todd

I'm curious as to why you are evaluating this year's offense, with a new signal caller, and comparing it to last year? It doesn't make much sense. Also remember that our TEs were all injured for a number of games, limiting the impact a TE could have stat-wise. Mularkey has repeatedly said they couldn't do many of the things they wanted to do on offense because of Bledsoe. I think involving a TE is one of them. Drafting a TE makes perfect sense given this reality.

How can you advocate such moronic drafting?

Yes! Donahoe should find someone who can play both ways or Donahoe sux! Damn fool GM!

Donahoe stinks! If we don't take a tackle in the second round of the draft this year we will completely fail! A tackle in the second round will make or break our season!

Maybe that would be best. The bridge jumping, that is. You can't evaluate a draft after the first day. You can't evaluate a draft after the first year. Quaaludes. Take em.

Please. Dissent is OK. Nobody here REALLY knows enough to scout players, but choosing a small WR with the second pick is certainly controversial.

Hell yeah, he is! And he's trying to ruin this team on purpose! And so is wilson by hiring him.

Obvously, anyone who Donahoe picks. Someone will concoct some way to make whoever it is out to be a bust. Trust me on this.

you can't coach moxie, and you can't coach talent. I haven't seen enough of Losman to know if he has talent, but he sure as hell has moxie. It's what RJ lacked. It's what Jimbo had. I hate to make comparisons, but that's what I see. I hope he has the talent and mental agility to back it up.

Don't worry about it. Just make the offer contingent on an engineer inspection and/or home inspection.

Yeah - don't type! :-)

So you are saying that 3 years of a guy's life in the german equivalent of the boy scouts trumps 50 years of service to God? Hell, I'm not a catholic, but calling this guy a Nazi is crazy.

It would be funny if it wasn't true.

Which means they aren't really catholic. That and using birth control. If you do, how are you catholic? As far as the church is concerned, you are sinning. I ain't down with that. My wife and I both agree that birth control is da bomb.

The only problem with your papal infallibility analogy is that most CEOs don't claim to get their direction from god, just shareholders. And I still think it's twisted and wroing. My point about wine is NOT silly. As a catholic, that's what you are supposed to believe. That it isn't wine - it's blood. I remember the last mass I went to. The priest did a whole sermon on it, and from that point on I didn't take communion or return to the church because I can't adhere to that. It's great if other catholics can (actually they should or else they shouldn't call themselves catholics) but I'm not down with that. So I left the church.

Well said, but wrong (IMHO). Rome, Greece, and Egypt are all what I would call winning cultures. They all had bigamy, accepted homosexuality, and didn't have laws such as the catholic church does. I understand what he's trying to say, and I agree that a moral and upstanding culture is important, but historically he's incorrect.

Having two vets behind a rookie, especially one who has been in the system, is pretty cool. I think it's a good move.

Welcome to my ignore list.

No - that's when jesus went up on a mountain and met moses & stuff. Completely different.

You are completely incorrect. It amazes me how many Catholics don't really understand the teachings of the church they belong to. Papal Infallibility. Look it up. Here - I'll help: Learn about it. Wikipedia on it ... Another thing many Catholics don't understand is that you MUST believe that the wine you drink on Sunday at mass is actually turned into blood. You aren't drinking wine that represents the blood of Jesus. You ARE drinking the blood of Jesus. It's not wine. It's blood. If you don't truly believe that in your heart, you shouldn't be partaking in the sacrament of eucharist.

Actually, homosexuals and the divorced are forbidden from participating in eucharist.

I don't think so. A Pedophile is a sexual deviant. Pedophilia is listed in DSM IV as a mental illness. A homosexual is not a deviant. What they do may seem unsavory to those of us who are straight, but being gay isn't only about the sexual side of things, it's who the person decides to have a relationship with and spend their life with.

Umm, that's my point.

I guess that didn't work, now did it?

Actually, some Presbyterian churches seem OK. The Unitarian ones freak me out a bit. The scary Lutherans are the Missouri Synod ones. Whew. Talk about bassackwards.