mike1011

Not a problem? Usually when your star player averages under 4 ypc you have a problem. Outside of stats whenever your star RB doesn't make critical 1st downs in tight situations you have a problem. We have a problem and it's lack of heart by McGahee. I didn't see Travis smiling with the opposing D after players like Willis. Don't you miss the games where the RB just owns the field like Thurman could do? I guess mediocrity isn't a problem to you, it is to me.

I don't he should have run, but the A-Train should have.

Not only was the offense great today, JP is progressing. I disagree with his decision to pass on 4th and 1, and the last 2 plays, but we are going forward offensively. Can you say that under the past 3 O-Coord? Didn't think so. We keep Fairchild, JP is better and the team on O is better.

VY is a monster, great player, and hats off to him. I was so impressed with JP in the loss I'm just happy we have a great future season coming up if we can shore up the lines just a little more. I was cautiously optimistic, but now I can see I'm a BILLever in JP. Give the coach and the staff a great thumbs up on the season. We should be proud of Marv and Jauron for sticking things out. Triplett needs to go and we overpaid the dude.

Regardless, Henry played with fire as he always did. The one play called back on holding where he ran 50 yards makes me realize what a huge mistake it was getting rid of him. We need him back if it's possible. Travis has heart, McGahee just doesn't unless it's the Jets.

Spikes is older than Peterson, older than Cowart, and he is done. Sorry boys and girls he is DONE. The fork has been inserted and he needs to take a major paycut. Seeing him stop one play and celebrating isn't the same thing as watching 80% of all running calls on his side of the field and him looking below average.

Vilma is a good LB because he's fast. Colvin at one point was blazing fast and a great LB. Seau was fast and explosive (now older). No one gets better from the worst injury an athlete can have that relies on speed. Seeing TKO become Eddie Robinson is heart-breaking, but a reality. Can he comeback? No, he can't. Can he be 80% of what he was? Sure, but that 20% is the difference between him and all 2nd and 3rd stringers in the league. He was in the top 10% of all outside LB, and at 80% he's slightly below average. The NFL is very fast.

Which was my point that there are no outside linebackers outside of 30 who are any good. Fletch is decent too past 30, but not outside linebackers. Consider that Spikes and Co had 380+ yards in rushing against them the past 2 games who much more intensity equals tackles and stopping the run? If they can't stop the run eventually you just lose more than you win. It doesn't matter if you high kick, scream, dance, etc. if the teams are running all over you. Spikes is a non-factor in a game, an actual liability with no great outside LB outside of 30, and certainly no LB who was anything past 30 after a major injury in the entire history of the NFL. His career is over and Posey is a better option right now. Why not advocate Posey? Because he sucked. If TKO stays here it's for slightly over vet minimum nothing more. What does he bring to the table as far as defense is concerned other than allowing the running game to smash right through us?

I find it humorous that people will bash those with other views as pushing their views on others as they push their overly zealous anti-religious bigotry as a way of stopping what they perceive as bigotry. It's really a pathetic ruse of vice masked as virtue. Please, don't kid yourselves. You would want people like myself caged or dead so you could push your ideas on me. Many of your self-proclaimed beliefs in freedom of speech are hypocrisy personified. It gets funnier when someone like myself admits to being Christian they get the labels of PC world thrown at them without ever discussing ideas as right or wrong, truth or error. Discussions based on ideas are usually degraded by the incessant labeling of ideas rather than discussing them, then best of all we are re-told that we are bigoted because they don't want to discuss the ideas. On a Catholic note I'm told by anti-religious personae on the board that I follow a religion of child molesters, while at the same time these same people are attempting to defend homosexuality. Over 80% of cover-up in the sexual abuse scandal are homosexual acts with young men, not children. So they defend homosexuality as a way of life, and then decry homosexual acts to minors that certainly isn't pedophilia with children, but homosexual acts with young men in adolescence. Well which is it should I defend these men (which I don't) or decry their actions and their lifestyle? The people who castigate people like myself know we would want no Catholic priests who are homosexuals (which would solve the vast majority of the crisis as stats show), and yet they defend those choices when it doesn't pertain to Catholic priests who have lost their vocations as the Church teaches such acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered. The absence of logic is not only stiffling, but it shows my adversaries bias towards a rational discussion which would immediate degrade to labels again. Do you people realize why I stopped responding to the idiocy by some on this board? I can't engage too much in intelligent conversation (although X. Benedict was thoughtful in his responses) when rationality is lacking. Some of you guys really need to step away and think about your illogical conclusions that are hypocritical before you continue to confusedly believe you have some in-roads in being informed and consistent.

How many impact linebackers exist that doesn't play MLB 31 or older? None, and many aren't going over the worst possible injury to an athlete's career on a job made on quickness. So add a horrendous injury and the fact that he's going to be back at 31 with no good/great LBs at 31 and all you have is a big cap hit. If he does come back out of some freak genetic display do you really think he is going to play out his salary at his performance? I don't see anyone really believing that. TKO was great, now he's sub-par. I hope he destroys the league, I just don't see it with my reality glasses on.

I believe New England went D-line 3 years in a row early this decade. It looks like a good move to me to go D-Line again with or without McCargo. I would love to have a great WR too, but they are better to pick up in FA.

I'd love to give him time but will he take a pay-cut to compensate for his lack of playmaking? Enough to keep Clements? I know we will be way under the cap, but with enough money we could easily keep Clements or Assante Samuel, someone decent on the right side of the O-line, grab GOOD depth at tackle (offense and defense) and more depth at LB. The new crop of FAs will get more money with more to spend so talking about the big cap space might all go bye-bye if FAs go up significantly in a buyer's market.

Peterson was hurt over a year ago when he was 25 or 26 is now 28. Spikes is 30 and at 30 no matter what you aren't as good. Unless he found the fountain of youth he's in trouble. You don't bounce back at 30 in a position which requires speed.

You mean a guy with a big trap, nothing to back it up with anymore, and a feeling that he deserves a starting role while playing like a back-up? That sounds more demoralizing that revitalizing. Can you explain what you think he would provide to the team if he was a starter and played poorly?

When do you see anyone complaining here? I'm saying we should cautious enthusiasm before there is any anointing. Sure his stats weren't great but he finished well, but by no means would I consider that a good performance. My hope as a fan is that he's at least a 190-200 yards a game with a 2:1 TD to Int ratio with a minimum of 24 TDs a year. That's not Brees-like #s, it's asking for a good stable aspect of the game which is the most important on the offense. Call me crazy for not going nuts over watching a rather pedestrian performance, although much better so he is progressing. I'm happy for the progress, but certainly not sold.

Thanks! Nice to be aboard... sometimes

Leaf in 98 (truly a rookie) had a game where he was 25 comp 52 att 281 yards 1 TDs 0 Int against Seattle In 00' he went 13/27/311 (comp/att/yards) 3:1 TDs/Int against Denver a playoff team (Texans certainly aren't). I will keep the #s in the same reference points later on. 23/43/259 2/1 against the Panthers 2001 16/32/193 against Denver which is very similar to what JP did today. Leaf didn't play in 99' because of wrist injuries. He was 26 when he retired. JP is 25, 26 in 4 months. Certainly Leaf's injuries forced him out quicker (as well as his horrible gametime performances), but please show me where I'm that far off. JP had many sub-par games like Leaf and it looks like he's doing better. But please don't jump on the bandwagon after 169 yards and an INT!!! Be patient, RJ looked like much better much more often.

Should I be gushiing over 169 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT? Call it not sold yet, not anti-Losman. You are on the wrong critique if you can find where I said I'm anti-Losman. I'm on the "I'm not sold by one good game" type. Call me crazy, but Ryan Leaf had shown as much. I'm being cautiously optimistic, but not drooling.

You would stake your future on that performance? Sure the end result was good, we won, but would you give that win to JP? Ouch... It's a step forward, I'm happy, but he doesn't impress me at all except for the last game. What did he do to show he's better than good depth other than the last game? Really, tell me I'll be open to all ideas. He passed for 160 yards, had an INT, and Parrish's return, the missed FGs bailed him. It's not as if he carried the offense although he did have a good last drive. If you were a GM would you really watch that game and say, "Wow!!! We have a great starter for our future!!!" I wouldn't, I would still be cautiously optimistic for the future. I hope for his success, but if Flutie-like performances are enough to be a good QB in this league is enough than you have lowered the bar way too low.

When has McGahee showed much except the first year other than the Jets? I just don't see the love for the guy. What has he really done other than run 4.0 yards a game. A-Train can do that for a fraction of the cost and no attitude. Keep A-Train, trade McGahee for a 3rd if we are lucky.

What would it be called? "Wiping Up Darin's Buffoonery?" Strange, only in Catholic/Christian countries is their science, universities, etc. and no where else in the world. Without a Christian worldview there would be none of the following developed without the true Christian humanism that seeks to make man better. You keep kidding yourself without facts or history. That's not the point, those other groups are covered up systemically. There is no outrage by the media. Nor would I ever condone it, and have done far more than a guy who sits behind a computer to work against it. I don't rail against a computer, I actually try to stop these monsters so don't call anyone a hypocrite unless there is hypocrisy. Strange concept isn't it? If a guy bashes a jew or a black man he is blasted on the front page of the paper but if someone bashes Catholics there is no outcry. Mel Gibson got so much flack for a drunken outburst, but where was the media for Penn Jillette's recent outburst that much worse and vicious (and all done sober)? There is no comparison to the unfairness of how Catholics are treated. Try making those statements against rabbis on the news, then do it on Catholics and tell me the difference. Same thing with the teacher's unions which have a higher rate of assault on youth. Labels, and no facts. The questions was never answered: 1. Does God exist (demonstrative) 2. Is your view just as controlling against those who believe in God Think of how stupid that sounds. Do you ever contemplate how ridiculous that sounds? Honestly. People build great temples for child abuse. There is no connection. The poor built the great Churches, not the rich. They wanted the great Churches for their posterity, not rich controlling monsters. Sadly it's the loss of the aesthetic you lack and you don't realize how those great Churches feed the spiritual lives of people for over a thousand years. And that game is what? You are the clueless non sequitur extraordinare and you care to expose someone else while making no logical distinctions or connections. And that ignorance would be? Oh that's right, you are busy preparing your next reply with empty statements and no proof. I'll be waiting. It's hard for you to believe that people do try isn't it? Let me ask this to you what have you done to stamp out teachers abuse on children that is never exposed? You seem really interested to stamp and root out evils. What have you done in your life? Who knows you're complaints and your attempts that can be verified other than complain here? It seems you don't care except when it fits your agenda. I have a track record of trying, call up the Holy Office or write to them in the Vatican if you want confirmation. My name is Michael Solimanto so use my name as a reference. When you are finished actually determining supposed hypocrisy you might realize part of the problem is your own lethargy in doing anything to actually help people.

Well than don't be crass enough to tell me I'm changing the meaning of a word that was usurped, and can be still be found in Oxford dictionaries in the context I'm using it. That's revisionism and lack of intellectual vigor. It is relevant, but you want to undue it's relevance by forcing me to use your definition that defies it's own etymology. Brilliant! That's why it should be classified as experimental science vs. science alone. It's more exacting, which is the function of words last time I checked, namely, the communication of ideas.

Sadly not only are your wrong, but you relegate etymology into your sphere of understanding, not vice versa. Care to show me where I'm wrong? Because I can show you where you are. Science was re-defined by experimental sciences as "SCIENCE". Show me the historical belief in your claim. You'll have a problem right before 1800 AD until the beginning of civilization. I have thousands of years backing up the (notice the wording) perennial definition, etymology, philology, and common usage for thousands of years. You have your ignorance and a re-defining of a word for the past 200 years. Did you know also that psychology was actually a branch of epistemology before Fraud and his posterity took the word by redefining it. But I'm the revisionist

Care to share this study? I have seen not one scientific evidence for it. Just hypothesii that such a position can be found. Such a position by the medical community has not found such a strand of DNA. I have seen the studies you discuss, they are not based on any real studies that have been reviewed. Dr. Nicolosi, as a matter of fact, has helped hundreds of homosexuals without any DNA changes or mutations. As he said you never see the testimonials in the media: "Hi my name is Steve. I was gay, and realized it was a lie. Here is my wife, my 4 kids and I'm happy." Can you show where those studies, which are not provided by Nicolosi but by other sources, are false? Or do you think you can use labels like closed-minded when you are in fact closed minded to the facts that there is no strand, chemical, etc. to show any material defects to transform heterosexuals or homosexuals. I provided a website with 3rd party unbiased information, yet you claim I'm the one closed-minded. A find closed-mindedness a funny paradigm: every is closed-minded except yourself when you disagree with someone else. I've never pushed the closed-minded mantra on anyone who never pushed it themselves for others. Why not open your mind to other possibilities or would that hurt your dogma of liberal inconsistencies?

Do you see what I mean? You cannot think straight, yet you picture yourself as some sort of luminary. Guess what genius, you need to think before you put your ideas into public exposure of your vast ignorance, bias, and false perspectives. Do you really think judge not lest ye be judged means we can't judge actions? That statement in context states we can't judge intentions unless the person exposes their malice. Your malice in the face of truth is stifling. Yet you claim (not I) that you don't want to push your ideas on others. I never said that because I believe truth needs a voice. You see you believe that too, but when pushed you deny it. That's hypocritical. You're cheapshot about homosexual priest only exposes your hypocrisy even further. What does the Catholic Church say about homosexuality? It does not condone it, and asks homosexuals to reconsider their lifestyle in a way that is dignified to the body God gave them. Most acts by priests are not child molesters Ignoramus, they are homosexual acts with young men 14 years old and older over 80% of the time. Somehow you confine this to child rape, when in fact it's homosexual sex. Don't let that bother your perverted sense of justice and hypocrisy. Where's your bashing of teacher's unions, rabbis, Protestant ministers, college professors who all have a higher rate of sexual abuse with minors? You have an agenda to fulfill as a disgruntled ignorant Catholic. You are filling your quota quite well. Heterosexual zealots? What is that supposed to mean? Oh that's right freedom of speech for everyone except those people who are religious. You push freedom, not pushing your views on others, and that's all you do for the years you push this board. We've been at this before when I exposed your hypocrisy with another screen name before I lost my email address for lack of use. You are clueless, and people of your disposition will end up without a sane environment for their children because they have denied looking at all the facts as they believe the world should be open-minded, except when they have a religious name attached to their beliefs. Not only is that a priori false, but your reasoning is that of a 4 year old, "Mom, our family sticks because Uncle Johnny is mean so I don't want to be an American like he is or part of the family." That exactly what you do when you point the finger at Catholics who fight against homosexuality and sexual predators.