Remianen

It was also the name of one of the teachers on 'The Little Rascals' (the one Alfalfa had a crush on).

<p>1) Yes, I saw but it doesn't matter. Building a stadium is one thing. But if the team that occupies the stadium is still crap, it's not really going to account for much. The Niners have promise but so do the Falcons. Promise and $4 will get you a cup of Starbucks but little else. The Niners have too many holes (not the least of which is the guy taking the snaps) to really contend and while I like how they're building the team, they aren't there yet. They still have no one who is truly marketable (Patrick Willis is a contender but generally speaking, defensive players aren't "sexy", especially middle linebackers) and the team is boring as hell to watch.</p><p> </p><p> 2) The Titans don't do too bad, merchandise wise. They have a unique and distinctive uniform design (and colors) and with CJ and maybe Vince, they have players who could move units. Sure they're no Mark Sanchez and the franchise itself is kinda boring (Jeff Fisher reminds me of Ben Stein. "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?") but at least they're not the Rams.</p><p> </p><p> The Titans need a franchise cornerstone but then, so do most teams. Usually the cornerstone is a quarterback (Brees, Peyton, Brady) but not always (see Lewis, Ray). They have no one on that team to whom everyone in the locker room is accountable. An Undertaker of sorts. And Jeff Fisher is such a cold fish, he wouldn't dare blast a player in the press (like Parcells has done in the past).</p><p> </p><p> The Titans don't seem to value character very highly but they're not alone in that. Neither do the Cowboys and they haven't done too badly.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GatorBait19" data-cite="GatorBait19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Logan you also have to remember that the Titans are considered a small market franchise in the NFL (which I have never understood because as long as you win people come to games and even if you lose people come to games).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Ahh, it's not the same thing. New York is a large market because of both population and per capita income. Even if the Titans sold out every game in a season, they still wouldn't make as much as say the Jets or Giants or Dolphins or Cowboys (or even the Falcons) because their market is much smaller and offers far less in the way of ancillary income (team endorsements and marketing opportunities). The Packers are an iconic franchise but they can't charge $90 per ticket and expect to fill Lambeau because their local audience can't afford that (and there's not as many people in the local audience). And Packer fans in Wisconsin are freakin' fanatics about their team. Here, most people could care less about the Jets and Giants....but the teams produce despite that.</p><p> </p><p> When your owner can build a billion dollar ego boost...err, stadium and not even sweat it, you're a large market team. Lucas Oil is a beautiful stadium and awesome to watch a game in....but it's not as ostentatious and ridiculously blinged as Cowboys Stadium. Likewise, Miller Park is a beautiful venue for baseball....but it's very different from Yankee Stadium. It's like comparing the local Kingdom Hall to St. Patrick's Cathedral. They're both really good places to worship but one is just more...."DAMN!" than the other.</p><p> </p><p> People coming to games isn't nearly enough.</p>

Hmm, what's that old saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....? You can't fault people for remembering patterns. You can try but most folks will look at YOU funny. Yes, they've done well of late but they've had flashes of brilliance in the past and wound up pissing it all away. That's what's being spoken about. I don't care enough to even worry about it. If they screw up, it's not making my pockets any lighter. But I'm not going to chastise someone for making note of the fact (yes, it's a fact) that in the past, TNA has often followed brilliance with pure head-scratching mediocrity.

Haynesworth's bonus was guaranteed but it was what's called a convertible bonus. An option bonus is straight, flat out cash with no reservations. A signing bonus is contingent on the contract being honored by both sides and the terms of said contract being met. If a player screws up and the team feels the need to cut them (Charles Rogers, as an example. Barry Sanders is another, in a different way), they can appeal to an arbitrator (or go to court) to have a portion of the signing bonus returned. The reason being, the player didn't live up to the terms of the contract (which almost always includes a 'character clause'). A convertible bonus gives the team the option of turning what would be money in the bank, to a conditional payment that could be recovered later on. Now, if you think Haynesworth's deal is ridiculous, look at the deal Jake Delhomme signed with the Panthers the season before they cut him. Jake gets paid regardless of whether he plays football or not since the contract has no offset. (Offsets are guarantees reduced by new income. So for example, if a player is due to make $10 million guaranteed and he gets cut and signs with another team for $3 million, the team that cut him is only on the hook for $7 million). So Jake is making $12.675m from the Panthers....and he's a BROWN. The thing is, the Titans are playing chicken with their franchise player. It would take next to nothing to sign CJ longterm. This is an extraordinary circumstance where extraordinary measures are warranted. You look at the perennial Super Bowl contending teams and what do they do? They make sure their "stars" stay paid at a level befitting them. Who, realistically, do the Titans have to pay BUT Chris Johnson? How is it that his backup is making more money than he is?

Here's a basic framework on how NFL contracts work in the salary cap era. Bonuses are prorated (spread) over the length of the contract, base salaries plus prorated bonuses, comprise the cap number. However, there are often years added to make the contract look good on paper (or rather, in the papers) and inflate its value. For example, Haynesworth's contract calls for him to make $29 million in 2013, 10.8 million (base) in 2014, and 12 million in 2015. As we all know, that's never going to come to pass so Albert signed a 4-year, $48 million deal. This is why franchise type players (Manning, Brady, etc) can "restructure" their contracts to free up cap room. They basically sign a modified deal that converts part of their base salary (say, $15 million) into signing bonus which turns that $15 million into say $5 mil on the cap (base salary) and 10 million spread over the remaining years of the contract (bonus). It's essentially like living off credit cards. That money's going to become due eventually but you want to push it back to a later date. However, do you really think the Skins had $12 million in salary cap space last offseason? No, and even if they did, DT isn't the position you'd want to spend that cap space on. So they structured a cap friendly contract that essentially financed most of the value of the deal by converting money over time (base salary) into upfront cash (bonuses). Many, if not most, contracts for top players in the league today have bonuses of various stripes (roster bonus is typically what it's called. A bonus just for being on the roster). The remaining salaries on Albert's deal (excluding the ones mentioned above that aren't ever going to be received) are: 2010 - 3.6 million 2011 - 5.4 million 2012 - 7.2 million Now, you're telling me that you wouldn't want a Pro Bowl capable defensive tackle who can change the entire complexion of your defense....for less money than you're probably paying your backup quarterback to hold a clipboard? Here's the full details of the contract. Look at it and tell me if that sounds like it'll ever be played to expiration. Oh and I was wrong. The Skins asked Albert if he would come in so they could decide whether or not to convert his option bonus (which the team cannot recover) to signing bonus (which they could recover). If they didn't convert it, they're out $21 million since option bonuses aren't recoverable. So if he told them he was gung-ho about the new scheme and they cut that check without converting the bonus, he got them GOOOOOOD. That's why I always tell people not to pay attention to the numbers they hear about 'record-setting' NFL contracts. Look beneath the surface and you find that the back end of the contract is so freakin' ridiculous, it's obviously only there to inflate the value of the contract on paper. That's why people make such a big deal about 'with X guaranteed'. Chris Johnson wants 30-40 million guaranteed. Guaranteed money is salary + signing bonus (or other guaranteed bonus, like the roster/option bonus). $40 million guaranteed over five seasons is $8 million per. You mean to tell me Chris Johnson isn't worth $8 mil a year? Who else are they going to give that money to and get similar value? I'd give him a contract structured similarly to Haynesworth with the non-guaranteed back end inflated to improve the overall numbers. It'd probably actually be a five year deal maxing out at $54 million with 42-45 million guaranteed. Adding four years at $11 million, $13 million, $17 million, and $19 million would add $60 million to the on paper value and take it well over the $100 million mark, which would make my franchise look good to the player, the agent, and the community (but not actually cost us any money). It would say that we're committed to keeping our young stars and willing to pay them fair market value. Oh no, Haynesworth isn't an exceptional player. Some dude who has inflated stats from one game can easily come in and be a 'beast' to replace him. Randy Moss is an a-hole, by his own admission. That doesn't change the fact that when he's on the field, you'd better respect his authoritah or you're going home with an L. Haynesworth is similar. His impact makes everyone else look that much better because they have to concentrate (even fixate at times) on neutralizing him or slowing him down, which leaves openings for other people to exploit. When your guard and tackle have to double the DT, guess who that leaves the end on? A tight end or running back. That's called a mismatch. If they don't have to pay much attention to the DT (like they did this year in Tennessee), it's a whole lot easier to pass protect. TL;DR Haynesworth's contract isn't really $100 million, the $21 million is almost half the value of the actual deal upfront, if Albert lied to the Skins, I don't condemn him because owners have been doing it for decades, etc.

Logan, I'm interested to see when Jason Jones played. Specifically, whether it was just 3rd downs or obvious passing situations. That doesn't strike me as something extraordinary. There is often a vast difference between taking the beating that comes with being a 3-down player, for an entire season, and being a third down pass rush specialist. I haven't paid much attention to the Titans besides scheme work but there was nothing about Jason Jones that struck me as special. Who would want to sign someone like that? A team that wants to win, that's who. Haynesworth makes base salaries of 4.5 mil per season in 2010 and 2011. Given his level of ability and production, any team running a 4-3 scheme would want him (especially if they have a strong locker room or just flat out don't care about their locker room). Also, I'm wondering how you can be a thief, when the money you "stole" was due to you by contract? I don't get it. Contract says on April 1st, he's due a "bonus" of $21 million (which wasn't actually a bonus since it was guaranteed to occur by the terms of the deal) so you're a thief because you take the money despite not having missed ANY organized team activites at that point? Why aren't you criticizing all the other players who got bonuses on April 1st who don't sleep at the team's facility in March? He wasn't obligated to show up until THIS WEEK (mandatory minicamp). What part of 'voluntary' aren't people understanding? I can almost guarantee that when he gets traded, assuming it's to a team with a decent staff and scheme, he's going to turn out similarly to Randy Moss (that is, making his detractors look awfully silly).

They said they wanted him to play nose on everything except obvious passing downs. THEN he'd be an end. And few successful teams with competent pass rushers send their ends through the B gap. That would allow the offense to collapse on you, taking your d-line completely out of almost all edge plays. Haynesworth as an end would be a 5 technique, not a 4. Julius Peppers = 5. Richard Seymour = 5. Jared Allen = 5. In the Skins scheme, Albert would be a 4 which would lead to him getting his ass kicked on every play by the guard, tackle, and the tight end chipping. His height means his knees would be completely exposed on chips so, what would normally be a strength (being able to bat down passes) turns into a weakness because he'd never want to reach his full height. Haynesworth's primary responsbility in Jim Haslett's system is going to be keeping London Fletcher clean (like Haloti Ngata does (and Tony Siragusa did) for Ray Lewis). That means taking on the guard and center with contain responsbilities for both A gaps. At end, his responsibilities would be to basically stuff the run and occupy blockers so the linebackers can make plays. 3-4 ends mainly "stack and shed", they don't do much straight upfield, get the quarterback stuff. Some players are made to play certain positions (or certain schemes) and pretty much nothing else (modern day quarterbacks especially of the "system" type, for example). Haynesworth is very close to being one of those players.

Yes, let's ignore the fact that your defense was utter poo for most of the season or that outside of Chris Johnson, you had no offense to speak of for the first, what, six games? Naw, that had nothing to do with it, it was all because LenDale wasn't being fed a steady diet of carries. LenDale White is done, give it up. He plays the wrong position and the wrong style to be lazy with weight problems. Every year, several Pierre Thomas types enter the league. Guys who are hungry, home run hitting backs, who will do anything and everything to make the team and excel. LenDale is not a home run hitter, he's not hungry (unless it's for food), and he's not totally committed to being the best player on the field. That means he sucks and it's a rare team not named the Cincinnati Bengals that'll be interested in him. Uh, no. The Titans didn't re-sign Albert because the market made him way too expensive for them. Don't try to make it seem like someone in the Titans organization is a seer. They couldn't afford him so they let him walk. They couldn't afford him when they franchised him. Care to put a wager on this? I'm willing to bet $100 that the above does not happen. You sound like some of my relatives (Panthers fans) who try to convince themselves that the team will be better off without Julius Peppers. You're trying to say that what everyone agrees is a special talent somehow isn't and is easily replaceable. Let's be real here: the Titans, just like the Panthers, have no one on their roster who is capable of making offenses change their strategy to account for one player. That's special, whether jilted fans will admit it or not. I'll say this though: personally, I'm getting really tired of people castigating Haynesworth for not coming in. He did what every human being with a brain would've done. If your new boss told you to tell him if you wanted to keep working for him before he gave you a big bonus that was contractually obligated, you would've taken it too. If he had told them he didn't want to play for the Redskins, what would they have done? Tried to trade him? He'd have no value because his contract required that $21 million bonus. So any team who traded for him would've had to give up high picks AND pay him $21 million. Only a fool would've turned it down since it would only be a negative FOR YOU. He turns it down, the Skins try to get a ton of value (in picks and players) for him and even if they do, he'd have to renegotiate his deal, most likely for LESS money. Yeah, I could see an intelligent person going for that. Before anyone even bothers, let me say this: Albert Haynesworth is not a nose tackle. Go look at the rosters of the 3-4 teams and look at who's playing the nose. Kris Jenkins, Haloti Ngata, Vince Wilfork, Casey Hampton, Ryan Pickett, B.J. Raji, notice the similarities? Nose tackles in the NFL are generally 6'0-6'3, 330+ lbs. There's a reason for that. Albert is 6'6 (a liability at the nose), 340ish lbs. He's a prototypical 3-technique tackle. For people who don't know the difference, look here. Albert Haynesworth signed with the Redskins to be a 3-technique tackle. That's what he played in Tennessee and made his name on. That's what he's built and skilled to do. Imagine telling Chris Johnson to become a blocking fullback. That's the difference, in real terms. It's a waste of talent and nose tackles aren't worth nearly as much as 3-technique tackles are (because nose tackles aren't expected to get sacks. It's not in their job description. And as you know, sacks = money). Again, Albert Haynesworth is not a nose tackle. Agreeing to play the nose is going to disappoint everyone because he's not suited to the position. He'd take one hell of a beating (covering one gap is infinitely easier than covering two or three), reduce his value, and set the team back significantly. If the Skins are smart (and let's face it, they're not), they'd trade him to Detroit, which runs a system exactly like the one he made his fortune in (gee, I wonder why...). Minnesota would also be a good choice (but that would just be embarrassing to the NFC with the Williams' and Haynesworth rotating on the same D-line). But the Skins will hold onto him, thinking their piddly fines in training camp are going to be some kind of motivation to get him in. Unless they fine him a million a day (which they can't), it's not going to mean much of anything.

Yeah, I'm burning that opening to a DVD. It was awesome! I knew Lethal could do imitations (he can also do Nigel/Desmond Wolfe) but he's been on a serious roll. That was just straight up gold.

Absolutely not. Are you kidding? There are a few things that can make a campaign manager look better than they actually are and all of those things reside with the candidate. Looks, charisma, eloquence (see: Clinton, William Jefferson; Powell Jr, Adam Clayton), innate power (D'Amato, Alphonse); universal respect and admiration (Moynihan, Daniel Patrick); local celebrity due to tragedy (McCarthy, Carolyn); or immense personal wealth (Bloomberg, Michael). Linda McMahon is not a particularly attractive woman (handsome, yes. Conventionally attractive, no.), she has yet to exhibit any kind of charisma or magnetism and she's not 'good on the mic' (read: eloquent). She has no innate power (not even within the Republican party) or universal respect or admiration, no local tragedy that made her "famous" and she doesn't have immense personal wealth (the best example of this is Michael Bloomberg). This part of the country doesn't work like others. If you're the leading candidate of the party opposing arguably the most unpopular Senator in the state's long history, polls should make you a slam dunk. Linda can't even get the party's conservatives on board (largely due to the business she's in). So no matter how good her campaign manager is, he's going to have to do everything in his power to make her appear as pure as the driven snow. Whether people know it or not, there are conservatives in Connecticut who are campaigning behind the scenes to derail her candidacy and ensure she doesn't get the nomination in August. So David's fighting a war on multiple fronts when even the party that's supposed to be behind you is sniping at the candidate at every turn. Welcome to American politics. No offense to you Peter but every unabashed WWE fan I know is, well, a moron. That's typically what blind devotion makes you. It would be like me saying Angelina Love is an excellent wrestler or that the Knockouts match should main event the next PPV. Uh, no, that would be freakin' stupid. I have two clients who are going to SummerSlam this year....for their annual vacation. That four day weekend is going to cost them more than a week in Maui (or the Canary Islands or Jamaica and only slightly less than Corsica or Mykonos) would. Show of hands, how many would use their once a year vacation, to go to a WWE PPV? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Realize, these aren't people who can travel very much (unless it involves driving) so doing this means nothing else for the rest of the year (perhaps even until next year's income tax refund). And the excuse can't be used that they've never seen a WWE event live before. They were the ones I brought with me to Wrestlemania XX. Defining comment from one of them that basically caused me to dismiss their opinion in this area altogether. When Hogan & Bischoff took over TNA: "Maybe now they'll do more stuff outside the ring cuz their people sure can't wrestle." "Yeah, you know they have to be lame when their champion steals the finisher from a DIVA." Now, I have my own beefs with TNA but that....that basically ended all conversation on wrestling. I won't even broach the subject with them anymore (besides the multitude of times they text or email me asking me for TEW tips. Apparently I was wrong, running SWF isn't idiotproof). crownsy, are you familiar with confidentiality agreements? Or corporate information security? How willing would you be to lose your job specifically for leaking confidential or privileged information that might be evidence of corruption (real or perceived)? In fact, you cannot have the 'whistleblower' without initial anonymity. You think people at Enron were sending emails to the feds from work? The fact that the info came from an anonymous source doesn't automatically make it untrue. Watch Linda McMahon's campaign to see what happens should this be picked up by actual news organizations (or conservative think tanks looking to undermine or discredit Linda's candidacy). In my view, you take the info with a grain of salt until the 'equal and opposite reaction' occurs. Besides, that note surprises no one even vaguely familiar with American politics. Mike Bloomberg still has direct input into the running of his company, despite having had to "resign" from it in order to be mayor without perceived conflicts of interest. So why would it be so hard to believe Linda (and her top political advisors) would have direct control over the company she co-owns? I bet Vince wants Linda to be Senator as much as she does (if not moreso) since it would give him inroads politically. Sorry if this is common knowledge but your incredulity kinda made me wonder whether it was or not. Believe me, I was an extremely active YRC member at one time (not to mention the godson of a sitting Congressman, sadly of the opposite party, who is now a committee chair) and worked on several campaigns locally. That doesn't even register as a 'bad thing'. Imagine the chairman of the Senate banking committee pulling strings to get an opponent's house foreclosed on so he could point out how the candidate was 'awful with his personal finances so how is he going to be any different for New York's financial wellbeing?'. Seriously, if Linda has cheated on Vince at any time at all in their relationship, it'll come to light between August and November. The attack ads are going to be EPIC (especially if she wins the nomination and goes up against Blumenthal). WWE better go to a TV-G rating or else anything and everything they do is going to find its way into an ad of some kind.

Actually C-bot, you have to take more into account than just violence or curse words. There are words that aren't swear words that are outright not allowed for a PG rated program. Some of them are obvious ('coochie') but more often than not, if a word or phrase can be misconstrued in any way, it's basically not allowed. So it's not so much the rating itself that's the problem, it's the hoops you have to jump through and the possible minefields you have to navigate in order to maintain that level. You're ignoring the fact that, at least in the US, the ratings system (and standards) has changed at least twice since those bygone days. The system currently in use wasn't enacted until 1997 (remember the V-chip?). Also keep in mind that WWE, at its most risque, was only one level higher on the rating scale (TV-14) so it's not like people decrying the PG label want the 'E to start showing porn. As I said, the standards for each rating category can often be nonsensical and dense. A person on TV saying 'coochie coochie coo' to a baby would have that turn into 'bleep bleep coo', if not outright silenced. There's little in the way of context used due to the CYA motivation. "When in doubt, take/bleep it out." I think that's the biggest beef with the rating. While it does allow access to a wider variety of sponsors, it also pretty much eliminates any content that is relevant to anyone outside the base WASP population. I won't go into what several of my friends think of R-Truth ("the non-threatening, singing, dancing Negro caricature"). Problem is, you really can't go any further than that without it possibly being 'too risque'. Many euphemisms used in everyday life cannot be shown in their native form because they can be misconstrued (especially by people who aren't "up on the lingo").

But the entire reason they wanted to redo the labor agreement was because they said they weren't making any money. If that's the assertion, prove it. The fact of the matter is, a handful of teams are still making money hand over fist but the majority of teams, aren't. THAT'S the issue. But no one wants to come out and say that because the last labor agreement was supposed to help provide the elusive 'parity'. So large market teams couldn't run roughshod over teams like Green Bay merely by outspending them. Bart Starr and many of the older players talked down about the modern game well before the retired players benefit issue(s) came up. Today's players are 'soft' and 'coddled' and 'overpaid' according to people like Mel Blount and the like. They're right in many cases but that just proves this isn't a 'today' thing revolving around this issue. I'm not defending either side (re-read my post. I castigated both sides for their idiocy), merely pointing out each's faux pas. err, project much? A work stoppage would be disastrous for both sides. Don't kid yourself and think the owners don't care or are somehow relishing the prospect of a lockout. Just wait until the fallout from American Needle comes. If the owners don't get the same privilege as the league, they'll be much more willing to negotiate, I wager. Tell me something, how many of those people who 'bust their butts for 300 days out of the year just to make enough to feed their family' risk permanent disability every, oh, 8 seconds while on the job? How many of those people mortgage their future every single minute they're working? Maybe I'm odd but I don't judge a person by how they make their money. I know, crazy! Whether you're a trafficker or a CEO, somebody values your ability enough to pay you to do what you do. I know of strippers who work 4 months out of the year and make more than ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS. I guess I should hate on them because I work 12 months out of the year (though I earn more)? If someone offered you 2 mil a year to jump rope for 8 hours once a week for 8 months, you'd take it (though I'm sure you're going to say you wouldn't). 'Earn your money' is correct, which would suggest to me a bonus system should be in place. However, bonus systems don't allow for static, predictable salary amounts so would work against a cap. Tell me, who pushed hard for a salary cap? The players? Who gave a rookie a record deal before he had ever stepped foot in a pro huddle? The players? Who signs the checks that the players cash? I guess that's the players too, huh? G'head and keep thinking the owners are pristine and angelic and are somehow being held at gunpoint. You also seem to have a faulty memory when it comes to players having to give money back (see: Sanders, Barry and Rogers, Charles) but this isn't about facts, now is it? And I seriously don't see your beef about that lawsuit. Might wanna read up on corporate law (or not, and just stew over it forever). An employee driving recklessly ('illegal u-turn') while in the process of conducting business for the company can be considered an agent of the company in many jurisdictions, making the company liable for their poor judgment. But given the fact that many civil suit awards are tax deductible (or covered by insurance), I don't see the beef. Unless we're talking about a non-corporate entity (SP or similar). And yes, both the Pacers and the Pistons had to pay out for that incident, but it was handled in large part by the league (and several of the cases were outright dismissed, like this one). But again, don't let facts get in the way of your catharsis.

Uh, no, sorry, I can't agree with that first statement. The top two QBs in the league right now (in order) are Peyton and Drew Brees. Peyton only edges Brees because he calls his own plays a lot of the time. Brady is third and his grip on the position is tenuous because he hasn't performed up to the standard he set for himself. Yes, he had a pretty bad team overall last year but he put up his early career numbers with the likes of Deon Branch as #1 receiver. No one is going to put Deon Branch in the same category as even an unmotivated Randy Moss. Palmer is indeed injury prone, but he's a solid starting quarterback. I wouldn't put him in the discussion for top-3 because he hasn't done what tends to exemplify a top-3 QB. Doubt it. I don't tend to judge a quarterback by a single season of stats without qualification. To me, Peyton is still #1 because, as I mentioned, he calls his own plays. That is huge. People who get all dizzy on stats would be fooled into thinking Kyle Orton was an excellent quarterback. Ben has two rings and decent stats but is he a top 5 QB? I don't think so, because his leadership can easily be called into question. As I said, I wouldn't say Drew is 3rd (and especially not FOURTH) but #2 isn't a bad spot to be in. To me, Drew Brees still has to prove that he's not simply a system QB. He wasn't this good in San Diego but once he hooked up with Sean Payton, look out! Peyton, on the other hand, has always been Peyton, since the day he was drafted, regardless of coach or OC. I always root for Drew though because he's the antithesis of the NFL's quarterback template. Just like Sam Mills, Jessie Tuggle, Doug Flutie, and all the others who didn't fit their position's little box, it's always good to see desire completely invalidate "conventional wisdom".

Oh, and in case anyone's interested, Matt Bowen over at NFP is doing in-depth articles on formations and approaches called 'Inside the Playbook'. While I realize not everyone's into the X's and O's, I'm looking forward to when he breaks down Rex's base defense. So far, he's done: Tampa 2 and Cover 3

Uh, are you serious? Are you aware of WHY the players refused to redo the labor agreement or are you just spouting what the halfwit media is telling you? Let's say someone owes you money and when you come to collect, they say they don't have your money (or won't have your money in the future)? This, despite the brand new Jaguar X-Type, custom Mercedes S-class, and Gallardo in their driveway and the new inground pool in their backyard. Seriously? You'd be PISSED and you'd have every reason to be. When owners were pleading poverty and saying they needed revenue sharing redone despite the fact that they were shelling out BILLIONS to build new stadiums and refurbish existing ones. They were still going out and spending A HUNDRED MILLION on INDIVIDUAL players. AND, they have refused (TO DATE) to disclose their financials to the union. Why? What do they have to hide? I'll tell you what. The large market teams don't want the small market teams to know how much money they're making outside of the basic league structure (local sponsorship deals, brand licensing, and such. Remember Jerry Jones' deal with Nike years ago?). If they divulge their numbers to the union (you know, to prove they weren't lying about being in dire financial straits?), these revenue streams would become known to everyone, just about. This is very much like a rich man marrying a (not rich) woman and hiding his assets. Pre-nups can be impeached so reducing your net worth on paper reduces your exposure to Juanita Jordan payouts. But the union is stupid to have agreed to this so-called 'poison pill' in the first place. They sold their younger stars down the river for some 'end of the rainbow' payout scenario that anyone with a brain knew was never going to happen. "No cap, now everyone will spend uncontrollably for marginal players!" BS! There's literally no one worth paying that for. Peppers didn't get an "OMG" type of deal and he was probably the single most valuable free agent on the market. A proper poison pill would've been to eliminate the free agency rules altogether (so no 'restricted' free agents, no 'franchise tag', none of that). A shutdown corner in Rex Ryan's system doesn't have to worry about QBs having time to throw. That's the whole point and why a shutdown corner is so vital to his defense. Ray Lewis has a pick-6 that was produced by Rex Ryan's schemes. He blitzed everyone except Ray, the left corner (who I think was Samari Rolle), and Jim Leonhard (who was close to the line but just outside the box). The QB tried to make a hot read and threw to the receiver (who was supposedly open due to the right corner coming) and didn't even see Ray slide into the passing lane. It's different from Nnamdi's deal because the situations are different. Asomougha is Oakland's ONLY good defensive player. Revis's skillset and ability makes him the best for Ryan's system. Like Rex said last year after the divisional playoffs, "Two home teams advance...and the (f'in) Jets". I think the Jets overall offense will improve by leaps and bounds this year. Are Peyton, Brady, and Brees retiring before then? Top-10, easy. Top 5, maybe? Top 3? Eh, I don't see that. Rivers is better right now and on the rise. You're basically saying 'in a few years, Palmer will be better than Rivers, Flacco, Ryan, Ben, and either Peyton, Brady, or Brees' and not even including people like Stafford, Henne, Schaub, Sanchez, Young, Bradford, Freeman, Cutler, or that other Manning kid. I think Carson Palmer will be more of what Cincinnati is used to: a Ken Anderson type. Steady, intelligent, but he'll never carry a team on his back. Gotta be able to do that to be top 3 IMO. The stigma is well deserved, I think. You don't even need to use CJ, how 'bout Keith Bulluck? The heart of your defense, great in the locker room and in the community, and you hang him out to dry like that? As a Broncos fan, I don't see the team making the playoffs this year. I believe that there are too many holes on defense and even with the neat play I saw proposed (Tebow under center, Orton in the slot and Quinn in the backfield with Knowshon. "It's probably an option....but to who and from where?!?"), I think they'll be hard pressed getting the offense in sync quickly. I'm also hoping they find a tight end who can spread the field a bit. They also need a breakaway threat for special teams. The Raiders are at least two years away from contending for anything but the #1 overall pick, in my view. Yes, they have some young talent. But that talent hasn't produced and until they do, it's just 'young talent'. Heyward-Bey was a mistake and one they'll regret for years to come (just like Gallery...and Russell). I think the Chiefs manage to eke out 6 wins this year (maybe even 7). The Raiders will struggle to get 4. I don't think people realize how big a pickup the Boldin trade was. They got a receiver who very much fits the personality of this team ("Somebody's gettin' hit in the mouth"). He's a banger and doesn't shy from contact, but he can do it all at all levels of the passing game. Just his presence on the field is going to guaran-damn-tee that teams can't stack the box. That'll make life easier for Ray Rice, LeRon, and Willis, as well as Todd Heap. If Dixon and/or Pitta pan out, that's going to give Cam a lot of room to come up with jumbled formations that could confuse defenses. David Reed is also a very good prospect who could apprentice in the slot. And you still have Derrick Mason along with the promising Demetrius Williams. I don't, however, think Cody is going to be worth much this year. His playing weight at Alabama was 370. The Ravens want him at 350-360. He's over 400 right now. He might be good for two downs every other series his rookie year.

OH YES! Nigella Lawson! Probably the only British woman who could get me to get up early on Saturday morning! Okay maybe not (Lucy Pinder, Sophie Howard, Louise Glover, all could too ). But I really like Nigella, even though most of the time I don't think I'd like what she makes. And I like Jeff Goldblum because he's so different from Goren but then again, so alike. While Goren was weird because he was a serial killer's son, Goldblum's character seems a bit more varied. I'm sure they're going to give him a nemesis like Goren had though (it was too successful last time not to do it again).

The best thing about Burn Notice, is Fiona. She's awesome Well, besides the 'base' L&O (that was canceled recently), I like Law & Order too. Criminal Intent was my favorite but SVU has its moments too. I just don't like the turnover that occurred on Law & Order after Fred Thompson left. Heh, I love Alton Brown. Well, Alton, Giada (who is SO little but SO hot), Sandra Lee (-Cuomo?), Anne Burrell, Guy, and Robert Irvine. Exactly! These people wanting places downtown with tons of space, in the middle of everything, with a huge backyard, for like 50 grand. Or the people buying vacation homes in developing areas (like Nicaragua or Costa Rica or Panama) and complaining about ongoing construction. What, you think you're the only people who want (relatively) cheap houses on the beach? There was one episode where this couple was looking for a vacation house in Roatan and the guy complained about the walk from the parking lot to the condo. Of course he was a fat ass and the walk was like 20 yards. You wanna park your car right against the waves, genius? Or the one in Turks & Caicos where the guy wanted to buy a house (so he'd have somewhere to retire to) but his wife wanted them to do 'fractional ownership'. Yeah, you pay $2 million for the right to visit the property 12 weeks out of the year. OMG what a bargain! Fractional ownership only works for things that wouldn't be used all the time (private jets, for example. Or for vacation homes that are only really desirable part of the year, like a house in a ski destination). If you're looking for a place to retire to, you BUY the whole thing.

Hundreds? Where'd you get that from? I have 64 pairs of shoes & sneakers. Now suits are another thing altogether. This is exactly my point. If we were talking about American Express, people probably wouldn't be so incredulous about "low level" workers making bank. WWE, while smaller, is not 'Mom & Pop Pro Wrasslin' and is closer to the American Express of their industry than to M&PPW. I live in a neighborhood that is very much 'the hood'. Most of my neighbors make in the range of 30-50k a year (one's a garbage man. He made 77.3k last year) with often a third of that going to rent (650-1200 a month). So yeah, I get how 100k could seem like a fortune when you're making less than half of that. But that doesn't make it some insanely high number. As chris pointed out, there are DJs who make more than that (I know Skribble did, but he's "famous" and has the car business) and heck, there are STRIPPERS who made more than that. I'd wager an average WWE in-ring performer will tend to make more than the average stripper. I wonder how they plan to get the title off Bret though.

Yes! And as I recall, it was some TV luminary (Jack Welch maybe?) who said years ago that 'people will never PAY for TV so cable isn't a real competitor'. Honestly, I don't watch much broadcast television besides 'Lie to Me', 'Fringe', 'Bones', and CSI (only Las Vegas and New York. David Caruso gets 'change the channel' heat from me, kinda like The Miz). I remember the first 'V' and the new one's first few eps didn't grab me. I think the funniest shows on TV this season are all on cable. Property Virgins, My First Place, and (at times) House Hunters and House Hunters International on HGTV often make me fall out laughing with how completely clueless and unrealistic people are. I'm lovin' Goldberg on 'Garage Mahal' on DIY ("I hate to say 'I know a guy' but, I know a guy...."). His house (specifically his garage) is ridiculous (click the link). Let's see, NFL Total Access is something I watch daily. Not a big TV watcher anymore though.

By that logic, so are BOTH Guggenheim museums. The fact that you don't even SEE the arena from all four cardinal directions, before you actually get it to (no, not even from 33rd street - you see the Borders on the corner), makes me question that. An eyesore to me (coming from a big city perspective) is one that cannot be ignored and stands out like a sore thumb within the neighborhood it's located in. Given the variety of architecture (again, the Post Office, Macy's, the nasty dump called the Hotel Pennsylvania, several of the buildings that house fashion houses, etc) in that neighborhood, MSG doesn't fit that description for me. YMMV.

Uh, no. I don't like MSG at all. I'm a modernist. I think old venues need to keep up with the times or be replaced. I was actually in favor of the plan to tear down the Central Post Office across the street and expand Penn Station with a new MSG as the centerpiece. It would modernize the arena significantly while keeping it essentially in the same place it's in now. But judging an arena made in an era where luxury was a tertiary consideration on today's standards, is totally wrong as well. There are movie theaters that are more comfortable and luxurious than MSG. But it's like saying a Chevy Malibu is a better car than a Studebaker Hawk. Fuel economy and "power" weren't primary considerations for cars in the Studebaker's era but they are now. Likewise, when MSG was built, many of the things fans value today weren't primary considerations. How many arenas built in the 60s and 70s had luxury boxes or premium seating? MSG's last renovation encompassed the facade, to give it the same look, but updated. Renovating the outside is all well and good, but not when the INSIDE is still like a roach motel. Nowadays, arenas need to be destinations in and of themselves. It's one reason I love the new Yankee Stadium. In fact, since, what late 80s/early 90s when Camden Yards and Skydome opened, this has been the trend in new builds. I just take issue with 'MSG is an eyesore' because it's asinine. A building, surrounded by several TALLER buildings (Post Office, the New Yorker, the Hotel Pennsylvania, the Southgate Tower, MACY'S Herald Square, etc), is an eyesore?!

Wait. So the decision to fund a new stadium was attached to an issue regarding building new schools and improving public safety (i.e. buying new police cars, upgrading the jail, etc)? Okay, that's shady. If people say 'no', the schools and cops suffer. If they say 'yes', the local team gets a new stadium. Damned if you do.... Ybor City reminds me of Chelsea (10 years ago, at least) in a lot of ways. It seems like the spot where many of the young professionals who have lost their freakin' minds (given the prices of condos there, due almost solely to the neighborhood) gravitate to. Mind you, I'm not saying RayJay is a bad thing. I'm one of those people who believes area residents need to STFU and put out when it comes to building new stadiums. You wanna keep the team? Then expect to build a new venue every 15-25 years and quityerbitchin. Take those numbers with a grain of salt. I can tell you unequivocally, they're exaggerated. City governments use a term 'total economic impact' with regards to big events (meetings, conventions, sporting events) and that tends to include numbers they couldn't possibly have access to. Baseball is going to be re-added to the Olympics at some point (perhaps 2020), I have no doubt of that. Those people are morons, sorry. MSG isn't anywhere near the same as RayJay. Isn't that kinda obvious? There's a difference between a new stadium with next to no history and an arena that has hosted many of the largest events in history, across all entertainment platforms. I could see that argument being made about Yankee Stadium (since many of its area's residents can't really afford to attend many games there and it's not 'The House That Ruth Built', being new and all) but MSG? Come on. I don't think even the stench of the modern day hapless Knicks could tarnish that arena's reputation. The Jets are in serious trouble though. Mangold isn't much of a concern (it doesn't take much to be the highest paid center in the league) but Brick is going to cost HUGE and Revis deserves Asamougha money. Harris is iffy. It's not too hard to replace an inside 'backer in Rex's scheme.

ampulator, stop. Just....stop. You seem to be under the (grossly mistaken) belief that 100k is a lot of money for someone in the entertainment business. It most certainly is not. Go back and read what the reaction to CM Punk signing with WWE was. When asked why he would sign with WWE when they horribly misused Shannon Moore, Punk reportedly said, "Then I'll buy a brand new Hummer and a nice house just like Shannon Moore did." How many 'nice houses' and Hummers does 100k get you? You don't do that if you're making scratch (and 100k for a midcarder like Shannon was in ECW, is scratch. There are rappers who don't even have albums out who make more than that). You also have to remember that WWE contracts aren't like the salary you agreed to when you took your job. Your job doesn't give you PPV bonuses or a piece of your merchandise sales or the like. If Jericho took a pay cut, he did it with a contingency in place to more than make up for it. I seriously doubt a headliner like Jericho is making less than a go-nowhere midcarder like MVP. I can't agree here. I guess it comes down to perspective. I made more than 100k well before my 30th birthday, all told (salary + commission + bonuses). I guess it depends on where you live also. 100k is not a lot in New York City but I imagine it would be a fortune in like Arkansas. I would be shocked if every in-ring talent (not including the NXT rookies besides Danielson) were making less than 50. Given their schedule, less than that could probably qualify as slave labor.

That's odd! Sonic is the only joint that ALWAYS gets my order right. I was at the one in Lancaster (across from Tanger Outlets) the weekend before Mother's Day weekend and placed a massive order that was kinda complicated ('no onions' on everything with some special bits for several other things) and everything was dead on. I checked it with the dude on his roller skates standing right next to my window. Yeah, I have a friend who got turned down for a job because of the crap he posted on his Facebook page. Wanna know something even DUMBER? He lists his Facebook page ON HIS RESUME! When you look up the word 'momotard' in the dictionary, his face with a confused look is right there. Here's something else that's dumb. In today's business world, many savvy managers know that people often use the same username across several platforms. So if your email address is joshjg@yahoo.com, they're going to search MySpace and Facebook for that name and hello hello, there's your freakin' page. So even if he didn't put the page on his resume (along with his Twitter address. What, do you really want prospective employers to follow you???), he might've gotten found out anyway. (Oh and part of the 'background check' process for some jobs also includes web identity searches) OMG the WALL O' TEXT STREAM OF (UN)CONSCIOUSNESS is AWESOME! You just don't know how to appreciate it!