print it might also = boobs. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder but I digress... My attitude is always to embrace that hope because, as others have more eloquently pointed out above, anything can happen. The difference for me this year compared the recent past is that I believe there is real talent on this roster and I've bought into Marrone's pitch. Admittedly, I knew nothing about him prior to the hire -- I didn't follow Cuse because a man can only take so much suffering in his sports life -- and it's possible he could crash and burn. But I'm a fan of what they are trying to do. An up-tempo attacking offense is the present of NFL offenses (can't say future anymore because it's been here for 2 seasons). It makes sense from a strategic standpoint and from a personnel standpoint. In fact it favors a young roster over a veteran one. So I get what he's trying to do and I think there's a good chance that it'll be successful -- at the very least the players seem to have bought into it. I also believe the talent on the defensive side of the ball, especially the D-Line, ranks up there in the top third of the league. Last year's abomination was self inflicted in many ways. Pettine won't make the same mistakes and this defense could easy end up being in the top 10 by the season's end. If that happens, there's no reason this team can't win 9 or 10 games this year and seriously contend for a wild card spot; if not the division. And of course EJ should be the starter. That's a no-brainer. However, if they do go with Kolb to start the year, that isn't the worst thing in the world either. EJ's mentality and approach so far has really impressed me. I believe him when he says he's working hard and thinking only about winning... which is not something I've been able to say about other QBs through the years. So I don't think he will be somehow compromised mentally if he has to hold a clipboard for a bit this season. Still, he has the tools, he has the attitude, but he needs game experience; which is why he should be in there from the get go. I'll make my official win total prediction after the third pre-season game.

:lol: (I know I'm late in this thread but well done, Promo.) I enjoy the fact that this thread reads as if it were a whisper and a secret.

I have a special place in my heart for that video. It lead me to write this: http://www.4shared.c...the.html?start= #shamelessplug / got to write a bills reference on a Disney show

I won a medal for it at summer camp so don't knock it! (And I am sorry about slowing the board down with those per 3rd's comment. My fault and I will refrain from doing so in the future. Sorry, 3rd!)

So far this thread has already surpassed my expectations. I love all you crazy bastids. :lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/more-sex-higher-wages_n_3755271.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

What about LARPers?

Actually, you did not quote me accurately. You quoted me as saying this: When I really said this: Had you quoted me accurately or understood the simple point I was making, you'd realize that this question: ... was in fact stupid and irrelevant to the discussion on hand.

Okay, I do have to admit, this is the first time OC has made me laugh out loud. Well done. I'm happy to discuss that topic at any or all lengths. I just wanted it clarified that I never suggested slavery was the sole cause of the conflict.

Noted

You did not quote me accurately or even understand what I wrote. If you had, you would realize your mistake and understand why your question is as pointless as it is stupid.

Do a google search on who owns NBC.

Again, it helps if you read the entire post, or at least quote me accurately.

Joe, you're fighting a battle no one else is fighting... and somehow losing it. You're the one who's inserted the adverb into this debate. The first posts in the thread are all up in arms (either mockingly or not) about the fact that the MSM is pushing their political agenda on the people through these Hillary docs. My point the entire time has been that outlook is ridiculous and false and short-sighted. The people who are funding these docs, the people who will profit off these docs, are by in large CONSERVATIVE in nature and politics. And their motives are NOT primarily political but rather financial. You have to look at the big picture...

Only because I needed a fallback in case my career in the adult film industry doesn't pan out. But if it's "far from the point of the article", why then did you choose to select those specific lines of text to include in your snippet? Was it because you knew those lines to be red meat to people like me and those who oppose it? (If so, props.) That is the thing that is so maddening to me about the vast majority of your posts. You claim to be just passing on articles you find relevant and/or illuminating without having any horse in the race, but the lines of text you choose to highlight and include in your post here are usually the most divisive and combative talking points of the far right. And when you are asked about your choice, you either deflect or ignore which, to someone who likes to fill in the gaps, can be taken as a sign of intellectual insincerity. One day I'll figure you out. One day. Fair... but this is still a dodge. You chose to highlight it in the context of being a liberal plank and proof that Bezos is indeed a liberal, in light of your previous posts and the article itself, it smacks of spite. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I'm wrong quite often and am never afraid to admit it. I never assumed it had anything to do with me.