MRW
-
Posts
2,091 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MRW
-
-
It's pretty funny, in the list of divisions by record, #1 played #8, #2 played #7, #3 played #6, and #4 played #5. Weird that it matched up exactly symmetrically.
-
Yes, we'd beat out the Jets for the #6 seed.
-
Jim Mora! I can't believe he actually referenced Jim Mora by name in his press conference. Classic!
-
-
25/37, 275yds, 1TD, 3INTs
Aside from the three INTs (one of which was a very good defensive play, one of which was a good defensive play and bad throw, and one which was a terrible throw), he's been on fire. The WM TD "run" on 4th and 1 was 80% Drew's fake and lateral.
People complain when he plays mistake free and "oinly" throws 150 yards, but throw for nearly 300 yards and he's still playing poor?
EDIT: Since everyone's been beating on Bledsoe's QB rating as proof that he's washed up, his rating for today is 134.6 (http://www.footballguys.com/qbrating.htm). How is that bad?
CW
Wow, that calculator is way way off. I started playing around with the numbers and put in 8/19, 100 yds., 0 td, 3 int and it came up with 95.8. Just guessing, but I don't think that's correct.
-
Don't bump this, dangit. They show that clip every Bills game and I hate seeing it. Who wants to see a guys knee bend backwards. I clicked on it thinking it would be a clip of Willis making some good runs, but no it was that creepy clip of McGahee bending his knee backwards. I close my eyes now when they even show hurricanes clips during Bills game.
STOP SHOWING THE MCGAHEE CLIP, I"M SICK OF SEEING IT!!!!!!!!
No kidding, it was ok the first time, when he first started, and I can understand playing it last week during the primetime game, but enough is enough. I think they've shown it every single time he's played.
-
From reading the comments on this thread, I sense confusion about does or doesn't constitute racism. Thinking that your own race is better than everyone else's is racism. Thinking that your own race (and the world's other races!) should be preserved is not. Many oppose interracial marriage because that leads to the gradual elimination of races. This is a perfectly legitimate opinion that has nothing to do with racism.
Sorry, "racial preservation" has some rather ominous overtones to me. Don't like interracial marriage? Don't marry a member of a different race. Otherwise, let people live their own lives.
-
Is it really so hard to understand that not everyone shares your outrage at how bad the Bills are? That maybe to a lot of people it's an entertaining way to spend a Sunday afternoon and they don't stress over how well a football team is doing?
-
-
Actually if tax brackets stay the same and you're in the same marginal bracket when you retire as you are now, the 401k and Roth would work out to be the same. Taxed up front, taxed at the end, it doesn't make a difference mathematically.
the formula for compound interest for a single investment is 1.xx(ie. .09= expected rate of return) to the (n)th power (n= number of years invested) x the principle investment. SO lets do a 3,000 dollar investment for Roth IRA and 401k. and we will assume a 30% tax rate for both scenarios. $3000x1.09 to the 35th power=$61242, basically 3g's at a 9%growth rate for 35years is $61,242. It would be the same figure for both Roth IRA and 401k. for the 401k, you will save the 30% on $3,000 up front which is $900, then will be required to pay $18,373 in taxes at the end, 30% of $61,242. Vs. the ROth IRA, one will pay the 900$ up front on the $3,000, let it grow for 35 yrs to $61,242, cash out the full $61242 at 60yrs old or later tax free, only having paid $900 in taxes in the beginning on a $58,242 profit. Therefore a Roth IRA is beneficial to a 401K above and beyond the company match.
I would encourage spending $20 on the book called Investing for Dummies, great book, it'll be the best 20$ you can spend.
Yep, that's true if you invest the same amount, but not if you're investing the same amount pre-tax, which was my example.
-
OK, here's an example using numbers I pulled out of my butt:
Let's say you have $1000 pre-tax to invest and the money will be taxed at 30% whenever you "earn" it.
If you put it into a 401k and it grows at 10% a year (told ya I was pulling this out of my butt) it will amount to $17,449.40 after 30 years. When you withdraw the money, after 30% tax it will amount to $12,214.58.
If you put it into the Roth, you will have only $700 after tax. Growing at 10% a year for 30 years that will also amount to $12,214.58.
So with the Roth the initial amount is smaller, but the amount of tax paid is much smaller, and it ends up the same. That's just the math though, as a practical matter tax brackets are likely to change, and there will be a difference between the 401k and the Roth.
-
But how does it work out better, even without the potential tax code scenario?
401k - Put in money tax-free, let it work for you for 30 years then pay taxes on the way out.
Roth - Put in money after taxes let it work for you for 30 years then pay nothing on the way out.
Wouldn't you want the most money working for you as you could have, even if you have to pay taxes on that money. Thats the Time Value of Money principle is it not??? Am I missing something here?
Actually if tax brackets stay the same and you're in the same marginal bracket when you retire as you are now, the 401k and Roth would work out to be the same. Taxed up front, taxed at the end, it doesn't make a difference mathematically.
If you knew you would be in a lower tax bracket at retirement, 401k would be the way to go, 100%. On the other hand, if you're pretty sure you'll be in a higher bracket, the Roth is what you want.
And of course, it's not a bad idea to hedge your bets and have taxable and untaxable income.
The reason I prefer the Roth is my 401k investment choices suck, and the Roth gives you complete freedom as to where to invest it.
-
-
Our D is still #5 in yards/game despite missing our #1 CB and #1 S for significant portions of the season.
We laid a big egg against a team that has won 2 of the past 3 Super Bowls and 24 of the past 25 games. The Patriots O tends to make a lot of opposing D's look bad. And it didn't help either that they were forced to spend 40+ minutes of the game on the field thanks in large part to...you guessed it...Drew Bledsoe!
Let's not jump to any irrational conclusions yet. Our D is playoff-caliber. Our ST are playoff-caliber. It's the O that needs serious renovation.
Believe me, I don't want to scrap this defense, but New England scored on 5 out of their first 6 possessions. You can't pin that on the offense. Yeah, Drew had one of the worst games I've ever seen, but only the special teams came to play, it seemed to me.
-
Personally I think that these punts show a (justified) lack of faith in the kicker and (usually justified) faith in the defense. The kind of game that I think Mularkey wants to play is really a field position game. If we had a better kicker I would be angry about punting, but I can't say I have any confidence in Lindell trying a 52-yarder.
-
I'm curious - do people think the D problem was more one of improper game-planning by Gray & co. or poor performances by the players?
I find it hard to put too much blame on Gray when you can't generate any kind of consistent pass rush, and Izell Reese wasn't doing anyone any favors out there. Do you agree with that assessment, or do you think Gray could've covered up these problems?
-
-
I don't know, it doesn't seem to me like he's taking that much of a pounding, late hits out of bounds aside. I think durability is a concern for any back if they're running 37 times a game, so hopefully we can get some production out of other guys and not have to have McGahee take quite so many.
-
i find the bit about clements hard to believe - what cornerbacks might this personnel man be talking about?
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+W...hispers1918.htm
Isn't he signed through next year?
-
Actually, from what I saw both teams challenged the play. I am absolutely sure that the Bills challenged it because I saw Mularkey hurl the red flag, and the official sad that the Cards challenged it, too. The Cards must have thought that the ball glanced off Clements leg, which was close. The Bills thought that the Cardinal was in the end zone when he downed the ball. In order for the officials to make the correct call after the review, was to award the penalty for the guy coming out of bounds. Whatwas strange was, originally they took the TO from the Cards for losing the challenge but then decided to give it back to them. I didn't understand the ruling, unless they decided that the Bills had already challenged the call and that is was unnecessary for the Cards to challenge the call.
I think they treated it as a Cardinals challenge because they got the challenge in first. Then, since they overturned part of the original call, no timeout was charged even though what was overturned was not what the Cards had challenged.
As far as the penalty being called on the replay, there are a couple of instances where that can happen, if it's not a subjective call. This was one; it can also happen when a QB throws the ball beyond the line of scrimmage. I wonder if it could be done for an offsides call?
-
I guess I'm the only one who believes our D will have a much easier task in shutting down their O than our O's task of moving the ball against their D?
That's why I think the game will hinge more on the performance of our O than our D. Sans Heap and Jamal Lewis, their O isn't gonna' scare many people. Their D on the other hand...
No, I think that's true. IMO the point is more that our D should be able to shut them down almost completely and let our offense try to just play a mistake-free game.
-
Interesting. What do you guys think of the validity of SA's statements?
Me personally, I don't know what to think about Jerry Gray's defense. I know they've been affected by Vincent's and Milloy's injuries, but something about them stinks. I mean really stinks. Only 6 turnovers in 5 games, too many 3rd down conversions allowed, too many 4th quarter chokes...
I would agree with most of your comments on the defense, but the turnovers I'm willing to cut a little more slack. We're middle of the pack in interceptions (and Clements missed a golden opportunity for another one on Sunday) and fumble recoveries involve a lot of luck IMO.
The 3rd down conversions and seeming inability to stop teams when it counts are very frustrating though. It's not that I can even say the defense is "bad" because they've shown themselves capable of shutting teams down for long stretches. Lack of focus or bad defensive philosophy on long downs?
-
-
6) we went deep once, and it was incomplete. we tried to several other times, but it just wasn't there. good play calling to at least attempt it, and even better decision making on drew's part not forcing it. keep up the deep play calling...the defense has to respect it. the last 2 games we went deep on the first play. watch for us to send moulds and evans deep on an early play in the future weeks, and have either cambell or reed run a deep post for a big gainer as the safeties double cover evans and moulds.
Good point. One of Drew's plays I was happiest with was on the flea-flicker. Nothing there, he got out of the pocket and threw it away.
Why were we able to turn it around?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
And what about Bobby Shaw getting cut? Hard to say for sure, but I think that sent a signal too.