firt?

2nd!

Hmmmm, I've been saying put Betts and Portis out in patterns and it worked really well vs Chicago. I swear I'm underpaid on this blog

This is definitely the week for Saunders to get creative because running the ball just simply wont work.

mack1, conventional wisdom is that Cards can't afford Fitz anymore b/c of contract escalation and that, btwn the player and the team, the love is gone.

Posted by: dcsween | December 20, 2007 02:34 PM

Thanks. I've been wondering why his name keeps coming up. Maybe I'll change my vote.

Posted by: mack1 | December 20, 2007 02:37 PM

Do we have a pick in every round of the 08 DRAFT?

"heavy battery of screen passes"

I'm pretty sure thats a phrase that has never before been uttered.

Sounds like a plan, but I hope then run it enough to give iron mike sellers a chance to soften those inside guys up a little. By the fourth quarter they will be tired of standing up Fabini only to get hit in the ribs by 280 lbs of Mike "the Hurdle" Sellers.

Nope, missing the 4th, duckett via atl

WRONG! The Duckett pick is in 2009. The 2008 4th rounder is Pete Kendall. You C's.

duckett what a mistake that was...

Having Yoder could be key this weekend. Running against this defense is hard but the Bears do not have running backs like ours. hte monday night game was miserable to watch and Jackson tries to force things when he is blitzed and throws like a schoolgirl. Marcus, London, and Randall/HB must have the best games of their career.

JLC, I honestly can see Chris Wilson being very important this weekend. The kid seems to have a lot of speed coming off the end and that could be huge to get to Jackson.

I was sick to my stomach all of last Sunday thinking about the game and knowing if we lost, our season was over. I will undoubtedly do that again but if it will put another W in the win column then it is all worth it.

We are facing a team on a roll like we were in 2005. It's obvious they have some flaws that can exploited. Time to get down to work. I wish the game was tomorrow!!

sorry liberalmike the kendall pick is a 4th rounder in 2009

That could totally be right. Just wanted to spout off.

they worked some weird deal that if kendall started in 80% of the games this season they would get a 4th rounder in 09. Otherwise it would have been a 5th rounder in 08

so other than the 4th rounder we have a full draft schedule upcoming?

That Kendall trade was for a conditional pick, based on how many snaps Kendall played.

"The Jets will receive a fifth-round pick in 2008 if Kendall plays 80 percent of the snaps this year for Washington; if he plays more than that, the pick would be upgraded to a fourth-rounder in 2009."

Looks like it'll be a fifth round pick in the 2008 draft.

Damn mike;

Way to backpedal

Sorry, I can't read. I meant a 4th rounder in 2009.

over/under on portis getting 85yds on the ground?

and whats the news with thrashizzle. is he back yet?

toddRedcoat- Did ENGLAND really lose 499-8 to Sri Lanka?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7153185.stm

Sellers is the key to the run game. This is a game where you wish you had Randy Thomas pulling guard on the counter trey.

Makes that Pats beating look not so bad, eh?

so we lost the fifth round pick but we have the rest?

499-8. I have never played or witness any game in any sport with that kind of score, except maybe pinball against my grandmother.

I would agree with this statment if this was 1980 and that play still worked.

i once beat the computer 126-0 in madden. that's as close as ive gotten tho.

"heavy battery of screen passes"

I'm pretty sure thats a phrase that has never before been uttered.

Posted by: LiberalMike | December 20, 2007 02:45 PM

You mean like in Brunell v.2006?

Iron Mike is the man I would love to see him get more action this week... What about Mix?

"heavy battery of screen passes"

I'm pretty sure thats a phrase that has never before been uttered.

Posted by: LiberalMike | December 20, 2007 02:45 PM

You mean like in Brunell v.2006?

Posted by: dcsween | December 20, 2007 03:06 PM

yea i remember how lethal santana was at turning those screens into monster plays. i think its time for a little flashback this weekend.

4th rounder via duckett this year. I dont know about Kendalls snaps. So we might be out two picks this year

4th rounder via duckett this year. I dont know about Kendalls snaps. So we might be out two picks this year

Posted by: Zebraskins | December 20, 2007 03:08 PM

These both can't happen unless the skins are smarter than we thought they were and traded away the 2008 4th round pick twice.

Never mind it would be a 5th round pick if it was this year.

I love #45 and all, but it's almost completely useless to run anywhere close to the middle on the Vikings defense... aren't their DTs checking airfare to Hawaii now too? Screen passes are ok, I wonder which Moss will show up to this game?
I love the little move that Collins does to throw the ball maybe seven or eight yards up the middle to Ladell, who'll rumble the rest of the way.

remember when the skins had the 2nd and 3rd overall picks in the same year. imagine if some team had that this past draft. taking adrian peterson and calvin johnson back to back; it's like an offensive coordinator's wet dream.

It's amazing how almost every NFC probowl lineman is from the NFC North.... maybe it's a little overrated up there?????

...I exspect them to target...

E-X-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me!

my wet dream is butter brickle icecream

499-8. I have never played or witness any game in any sport with that kind of score, except maybe pinball against my grandmother.

Posted by: dcsween | December 20, 2007 03:03 PM

Who won?

Upon re-reding the article, I realise the score might also have been 2-0, or 4-28, or "undefeated 213". Perhaps the article was translated from Sri Lankanese (no offense to Sri Lankans intended) into English and it just didn't jive. Maps and translations for non-English Sri Lankans, like such as.

Who do you think's been keeping Ginnie in butter brickle?

Regarding Armchair GM's comment from the last thread, on Chris Long not being attractive to the Skins because he's a D-lineman:

I thought the conventional wisdom on Long was that he'd be converted to LB.

I'd love to see him in the B&G, but sadly, as has been said, he'll probably be snatched up long before we get to our pick.

Wish I still had the VA/MD game on my DVR. Long put on a one-man clinic.

I tried to read that article and it made no sense, plus cricket sucks.

Can someone please please please explain to me how the Vikings can be favored by over 6 in this game?

Hey Jason, love the column but dude...shut up you are giving away the game plan.

... pinball against my grandmother.

Posted by: dcsween | December 20, 2007 03:03 PM

Who won?

Posted by: freakzilla | December 20, 2007 03:17 PM

Let's just say she tilted. Was she a sore loser? Did she just love her little dcsween too much to crush him? Just another mystery buried deep within a Slavic cemetery somewhere in southeast Cleveland.

sams3, being at home gives the Vikings an automatic 3 points. 3 more points and you're at 6. Pretty simple really...

Plus, I'm glad they're being thought of as such underdogs. It'll make it that much sweeter on Sunday

I tried to read that article and it made no sense, plus cricket sucks.

I used to play cricket all the time as a kid.

But in my version, the object was to stomp as many crickets as you could before you got bored with it.

When I grow up I'm gonna live with underground grandma!

I thought the conventional wisdom on Long was that he'd be converted to LB. ... Wish I still had the VA/MD game on my DVR. Long put on a one-man clinic.

Posted by: freakzilla | December 20, 2007 03:23 PM

Be that as it may, conventional wisdom is that Long is overexposed because his dad is Howie Long. I'm not saying he isn't a first round pick, but I'm saying he could fall out of the top ten.

My version of cricket involved a magnifying glass, the sun, and ants (as opposed to crickets).

sams3, being at home gives the Vikings an automatic 3 points. 3 more points and you're at 6. Pretty simple really...

This would be simple if the fact didn't remain that the redskins are better than the vikings.

sween,

That would be fine with me, if it means we have a shot at him.

I'll admit to being a little biased towards him. Virginia alum.

or perhaps he is overexposed from light.... the world may never know moooowwwwhahahahahahahaha

My version of cricket involved a magnifying glass, the sun, and ants (as opposed to crickets).

I had that game, too, except it was called Death Ray.

I also had a game called Kill a Water Moccasin and Throw It On a Fire Ant Mound, Then Go Back in 3 Days and Look at the Bones.

Slavic? With all those tiny places with unpronounceable names like Krk and Plitvice?

Saw cricket being played once. Was bored to tears within minutes. I think if I knew the rules and understood the nuances of the game, I'd still have been bored to tears.

wahoowa, zilla!

English '93

sams3-
love the enthusiasm bud but we gotta be humble now so we don't have humble pie shoved in our face come sunday. Don't look past the Vikings, they are where they are from winning games in what is still a tough division, despite the Bears performance this year and the early flash from the Lions (except against our Skins - that's a game worth owning). Don't be brash about the Vikings, or ignorant (like trying to run down the middle) - we need to be prepared and let our play do the talking.

"Virginia alum."

I won the hot shot contest at Terry Holland's camp as a 12 year old! One of the great moments in the history of University Hall, really.

"Slavic? With all those tiny places with unpronounceable names like Krk and Plitvice?"

Posted by: zcezcest1 | December 20, 2007 03:47 PM

Didn't occur to you that it was Pat SAJAK who came up with the idea of requiring contestants to pay for a vowel? Back in the "old country" vowels weren't thrown around so freely as they are here.

toddRedcoat- Did ENGLAND really lose 499-8 to Sri Lanka?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7153185.stm

Posted by: 4-12 | December 20, 2007 03:02 PM

Actually no they didn't, the game hasn't finished yet as that was only the (part) score at the end of day 3.

Sri Lanka scored 499 runs for 8 (out of 10) guys out... *continues for 30 minutes* ... and now England have to do better in the second innings or lose the series.

If you haven't played cricket, it makes about as much sense as baseball, which by the way is only played by girls in England where it's called 'Rounders'.

If you think cricket is a genteel game, you might like to watch this clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-f5pfBgpNE&feature=related

Michael Holding (Whispering Death) used to bowl at around 95mph and he aimed to hit you almost every ball. The guy batting in that clip has no padding on his body, and by the end of that day he was "black and blue from his next to his waist" with bruises. Cricket balls have wood at their centre, so they hurt when they hit you.

A cricket bat is a great prop.

Is that Frasier Crane at the bat?

Is that Frasier Crane at the bat?

Posted by: SMACK1 | December 20, 2007 04:12 PM

Looks like him doesn't it!

So they've actually given up 499 runs in 2 innings? Sweet!

wahoowa, zilla!

English '93

Posted by: NateinthePDX | December 20, 2007 03:53 PM

Ha ha. Why does this not surprise me?

Religious Studies / Rhetoric & Communication Studies '96

DCSween. Went to Poland as well. There's a country that obviously underinvested in vowels. Too bad they're not on the Euro, otherwise they could use the strength of the currency to buy some from Pat Sajak. Of course nothing tops Slovenia. Ljubljana just kinda of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

I won the hot shot contest at Terry Holland's camp as a 12 year old! One of the great moments in the history of University Hall, really.

Posted by: jspaceman72 | December 20, 2007 04:00 PM

I don't know.... I once watched two students play Woody Harrelson and Bruce Hornsby in 2-on-2 at halftime.

Here's another clip. The bowler is Allan Donald who used to play for South Africa. He got upset because the batsman wasn't given 'out' and so started trying to hit him every ball, this went on for about 30 minutes at the end of one day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JojnoSO4MDc

The guy catching the ball over his head behind the batsman is about 90 feet back behind the wickets.

Donald was so fast at times that I once saw him bounce a ball on the pitch in front of the batsman and it didn't land down on the ground again until just before it crossed the boundary, which was 300ft behind the wicket. A friend of mine played semi-pro and played against him when he was just starting and he said the guy was so fast the first three balls he faced hit him before he'd even started moving to try and hit the ball.

In all sports there's a big difference between the professionals and the rest of us!!

So they've actually given up 499 runs in 2 innings? Sweet!

Posted by: 4-12 | December 20, 2007 04:15 PM

It's worse (better) than that 4-12, that's in only ONE innings!

"...baseball, which by the way is only played by girls in England where it's called 'Rounders'."

toddcoat- Some vague recollection of this from American Baseball History class back in the day (yes, folks, Ohio U actually had that as a 300 level history class). Something about how the game developed from Rounders...blah blah...but we (U.S. Americans) like the quaint notion that Abner Doubleday woke up one day and said "Hey, I've invented this great new game"

I was crushed 4-12 when I realised that Bob Newhart's classic sketch was based on a lie...

Don't knock that history class; when your country is only a couple of hundred years old you start scraping the barrel a bit when you're looking for advanced stuff! :)

So why is it called cricket?

Related in some sport-evolution etymological fashion to croquet?

Here's a link to a site that describes some old English pub games. Maybe someone here could 'discover' one of these and turn it into the new NFL?

http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Bat-Ball.htm

BTW if anyone does that, please remember to buy me a beer.

etymological !!! ??? I'm out

Great sketch. Classic!

It was a much more interesting history class than the one with Professor I-Speak-In-Annoying-Monotone going on and on about King Charlemagne and ZZZZzzzzzzzz.

From Wikipedia:

"A basic form of cricket can be traced back to the 13th century, but it may have existed even earlier than that. The game seems to have originated among children of the farming and metalworking communities in the Weald between Kent and Sussex. Written evidence exists of a game known as creag being played by Prince Edward, the son of Edward I (Longshanks), at Newenden, Kent in 1300.

In 1598, a court case referred to a sport called kreckett being played at the Royal Grammar School, Guildford around 1550. The Oxford English Dictionary gives this as the first recorded instance of cricket in the English language.

A number of words are thought to be possible sources for the term "cricket". The name may derive from a term for the cricket bat: old French criquet (meaning a kind of club) or Flemish krick(e) (meaning a stick)..."

We've closed the loop for whoever mentioned Edward Longshanks the other day!!

Wasn't Charlemagne a Holy Roman Emperor rather than just a 'mere King', 4-12? Although even if that's true, what difference it makes eludes me.

I think that last one might've killed the blog, toddcoat.

Zoinks! I fear I've driven everyone off with all my burbling about cricket.

Come back! Whatever I said, I didn't mean it!

It's been awhile since I've had a good, long shank.

Bruce Hornsby can play ball! As can Robert Pollard.

"Abner Doubleday woke up one day and said "Hey, I've invented this great new game"

Posted by: 4-12 | December 20, 2007 04:26 PM"

An American taking something from somebody else and passing it off as their own? NEVER!

Phew! I won't mention the 'c' word again. Anyone want to discuss sphairistike now?

Doh!

Does anybody else think that Soup being back on the sideline might help him learn more in the long run? I mean now that he has experience, he might see things from the sideline that he wouldn't have while he was playing?

Toddcoat,
From what I can surmise there must be a rule in cricket to prevent the guy with bat/club, from charging over and beating the pitcher/bowler senseless, right?

How is this different than say water boarding?

I'm sure that's true to some degree 815517, but the defenses are going to give #15 different 'looks' to the ones they give JC.

I'm sure it would help him to see how Todd reads the defenses and then ask him on the sidelines why he's doing what he's doing.

The fact though is that he won't learn a whole heap because the defenses opponents run for an "older, less mobile QB with a quick release but less powerful arm" are different to the ones they run for a "young, mobile QB with a slow(ish) release but a cannon for an arm".

I think most people learn by doing in the end, and that's what you'll have to live through with Jason.

Zoinks! I fear I've driven everyone off with all my burbling about cricket. ...

Posted by: toddcoat | December 20, 2007 04:43 PM

It was just that I had invested about 10 minutes in youtube viewing and saw NO magnifying glasses OR bugs.

It does actually happen sometimes stumped. The most famous occurrence I can think of is linked below and, or course, ir involves an Aussie.

http://cricket.deepthi.com/cricket-famous-incidents.html

Actually if the batsman attempted to do that he could be given out for 'ungentlmanly conduct' at the umpire's discretion. :)

815517, I think it would actually be the opposite -- he would learn less, assuming that most of the learning happens in the film room. And watching someone else's film would be like what he did before. [But based film study of Brunell alone, he pretty much mastered the dink-and-dunk part of the passing game.]

815517,
I'm with you on Soup. Watching Todd will be a real motivator. Let's remember Soup was trying to work on some problems with technique when the season started and had to switch to learn game speed tactics.

Next year he'll probably have overcome the technical problems, he'll know and be using lot more about the play book.

I expect great progress for another two years.

Geesh. So many opportunities to slip into a sugar coma here. My wife sent me to work with a tin of cookies for a meeting that I had this morning. I just got back to my desk from an all-day open house that my consulting company is hosting here at the client's office, with tons of treats (which I enjoyed in moderation, thank you). And I walk back into my cube and there's a great big Dove dark chocolate bar sitting on my chair.

And here is the best part: According to the Dove bar wrapper, the contents are a natural source of cocoa flavanols.

Go Skins!!!

Wait Freekzilla's a dude?

go flavanols!

Cindy, can we get a target daily rate up here? You know, the numbers we need to meet the Toddimatum?

Yikes, cricket talk! WTF happened?

I'm stuck in SFO. Snow/ice in Boston, mis-connect in SFO, and now I'm stuck riding standby. If any enterprising RI reader could loan me their jet for the 2 hour jaunt up north, that would be awesome.

On the plus side, lots of cute college girls roaming around...

Rock is signed through 2009.

Posted by: Ehren | December 20, 2007 03:50 PM

From the last thread...Ehren- Rock hit some performance escalator/opt out dealio this year, and is UFA after the season.

We need to keep Rock around, especially with Rocky out of the picture for a while. Gotta have at least one guy with "Rock" in his name suited up.

Sure wish he'd break one, one of these games.

Company holiday party tomorrow afternoon. No alcohol. Bummer.

Wait Freekzilla's a dude?

Posted by: alex35332 | December 20, 2007 05:29 PM

Disappointed?

I'm flattered.

Company holiday party tomorrow afternoon. No alcohol. Bummer.

Posted by: 4-12 | December 20, 2007 05:44 PM

We had a major boozer, and it started at 11 am. Could be why the product has suffered lately. Some folks got a little wasted, and they are not who we thought they were.

Go Skins. Shut down AP!

A company holiday party without booze is like a chick without boobs. It's just not possible. Skip it.

sween, guess you missed it:

We're at 137,110

Posted by: TheCindy | December 20, 2007 01:25 PM

I think that puts us a little shy of 137,300 right now, with doing an actual count.

150k by Christmas? Them's long odds.

pdiddy, good luck on the connection.

i don't have a jet (that i know of), but i can recommend the anchor brewing company bar/restaurant.

i'll be probably faced with the same fate for my red eye tonight.

Let me tell you something about this connection...

...my iPhone battery is out (watched all the America's Game episodes I could on the flight over)...

...really hot college chick with nice tracts of land is talking very loudly on her phone and won't shut the heck up...

...it is a sad, sad, sad day when I cannot appreciate nice tracts of land...

...I hate traveling during the holidays. I should charge my clients hazard pay for this nonsense...

...my heart goes out to everyone suffering this same fate these next couple of weeks.

Diddy- I was thinking I'd stay here and BMGO about cricket with toddcoat instead.

pdiddy,

Frankie Says Relax.

Company holiday party tomorrow afternoon. No alcohol. Bummer.

Posted by: 4-12 | December 20, 2007 05:44 PM

That's not a party. That's a meeting.

SMACK- Since 11am? Nice! My New Year's resolution...move across the intersection to your building.

jspace- My thoughts exactly.

I don't know if Roger Clemens ever pitched to Barry Bonds, but if he did, should those stats be stricken from the record.... OR...since they both were juiced should the stats stand? This is a NATS blog, right?

We're at 137,300, which means we're 12,700 short of the Toddimatum. It's gonna be tough, I know, with Christmas coming...I think this figures out to 2,540 posts a day, including Christmas. Sure, there are gonna be a lot of furious in-laws and some kids whose toys aren't put together. But once you explain the quest, they'll be fine.

Are there any NFL guys on the ball shrinkers? Any look like they may be?

TheCindy,

So you're saying we can neglect our families and slave our arses off to reach an arbitrary goal, for no tangible reward?

If you ever get tired of the editor gig, I can recommend several former employers of mine with whom you'd be a perfect fit for senior management. ;)

No, we've done this before! It's fun!

Well, in that case, can you expense me some steak fajitas and a bottle of Jack? :)

It's the Big Plays, stupid.

In so many ways I like the way the Skins match up against Minnesota. But there is not much to like about this:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_1663_2007_Big_Play_Index.html

The Washington Redskins are going to be destroyed by AD..... The Redskins might as well just start resting up for next year...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BGDabTsQZQ4&feature=related

Mmmmm....troll.

Troll, there's a phrase with which I suggest you familiarize yourself:

"Past results are not indicative of future performance."

Anyone wanna play cricket?

Okay, so I finally got around to re-reading issues 1-50 of the original Marvel G.I. Joe comic from the 80s, in the form of the trade paperbacks. The stories start out okay and gradually get better as the series moves on, but there's one thing from the early issues that really, really bugs me.

It's Torpedo. The Navy SEAL. They're fighting COBRA in a warehouse, and Torpedo has on his full diving gear, complete with scuba mask, flippers, and harpoon gun. They're nowhere near water.

You could tell the toy execs were pretty adamant about how the characters were supposed to be portrayed.

Troll, there's a phrase with which I suggest you familiarize yourself:

"Past results are not indicative of future performance."

Posted by: freakzilla | December 20, 2007 07:02 PM

Except for The Gibbs going undefeated in The Metrodome

Exactly, mack1.

The exception which proves the rule.

Beep beeeep.