RLflutie7

As a Bronco fan I'm sorry this had to happen. It doesn't really surprise me because it does seem that athletes are always getting into trouble at nightclubs. But I haven't seen a story about how this might be a dispute over a female. Just a thought, but isn't that what nightclubs are really for. People go to nightclubs to listen to music, dance and socialize with the opposite sex. It just might be that Williams or Javon Walker may have been approached by a female and some "thug" took offense because that's "his lady". The police said there's no way that the shooter could have seen inside the limo. Maybe they were aiming at Javon Walker or one of the female passengers. In that case, the killer might have just wanted to shoot up the whole car and hope to kill more than one person. Or it could have involved drugs. Who knows. My gut feeling tells me it might be a dispute over a female.

My Broncos lost as a team and I'm not unhappy with the switch but it sure felt like the 1980's. Always behind and struggling to get the game tied and into overtime and hoping to get lucky.

I think your agrument has some merit. I made a post about black QBs running too much awhile back and I pretty much stick with that argument. Some say why compare Vick and Young. Implying that doing so is because they are black and that's the only reason when it's cleary not. My point is that it seems many black QBs have that propensity to run first rather than throw the ball and it's backed up by looking at the stats. Vick has 120 rush attempts and Young has 80 and there's one game to go. Bobby Douglas had 141 rush attempts to set his now broken rushing record for a QB. Some would say I'm the biggest idiot because Flutie had 88 rush attempts in 1999. I think Flutie was forced to rush the ball too much in 99 because a bad offensive line and because the Bills didn't get much production from the running backs. Furthermore, Vick's teammate (Gandy) comes out and says black QBs are coached differently. i.e. told to make a play: translation "run the ball" when all else breaks down. That may be true, time will tell. I think a QB running a lot is an indicator that something is not exactly right.

Freshman QB. I wonder if he'll be any good. Maybe he'll be drafted by the Bills.

The problem with this view is that you're looking at the downside of Rex Grossman and ignoring the downside of Griese. If you're talking Superbowl, there's a very real chance that the Bears would play the Baltimore Ravens in that Superbowl. And trust me, Griese against the Ravens isn't going to work. They'll eat him alive. I watched him play enough good defenses to know he can't get it done. He plays good against bad defenses (like all players) but falls apart against a good/great defense. In my view, Grossman is the hands down choice to go against teams with a huge pass rush like San Diego or Baltimore. Plus the Broncos could be in the mix in the Bowl and Mike Shanahan knows Griese too well. The next thing to consider is a one-and-done with homefield advantage. If Griese starts that game and you lose the fallout would be unbelievable. Questions like why didn't you stay with the guy that brought you here? Or why did you leave a "Young Brett Farve" on the bench and lose with a backup QB.

Down by 31 points in the second-half, Red Raiders set record for greatest comeback in bowl history. What a game!

I said this in a post awhile back and was called a racist and told to leave the board. Gandy is stealing my stuff. I think you are right> Vick is too set in his way or just doesn't want to absorb it or is too arrogant to really listen and probably all three. The difference between Vick and white running QBs like Steve Young, Doug Flutie etc etc. is rushing attempts. If you look at Mick Vick's stats, or Steve McNair or Donovan McNabb all three have over 100 rushing attempts in at least one season.Vick has at least three seasons with over 100 rushing attempts. I know McNair has at least one season with over 100 or close to it. And if you can get people to talk off the record, McNair never developed into an effective consistent passer. McNabb same thing. The Eagles are better off without him.

That the Falcons have kicked the idea around . . . only because of injuries. Move Vick to running back and have Matt Schaub play QB. Then Adam says they're never going to do it, but it's been discussed. If they did it and Vick did well along with Schaub it would kill Vick's QB career. I've said before that I think too many young African American QBs look to run too much and I got screamed at and told to leave. But if you watch Vince Young on third downs and other big plays (overtime) he plans on running rather that throwing and that will hurt him in the long run. Vick is going to break Bobby Douglas' record for QB rushing, becoming the first QB to rush for over 1,000 yards in a season. That's nice but does it really help him or his team? Vick has taken enough heat from the elder Mora and everyone else. Don't do it Falcons. Mike should just throw the ball and trust your teammates.

Butler along with A.J. Smith did a tremendous job with S.D. Talent wise they are the best team in the league. It's up to Marty to win out from here. A.J. Smith is probably the best talent man in the league and he takes the biggest risk. For example, If you look at their wideouts some of their backups are better than a lot of other team's starters. Another shocking thing about that draft was the players taken in front of L.T. A 400 lb offensive linemen who has a bad back (Leonard Davis) who is a total bust. An injury prone DT G. Warren who was traded to Denver from Cleveland.

Since I'm a Broncos fan, that saw most games Elway played in I can really back this up. The truth is, Elway was often terrible in the first 3 quarters and it was frustrating at times watching him. I think that's why Reeves and Elway didn't get along. Elway wanted a more wide-open play book but I think Reeves didn't trust him enough in the early years. And it wasn't until Wade (son of Bum) came along that things changed.

The Raiders could pull Brooks. I hope they do, because this kid can be great.

Then why would anyone want to live in Manhattan. I don't want to sound mean, but it's something I never understood. It seems to me that so many people would never be able to afford to live there regardless of income increases. And it's also why I like Phoenix Arizona so well. But high price housing is taking over Phoenix and I don't live there anymore. Phoenix to me had all the stuff you would like about a big city but with the small town charm.

Not true at all LABillzFan. Telling people I was right doesn't serve a purpose bacause it's all over the internet. So it's not my idea. I'm just repeating what I heard on TV and read on the internet. Most of these housing bubble blogs were started by young people. Maybe because they don't want to bail out a bunch of rich a-holes who want to retire on their real estate because they lived beyond their means and didn't save money for retirement. I'm sure you've heard of that LA. People in LA selling their 1.5 million dollar home and moving to a cheaper area and instant retirement. By the way, where are LA people getting the money to buy. The demographic changes should have changed all that. How are mexicans getting the money?

I always wondered why people would go into forclosure. Why do banks to that? I can see back in the day people would just file bankruptcy if the debt wasn't secured. But now people couldn't walk away from the remaining debt in a bankruptcy. And what about those people that want to buy your house before foreclosure? What's in it for them? And do banks hate the practice?

Vegas might be the exception along with Florida, Phoenix, and/or the Sunbelt as a whole because like you said supply and demand. More people are moving there and transfering home equity to the sunbelt. That would drive up prices for sure. But Clark County Nevada has been growing like that for ten years +. And the biggest home building companies have been throwing up houses like crazy, chewing up the desert. The spike in price, historically speaking, can't be justified regardless of population growth.

In a traditional sense, home prices don't go up 4 times in five years and maintain that price. Is that better for you, you idiot.

I'm sorry I didn't explain myself well enough. I wrote the message at 1:30 a.m so I must have been tired. Back around 1999 I predicted, like many others, that the stock market would crash because internet stocks were BS. I used to watch CNBC all day back then and the total BS that was coming out of that channel was unbelievable. And I knew it was BS at the time, yet most people, especially educated folks, seemed to go along with it. "It" being a ponzi scheme stock market. Accounting fraud etc etc. Many people here said I was an idiot and a "Negative Nancy" because, according to them, the economy was "the strongest that it's ever been". But over the course of time, I was right. The dot.com meltdown happened and the Enron and MCI worldcoms took many people to task. I don't want that to happen in the housing market but I think it will. I don't think there's going to be a "soft landing" here. It won't hurt me directly, but it will in the long run. These prices hurt the family man and/or family structure and put them at risk. I don't have a family so it won't hurt me. All I'm saying is let's get it over with. Basically I'm tired of the BS and this situation is going to be so painful for the average guy. Yea, you have winners and losers but the losers far outweigh the number of winners. Back in 2001 I saw brand new homes in Las Vegas (by Sam Boyd Stadium) being sold for $70K. Now those same homes are about $300K. It's BS. Salaries in that area haven't gone up that much. And home prices don't go up 4 times in 5 years.

I guess I'm refering to the Pittsburgh playoff game. I didn't see what your talking about. But, then again, the Steelers blitzed a lot. Peyton does get rid of the ball quickly, thus avoiding sacks. So, yes you are right.

P.S. Why all the hype about Losman? He's only played in 13 games. It's not fair to say he can't do it. Look how long David Carr got and he's god awful terrible.

Buffalo has another QB that is too short? Let the debate rage. I think most taller QBs are too slow. Their body movements are too slow and they can't get away from the rush and get sacked too often. But if a taller QB has quick feet etc. then then have a huge advantage. And I've never thought otherwise (despite thinking Flutie was great). Flutie was the exception. Plain and simple, he was a great athlete. Most QBs that are on the short side are not good enough athletes to make up for lack of height. I think Jeff Garcia and Drew Brees are QBs that are too short. And I don't think they've been able to overcome their height enough to get a team to the Superbowl. Garcia has been able to use his athletic ability to produce big stats and wins but he still hasn't been able to get a team to the SB and he's long-in-the-tooth. Drew Brees didn't produce until he got TE Antonio Gates. Big Ben, however, is a exception also because he's a real tall guy that's also a good athlete to use his height. Peyton Manning uses his height well in the Red Zone. But he's not a good enough athlete to get away from the rush.

Here we go again. Another ponzi scheme soon to implode. I've been reading articles on the internet about the housing bubble bursting. And it appears to be happening as I write this message. It's hard to shift through some of this information because there's so much of it. But, I think I understand most of it. Some of it is just media hype, but most is not. To start out with, I've never bought a house so I don't understand everything about owning a house. But I do understand a buy/sell market place because I sell tickets for a living. I'll define what I think the problem is and then write if I think it's bad. In other words, if it's a real problem. The things I notice about the housing market. 1. Housing is tied to the stock market. This is the biggest problem in the housing market today. Gone are the mom and pop builders and in came the companies that are listed on the stock market. Beazer, Pulte, KB Homes, Toll Brothers etc. etc. Fact: ten years ago the top 10 builders built 9% of the new homes on the market. Today they build 21-25% (probably more). To me this causes the glut of inventory because Wall Street will always pressure companies for "growth". Too many houses being built to prop up a stock price, thus pushing the price down (in the long run) because of too much supply. Plus causing suburban sprawl which is not PC. 2. Interest only loans: Huge problem. Selling a home to people that should be renting because they can't afford it without the temporary lower payment. This causes the increase in demand and pushes up the price. But this is temporary position. Most markets have not seen rental increases which has never happended before. Most of the time both go up. Second, it causes people to buy a bigger home rather than something they can really afford, gambling on increasing value. When more people can afford a larger home the price gets pushed up because of the increasing demand. 3. McMansions. This ties into No. 2. Fact: The average square footage in the last 10 years has doubled. This is a good thing and it may be the saving grace of the housing market. The average price in each market may have risen dramatically, because so many larger homes are being built and sold. Paying a higher price for more square footage makes sense. Unless unqualified buyers are purchasing the larger homes. Which could cause prices of smaller homes to go down (eventually). Prices on smaller homes have gone up for now. But as more larger homes come to market the price is going to crash for smaller homes. I think the new larger home will maintain their market value more. 4. Tear downs: Replacing older/smaller homes with larger McMansions on the same lot. This is another good thing. Bringing new product to the market and getting rid of junk. Everyone benefits. When I drive in older areas, I can't help but think the Wall Street home builders should be rebuilding more older neighborhoods because it would keep them "growing" and the inventory glut wouldn't happen. Plus suburban sprawl gets reduced. 5. Flippers: Bad genes and greed. Fact: Anytime massive speculation enters into a market place a crash is sure to follow. Driven by hype and stupidity, flippers are now getting their just do. And flippers, once the builders friend, is now the enemy. There are other things to consider. Thoughts?

June 19, 2006: The NFL network announced the completion of 75 affiliation agreements with cable companies to cary the 24-hour year-round football channel from the NFL. All deals are for the "expanded basic" level of service, meaning the most broadly distributed package the video provider offers. Cable operators are signing up at a torrid pace since the NFL network became the exclusive home to the new primetime regular season NFL games package and announced that Bryant Gumbel and Chris Collinsworth would be the NFL networks primary broadcast team. NFL network will televise 168 football games in 2006, including preseason, regular season, game re-airs, NFL Europe, the Insight Bowl and Senior Bowl in addition to the most robust and popular sports video-on-demand content in the Industry. NFL network plans 2000 hours of original programming in the coming year, including 52 preseason games, 75 game re-airs, eight primetime games, plus the expansion of programming including a half dozen new series in the fall.

Next offseason the NFL network is will show classic games from the 70's and 80's etc. But before we get that, this season NFL network will offer repeats of games from the week before. I've heard it will be 4 games each week. Both are going to be the "NFL replay" version that was shown last year but was taken off the air this year. I don't know why that was done. I taped several of those games last offseason. The NFL has also mentioned that they'll have "on demand" available. I don't know if that means pay per view or something on the internet regarding classic games. They ran ads in Sports Illustrated about a partnership with IBM.

To further illustrate the facts: Top five rush defense teams in 2005: 1. San Diego; 2. Denver; 3. Pittsburgh; 4. Carolina; 5. Seattle. Four of those five teams were in the NFC and AFC championship games.

I'm wrong. The Titans had only the 10th-ranked run defense. The Rams led the league in run defense.