colin

if we kept washington i'd bet with williams and washington as the middle our 4-3 bryce and schoble on our edges would have looked better than they did all the time. remember what washington did for the pats in their second super bowl year? given the roster we had that might have been us :<

i said right there in my post he did well in STL, which is where he played right after leaving us. when he came out he was projected as a possible 2nd round talent who would slip because he had a 1 year obligation, so we took him in the 7th round. he is a super good guy type too, always good to have guys like that around. anyhow, if we kept him we would have spent 1 and perhaps 2 less draft picks on DEs who can't even really play on our left side. althoug bryce himself would be a solid starter and nothing more, he would have given us 2 more shots at some quality linemen for the other side of the ball, or perhaps more DTs if we were to spend those picks on the D line. i always liked him and was just reminded of him because he was on the NFL network

zoing!

turned out to be a solid NFL starting end, did well in STL and is doing well in seattle. 7th round pick. why did we let him go? oh, that's right. TD. we have let too much talent go in the past 5 years, we are like the raptors

the biggest problem with our D is come the second half every team we play knows exactly what we are doing and where we will be. our secondray is not perfect, but in many cases it is set up to fail

read my post before flashing your good guy badge. i said MORE LIKELY. poor households are more likely to have dumb people. wealthier house holds (wealthier than low income/poor anyhow) are more likely to have more smart people. i did not state smart = rich. and the best and brightest DON'T go into education. have you seen how horrible many schools in north america are, particularly compared to those in europe and asia? do you think this all just inspite of how smart and dedicated teachers accross the nation are? teachers aren't parents or miracle workers. they are civil servants who administer lesson curricula to children and young adults. it certainly doesn't take the best and brightest to teach children, but a poorly organized badly executed government boondoggle educatino of an education system can certainly make meaningful education impossible.

i feel that way. that isn't to say i don't want sherman, i just think hazz would be a better fit. i think a tough strong head coach will be tempered by marv and will get this team to play. i think the personel moves of NO while hazz was there were terrible and inspite of this NO was a competitve team in a VERY tough division. (i see last year as a throw away). hazz did win coach of the year and did get NO to its only ever play off win. throw in his passion for buffalo and the bills and i think you have a guy who can be our cowher, but with more creativitiy.

low income households are more likely to be filled with dumb slow ignorant people. it is not a politically correct thing to say, but most smart people find a way to not be low income and most dumb people are low income because they just aren't good enough to make more. tire factories need workers and mcdonalds needs people to mop the floor. attempting to meaningfully educate all these people together is insane.

nonsense. i don't know much about you, but i gather from your posts you don't understand economics at all. under a free market, without government subsidy or protection, you have competition. while it MAY be true that a given pharma won't want to sell a cure for a disease that it thinks it will make more money off of just treating rather than curing, don't you think their competition might have just a touch of incentive to sell the cure and make some money while taking market share from their competitor? you make the mistake most (economic) socialists make, you are assuming that free market means "corporations are in control". corporations are not government (although they are protected by the government, and would have less protection in a more free market, but that's a whole other ball of wax), they are groups of people with some capital and ideas trying to make money and grow. the do not (and can not) simply conspire to maximize their own collective profits at the expense of all the good men and women living under their despotic heel. they are at the mercy of the buying public, and of each other. even if some corporations schemed to collude and eliminate competition (in other words act something like a labour union) there is huge incentive to cheat (ever heard of a prisoner's dilema?) and groups outside of the cartel will look at the protectionist ring as something to eat. so no, you don't think corporations left unfettered will hold back cures for diseases (since they can't), you just FEEL it emotionaly. and it is wrong.

i don't like sapp, but that hit was clean and sherman is a girlyman for crying about it. how much do you want to bet that that o lineman (like all of them) has made a few dirty hits in his life?

haha! that made me laugh

how'd you guys feel about throw backs full time? i'd dig it myself

getting through the FDA costs much more than R&D.

the biggest thing to me is the coaching. the teams that make the play offs have kick ass coaches. i really don't think mularky or our old batch of goofs had a snowballs chance in hell of winning a playoff game

brown, pat williams, prelou (however you spell it), antoine, jonas, bledsoe, price, reimersma, centers all those guys were cast off as donahoe moves. some of them were better than others, but the big ting is they all got ditched without proper replacements. he did an ok job replacing some guys, but he seems out of touch with what players to retain

ben roth makes plays happen by avoiding the rush. manning is a pure pocket passer, he will kill you if you make an early mistake, but doesn't seem to be able to wiggle out of a blitz to extend a play that well.

didn't campbell do some things for us last year? the biggest problem with our entire ex coaching staff is they just picked plays as if they were playing madden (badly at that). nothing was ever run to set up other plays or to wear down the opponents. we never showed them one tendency and got them when the bit. these guys just sucked

no bently or hutch? what about FAs from the jests?

pit also dumbed down the passing game for ben his first year. we have had a dumb ass bunch of HORRIBLE offensive coached who have had zero sucess but still think they have to throw the kitchen sink at every game.

the "underclass" in america can easily live better than the below average european. all the need is a job.

as good as they have been the pats are a very DIRTY team. they hold chip and block low all the time on O. on D it is frickin horrible, they play physically but do so much clutching and grabbing and late hitting it makes me sick. seymore is a great lineman, but he leads with his head, twists at the knees and hits qbs late all the damn time. dirty dirty team, i love watching them lose

a young guy will take a few years to learn. let's just get a quality guy with some experience

ok so seeing that none of them are available (good list, but let's assume they aren't there because that is what it looks like right now), who would you like and why? one of the points i am making is that we can turn our nose up at coaches (and sure i might be wrong wanting haz) but you have to rank them by who is there, not who we might like.

i'd take him as DC

ok, so haslett started his starting QB instead of the back up who turned out better than his starter? didn't marty do that when he had grbac in over gannon and KC failed to make the SB inspite of home field and the NFL's best record? gannon went on to kick ass for the raiders. sure haslett is not perfect, and his team sucked this year. that team also has the worst owner and some of the worst management in the NFL. the postives (only play off win in NO history) outweight the negatives (bad disciplin, starting the wrong QB) considering the circumstances (that team lost more talent than any other while haslett was there and ditka saddled them with a problem child RB and a lack of other young players) and i'm willing to throw out his last year (katrina). the bottom line is if you don't like haslett because you don't think he did enough record and play off wise, then the clear choice is martz because he is the one coach who did have success that is being canned. if you think martz is a bad candidate for some other non record reasons, then using haslett's record as the reason not to hire him (and i think his record wasn't that bad) is a bit dishonest sherman took a built up franchise no where. he also more or less just decided to ride favre however he went. if he was smarter he might have avoided all those big melt down games that favre likes to have in the playoffs.