eaglesalltheway

I'm just curious to see if all the Sherman haters are consistent and hate Jim Harbaugh as well (it's no coincidence he was the coach of Stanford while Sherman was there). I'll never forget Harbaugh's d*ck move against the Lions on Thanksgiving a couple years ago, when he practically threw Jim Schwartz to the side after the game, and then, when Schwartz took offense to it and started to get in his face, Harbaugh starts talking trash. They are the same breed.

I don't agree with this, and I think you have the right to dictate your opponent in you can. In the pros, if a team is in last place and goes out and wins the last game, causing them to go from the #1 pick to the #4 pick, everyone would say that team was stupid, and I would agree. It's the same concept - you do what's best for your team, period!!! With that said, if you believe in a thing called karma, you would start your best players. 4 years ago, I did this in order to play against a team with Josh Freeman and Matt Cassel as his starting QBs (2 QB league) vs my Manning and Brady. Johnson and Cassel proceeded to throw for 9 TDs and 650 yards, and the fantasy football gods taught me a valuable lesson.

Is a HBP a called ball? I bet Harvey's first called pitch would be a ball, but it came up as a loss, saying Cabrera's swing and miss was the first called pitch. Is that correct? I always thought a HBP would still be a called ball.

This!!! Let's remember, you don't judge people based on what they were called but what they did...for example "crusade" has a positive connotation, yet, we still call the "terrorists" from the middle ages, the "Crusaders". It all depends on what point of view you have. Now I don't think the hijackers were really fighting for their freedom, but I do believe that they probably did, so I have no problem with this.

So Obama wants to raise the min. wage to $9 - the liberal side of me says it's a great idea, but the business side of me doesn't really like it, as the company I work for hires mostly min. wage workers. It's a tough call, but I'd say I'm for it - after all, a full-time employee making $9 will only make $18,720 a year without OT...a person cannot support a family (or themselves for that matter) on that, let alone the $15,000 they are currently making. If a CEO is worth millions of dollars a year, then surely the workers who actually make things happen are worth an extra $3700 a year. Say what you want about Obama, and a lot has been said, but he really does appear to be trying to help the working poor/lower middle class.

I'm unaware of any tax increase he had? Are you referring to the payroll tax that expired? If so, that was never meant to last for forever. It was meant for a year, and then was extended a 2nd year. Be happy you got an extra year out of it.

Personally, I have no problem with military strikes on Americans, so long as they are enemies of the state. Many states (gvts) kill Americans everyday via the death penalty, so why do we have an issue with a zone strike that kills an American who is working with Al Queda? We hold people indefinitely for no crime at Guantanamo under the guise of war, and just because they are not American, that's okay, but when we find an "American" who is fighting this country and participating in the effort to have mass killings in this country, we should arrest him instead??? It just doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.

This - I don't like Tebow, but honestly, it has nothing to do with him. It's his fans!!! Tebow is a great story, and I think he could be a capable TE or FB, but he is no NFL QB. He has a winning quality about him, but that doesn't make him any more accurate. His fans will point to the fact that he "led" the Broncos to the playoffs last year and even won a playoff game, but let's be honest, it was their D that led them. It was painful watching Tebow play QB in those games. He had a 46.5 completion percentage and avg. 157 ypg when starting. That, in no way, is a starting NFL QB. Yet, his fans will argue that he SHOULD be starting, or at least given a chance to start, and he was, but if he couldn't outplay Sanchez in practice, that's saying something.

I don't understand the purpose of keeping him on...he has to be one of the worst coaches as he has completely lost this team. Their D did not show up at all today, but for all the coach speak of, "We want to lean heavily on Matthews", on their 1st 2 drives, they call 4 pass plays (resulting in a TO and 8 yds) and only 2 rush plays for 11 yds. Just get rid of this guy already!!!! Rant over.

Dalton owners shouldn't worry - they chose to run the ball a lot in the first half. Now that their down (only a FG I know), I expect more of a passing attack from Dalton.

I'd go with Dalton - I just don't see how the Skins would risk RG3's future in his rookie season. I'd give RG3 a 20% chance of starting, and I think, even if he does, he'll be more cautious running. Also, the Eagles pass D is terrible. AJ Green will have a monster, so Dalton should have a good game too.

PPR for WRs only - 1pt every 20 yds receiving for WRs RBs - 1 pt every 10 yds rushing or receiving Maclin or Matthews??? Will help in return.

I guess it depends on if you have another backup - RG3 is very solid, but honestly, I'd be tempted to roll with Dalton even if he's healthy (assuming your league is 6 pts any TD). If it's 4 pts a TD, and you have a solid backup, I'd wait on RG3, otherwise, I'd roll with Dalton and not look back. Please see mine. My link

Johnson - the Jets have a solid D, but it should be a close game, and if he gets enough carries, he should be good for a TD Sproles - typically I'd say bench a RB vs TB, but Sproles is more of a WR in a RB position, which bodes well for him this game. Start with confidence. Brown - got completely shut down last week against a great rush D, but don't be fooled, Brown is a very good back and should play like it - I like him in this game. Definite no to Ridley vs the niners D, Wilson would be solid, but I could see the Falcons start fast and the Giants playing catch up even if Bradshaw is out . Please see mine My link

I'd go with Gresham - the only worry I have with him is they get up real quick and don't have to pass, but I think the Eagles can make a game of it...Myers is only good if they have to pass a lot, and they won't against the Chiefs, and Pitta is facing a tough Denver D - the Eagles are pretty good against TEs, but Dalton has been looking for him early, so I like him. Please help with mine My link

Clearly he's one of the biggest busts this year, but I'm not sure how much is his fault vs. Turner's fault, but obviously when the Chargers pass 23 times in the 1st half vs. 4 rushes (at least Matthews' got them all), his value is shot this year. However, next year, after Turner is gone (hopefully), will Matthews have value or is he just not very talented? Thoughts?

I agree that a coaching change won't help that, but it amazes me that Turner leans so heavily on Rivers, who's struggled mightily this year, and refuses to run. It's hard for anyone to be productive when they have a 28-5 pass/rush ratio halfway through the third. And they have the lead, which is just baffling.

I didn't get to watch the game, but followed it on the computer. It really seems like this was a very winnable game for the niners, and the loss falls squarely on the shoulders of Kaepernick. An intentional grounding in the end zone when they were on the 15-20 yd line causing a safety, a fumble (happens to every one though) returned for a TD, and running out of bounds with 1:30 left setting up the FG as opposed to staying inbounds. Those are some bad mistakes. I can buy that he has more talent than Smith, but I don't know if the niners need more than a game manager with Gore and that D. Alex Smith would not have lost this game.

Has this ever happened before??? I'm amazed the best D in the league is the one to give it up. The first is unexpected, but after it works once, how do you not defend it every time? Embarrassing!!!

When I hear comments like that, it lets me know I'm on the right (left) side. And Kirsten Powers just said, "they need more white people voting" - She may need to find a new job after tonight - Fox News doesn't like this truth-telling business.

Watching Fox News, and they seem unexcited, almost as if they know what's to come. They just mentioned that they expect to see the women's vote go to Obama by a similar margin as it did with McCain (I think they said 13%). When Megan Kelly questioned Kirsten Powers who said this, because of all the "Romney closed the gap with women" talk they were preaching, the woman said bluntly, "I think they were trying to gin up their support." I guess Fox News does tell the truth sometimes.

I think it's an understatement that Obama lacks the enthusiastic voter that he had in '08 - I couldn't wait for Obama in '08, now, it's moreso voting for him because I hate the other side. I don't blame Obama for that - regardless of what anyone says, we'd be in a similar situation right now if McCain won. I do take solace in the fact that no matter who is elected, a moderate will be in office (and yes, Obama is a moderate, not a radical), so we can have the chance of either having the tea party come to the middle on issues (highly unlikely) or have them destroy the republican party and create their own party, thus giving the Dems the house in '16.

For all the talk of a dead heat and a Romney landslide, Romney is +$275 and Obama -$330 at betting web sites - that's a pretty big spread for a neck and neck race. I bet $100 on Romney - if he gets elected, at least I'll have $275 to dry my tears.

I voted for Obama (although he'll already carry my state, NJ). I don't think Romney would be terrible, so long as we get the governor of Mass, and not the person he was pretending to be in the election, which is one of the reasons he did not get my vote - I don't know what his stances really are.

Here's hoping she'll grow up to be a good Democrat If you need anything, give me a call!!!