Chilly

Symantec (Norton) has some of the worst QC I've ever seen. AVG isn't completely free either - they just have a free version. McAfee, Norton, etc provide a bunch of features the fre eones don't. Most useless for the home user.

I get the 4th seed for you too. I think you'll be playing Dustin in the first round. Coincidentally, if you had played him this week, you'd win by one point. I'm kinda hoping Greg ends up losing. I'd rather face one of the other teams over you in round 2 lol.

327

I hope so. I have a good chance if I can keep scoring 140 a week... unless you score 200, lol.

My sentiments exactly. Good post.

OJ Simpson?

Oh wait, Damas is there too, it's a 4-way tie.

Dennis, if I'm looking at it right, you're now in a 3-way tie for the last 3 playoff spots, right? Charly doesn't want your team to make the playoffs. She's scared, lol.

The worst defense? I had no idea the Bills moved to Arizona this week. Seriously though, Arizona, Cincinnati, Houston, Detroit, and Denver are all worse. Dallas is statistically, but they have some talent. Bills & Panthers are probably about the same level - good pass Ds, not much else.

The Bills ran a play and spiked the ball, how the hell can they review this?

Fair enough. Yep, I don't live in Buffalo or read the News.

Which has nothing to do with my point that Whitlock is the only visible writer that I ever see writing about race. I've never even heard of Jamele Hill or Rod Watson. And I certainly would have never seen this article if it wasn't posted on this forum. Whitlock's giving these people creditability and visibility when he writes about it.

If there's one writer who is highly visible and consistently writes about race - no matter what his message is - it's Whitlock. If it wasn't for him, I would hardly *ever* see anything about a race issue.

I was sure this article was going to be written by Jason Whitlock.

I can't believe both of our teams are this good. In the other league she's playing with me in, she's in dead last. I guess that makes her .500 overall? lol. We both got really lucky so far this year. Especially me, the two RBs I took later in the draft have worked out. I didn't even play my 1st and 3rd round picks last week! (Shonn Greene & Andre Johnson). Usually that means your team is going to suck. Your week was nuts! That was the perfect storm of fantasy. 2nd week in a row Dustin played someone who had their team blow up (although last time it was just Matt Cassell's 55 points).

Maybe I misread what you originally were saying - but the way I read it was you were saying quotes were what causes it to require all of the search terms to be part of the search results. I was saying Google does that by default, and that quotes cause Google to look at exact phrases in that specific order. If that's not what you meant, then sorry!

There's a couple of reasons for that: - By default, Google looks for synonyms of words you type in. - Google will look for other ways that a word you typed in the search applies to a page in its search results, even if that word doesn't necessarily appear on that site (most likely scenario). For example, let's say I'm searching Google for disgusting dog photographs. The top page returned might be a page that only says "Dog Photographs" and has 50 pictures of dogs on it. However, lots of other people have posted this page as a link on their blog or on forums, and have said "Look at these disgusting dog photographs!" and provided the link. As a result, Google knows a couple things: 1.) Even though the page itself doesn't say "disgusting", it's valid to associate the word "disgusting" with it. As a result, Google considers that a match even though it doesn't specifically say 'disgusting' in the page text itself. 2.) Because it was linked to a lot, Google knows it's popular, and that bumps it's rank up. From a high level, that's how it works. I'm not smart enough to really understand a lot of the math beneath it, so I couldn't tell you what the thresholds are to determine when a page gets associated with a word, for example. And not all links are given the same weight - there's lots of things it depends on. I've read that Google takes into account hundreds of variables for each page in its search results.

No, it isn't what you said. This is what you said:

Top-32 NFL QBs in 2010 by QB rank (up until this point), with where they were drafted: 1.) Vick, 1st overall 2.) Garrard, 4th round 3.) Rivers, 1st round, 4th pick 4.) Brady, 6th round 5.) V. Young, 1st round, 3rd pick 6.) Ben Rothelisberger, 1st round, 11th pick 7.) Kyle Orton, 4th round 8.) Tony Romo, UDFA 9.) Matt Cassel, 7th round 10.) Peyton Manning, 1st overall 11.) Eli Manning, 1st overall, 12.) Matt Ryan, 1st round, 3rd overall 13.) Drew Brees, 2nd round, 32nd overall 14.) Matt Schaub, 3rd round 15.) Aaron Rodgers, 1st round, 24th overall 16.) Josh Freeman, 1st round, 17th overall 17.) Joe Flacco, 1st round, 18th overall 18.) Ryan Fitzpatrick, 7th round 19.) Kevin Kolb, 2nd round 20.) Jay Cutler, 1st round, 11th overall 21.) Carson Palmer, 1st round, 1st overall 22.) Jon Kitna, UDFA 23.) Jason Campbell, 1st round, 25th overall 24.) Mark Sanchez, 1st round, 5th overall 25.) Chad Henne, 2nd round 26.) Shaun Hill, UDFA 27.) Sam Bradford, 1st round, 1st overall 28.) Matt Hasselbeck, 6th round 29.) Donovan McNabb, 1st round, 2nd overall 30.) Alex Smith, 1st round, 1st overall 31.) Brett Favre, 2nd round, 33rd overall 32.) Derek Anderson, 6th round What does that all mean? Not much without some context. For the purposes of this comparison, I'm not going to count Favre & Kitna, as most QBs don't start when they get as old as they do - skewing the numbers (most QBs retire at age 38). Thus, I'm going to take the next oldest QB on this list, Matt Hasselbeck, and look at the drafts from 1998 through 2010. Here's how many QBs were picked in each round of the draft: - Round 1: 35 QBs - Round 2: 14 QBs - Round 3: 17 QBs - Round 4: 15 QBs - Round 5: 24 QBs - Round 6: 31 QBs - Round 7: 28 QBs Here’s how it’s broken down with the top-32 NFL QB ratings as a percentage of overall picks: - R1: 48.5% - R2: 21.42% - R3: 5.8% - R4: 13.3% - R5: 0% - R6: 9.67% - R7: 7.14% What these percentages mean is that 48.5% of all QBs who were taken in the 1st round between 1998 & 2010 are in the top-32 in NFL QB rating this year through week 10. Unfortunately, I don’t have data on UDFAs, but I suspect it would be pretty small given the number of UDFAs that are signed. Let’s also look at top-5, since you brought that up specifically. Right now, there are 10 QBs that were taken in the top-5 of the draft in the top-32 in NFL QB rankings. There have been 18 QBs taken in the top-5 since 1998. As a percentage, that’s 55.55% - better than the total of R1 and the best of all the numbers. Now, I know there is a lot of talk about “elite” QBs vs “non-elite” QBs. There’s lots of ways to define an Elite QB. The discussion gets really dicey here, as I think everyone would agree that Aaron Rodgers and Eli Manning are elite QBs, but if we used top-10 by QB rating, they wouldn’t be included. Guys like Matt Cassel and David Garrard would be included, even though they are clearly not elite. There isn’t a great way to judge from stats alone who is and isn’t an elite QB. If you do an average over a certain number of years, you include years that players were injured and thus their stats get killed. You also include seasons like Derek Anderson’s crazy year, when that was clearly a fluke. However we divvy up QBs is going to be subjective. Thus, I’ll use John Clayton’s list from before this year started (available at http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview10/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=5489176): 1.) Peyton Manning, round 1, pick 1 2.) Tom Brady, round 6 3.) Drew Brees, round 2 4.) Ben Rothelisberger, round 1, pick 11 5.) Brett Favre, round 2 6.) Aaron Rodgers, round 1, pick 24 7.) Philip Rivers, round 1, pick 4 8.) Tony Romo, UDFA 9.) Donovan McNabb, round 1, pick 2 10.) Carson Palmer, round 1, pick 1 11.) Eli Manning, round 1, pick 1 12.) Joe Flacco, round 1, pick 18 13.) Matt Ryan, round 1, pick 3 14.) Matt Schaub, round 3 If you’re talking about “Elite QBs” going into this season defined this way, here’s how the rounds break down (like last time, this is a % of elite QBs/total QBs picked): - R1: 25.71% - R2: 14.29% - R3: 5.88% - R4: 0% - R5: 0% - R6: 3.23% - R7: 0% Again, you’re much more likely to get an elite QB in round 1 than you are in any other round. However, if we look at just top-5, there are 6 QBs in that list from the top-5, with 18 being drafted in that time period. That’s 33% of QBs taken in the top-5, again better than any of the other rounds. I think the available evidence directly contradicts your claim that top QBs in the NFL aren’t found in the top-5 picks. In fact, I believe that teams place a premium value on QBs because they are so hard to get, and are the most important position on the field. As a result, it’s much more important to grab one early if you have the opportunity to get one that you feel is going to be a franchise QB. If the Bills are picking in the top-5 in the draft, and have the opportunity to draft a top QB and a top player at another position, you draft the QB because of how important they are to the team’s success & difficulty to acquire.

Next time, learn how to use Google before trying to teach someone else how to do it. Here's how Google actually works: - Quotes signify an exact phrase or word, they have nothing to do with whether both words have to be on the site or not. - " " around a phrase means match that exact phrase in that exact order. - " " around a single word means to not use any synonyms and only that exact word, which is the same as putting a + sign in front of a word. - By default, Google uses AND as the operator (like any sane search engine). This means that Google *always* requires all of the words to be in search results, unless you specify a different logical operator. My point was Google search result numbers aren't really data thats evident of anything. I could write a script that makes a million web pages on various free web hosts that have random text that say something ridiculous like "My friends Jim Kelly and Bob Barker love game shows. In unrelated news, terrorists are still trying to terrorise people" and have them crawled by Google. They likely won't show up near the top of the search results (as no one's actually looking at those pages), but it'll increase the number of page results for your search by a million. (This wouldn't completely work as Google is likely to omit search results that are too close, but you see my point).

Scribus is another multiplatform option

I googled jim kelly terrorist and got 300k hits. I guess our old hof qb is one. Personally, I hate the stuff. Whenever I tried it, I physically hurt - felt like there were chains in my muscles pulsating. That was the only effect I'd get, not fun! Wish I had gotten the fun effects. Oh well, my body chemistry wasn't meant to be, so I just don't do it.

I hate people that smoke and drive. Always going 20 mph under the speed limit.

Agreed, jack would be good

Glenn Beck?