Phins4life

Wait....wha...?

I wonder if it was on that last diving catch he made. If he was hurting, he faked it like a champ.

A little disappointed they couldn't pull out the upset, but it's whatever. It was Toledo, after all.

He seems to have the tools to be one of those dark horse combine guys. Could make a solid slot guy at the next level. I'll be following him after seeing that performance.

Anyway....good to hear the injury isn't too bad. At first I thought it was his hand, the way he was holding it coming off the field. Had me worried.

Hilton looked incredible. May have been shitty defense, or talent, or a mix of both. Impressive, regardless.

Unless we get better QB blitzing schemes than last year, that score looks about right.

What branch are you with? And congrats . Be safe with it being 9/11 and all.

I definitely agree that flat amounts are not the best route, for the reasons already given. That being said, let me play devil's advocate for a second and say that I wonder if the attitude towards the hit would have been different if he hadn't made it so obvious he wasn't going for a fundamental tackle. You can pretty much tell he's going for the ESPN chin chuck when he folds his arms and lunges forward. Where he ended up hitting the guy certainly did not help the case. If he at least attempts to wrap him up, maybe Goodell and company view it as more of the accident it seems to be. However, I'm also aware the game doesn't happen in a vacuum and the actual speed of the play could greatly reduce the reaction time required to execute a fundamentally sound hit.

It will all really depend on how bad the returning guy wants it. Yes, it will be more challenging, but we have at least seen that TD's can still happen. Hell, Cobb brought it back from the back of the end zone tonight. Adapt and overcome, until leadership wises up and makes some tweaks to the rule.

What an awesome way to open up the season. Hell, even the National Anthem rendition and the huge flag mosaic had me welling up. And how often do we get to see such explosive and methodical offenses face off like this? Anyway, a few observations: Green Bay: -Rodgers doesn't look like he has taken a day off since the Super Bowl. Kind of a side note, that level gaze he always has on his face reminds me of the Joe Montana finger lick. You just know he'll do something big when you don't see any real emotion from him. -Receiving corps looked great. Jordy Nelson was probably my favorite performance overall, if you don't include TE's. Finley just seemed like too much for the Saints at times. -Starks/Grant was solid, although I'll give a slight edge to Starks. -Although the D gave up some big plays, I'm more than willing to forgive this since it was the Saints. Judging that D based on one game against an elite offense just wouldn't be right, so I'll wait until next week against Carolina to see what we're in store for. They brought some good blitzes at times, and I assume we'll see more. -Fuckin' Randall Cobb. That kid wants to show he deserves the spot he was given on the roster. That kick return goes down as the play of the game in my book. Mad respect for this guy already. New Orleans: -Brees looked just as impressive as Rodgers. He took a bit longer to really get the good stuff flowing, but he came around, and that final drive was just gold. It honestly makes me wonder why they suddenly decided to dive it on the last play after such a dominant drive through the air, but whatever. Live and learn, I suppose. -The receiving corps did well, but I couldn't help but feel like they were all just a little off. Kind of sluggish, maybe? Maybe I'm the only one who feels that way. -I really like the 3-headed monster they have going on. All 3 of those backs bring something special to the gameplan, which leads me to my next point.... -Darren Sproles. Hot damn. There's quick, there's fast, and then there's Sproles. That punt return was nasty, regardless of whether it was bad coverage or a good return. The big thing is, the Saints needed a replacement for Bush, and he fits the bill perfectly. I've always had lots of respect for the little guys in the game, and he is no exception. -Jimmy Graham looked pretty solid as Shockey's replacement...basing this off one game is pretty risky right now, though. -Same as GB, I enjoyed the blitzes I saw from the D, and the coverage made some good plays here and there, but Harper got his ass kicked more than a few times tonight. He'll need to work on some stuff. Again, though, we'll see how they do against more average offenses soon enough. All in all, exactly how I wanted the season to start. Entertaining and promising all the way through. GB helped reassure me about my prediction for them for the most part. I'll feel much better if they rip apart Carolina. Football is finally here!!!!

Time to get a leg up on the recruiting pipelines for next year....

Tough call. Freedom of choice says they should be able to. It's their life, their grave. On the other hand, food stamps are supposed to help transition people into better situations, not just perpetuate the current scenario...at least I assume that's what it's for. And enabling those people to spend them on junk food seems counterproductive. Not really sure where I stand on it, to be honest.

Jimi Hendrix. Only guy I'd really want to go back and see perform. Can't ever get enough of his solos.

No Rain - Blind Melon. I'm in a 90's rock mood lately.

Probably the best reason for concern. The psychological aspect is certainly there. Players need to be focused on their own game, and it's easier said than done to just tell them to keep their eyes down on the field and assume they will do that. Perhaps an addendum that allows coaches to have certain game stats removed from scoreboards for playoff weighted weeks? Wouldn't be that hard.

To the people with the moral objections, I ask again, who is truly being hurt by making the profession legal? If you find it repulsive, that's fine, but it's an argument that simply has no place in a debate over whether or not it should be legalized. It was generally legal in the US prior to the Prohibition Era, but along came people like the Women's Temperance Union, not liking the idea of women making money by satisfying one of the most basic human urges, and that influence eventually became widespread. Legal issues simply have to be analyzed from as objective a stance as possible, lest it be corrupted by personal opinion or belief. Why deny a man or woman the right to sell their body for a night if no one is going to get hurt, especially if they are good at it? How is prostitution any different from casual sex other than money, now that I think about it? As for trafficking dangers, I'm not focusing the argument on that because those will always be there. Alcohol and gun possession are both legal, despite the inherent dangers that come with the abuse of either. But I still believe that if woman had rights as prostitutes, it would hamper the black market sex trade...to what degree I have no idea. As for objectifying the body, how many men on here pick up the Swimsuit edition to read the articles, critique the craftsmanship of the bikinis or admire the details in the bodypaint? How many people like Arianny Celeste because of how well she can hold up a number sign? How many people watch the Dallas Cowgirls because they love the timing of the choreography? How many girls would buy a type of cologne for their man if the ad had some average Joe instead of the usual guy with nice pecs and washboard abs? Let's be real...objectification of good looking men and women is everywhere. Everyone has that favorite actor/entertainer/athlete that they fantasize over. If you use objectification as an argument against prostitution, you should also be morally opposed to NFL cheerleaders, ring girls, the entire modelling industry, strippers, nude art/photography....you get the idea. Adding sex to the equation doesn't really make the issue much different from the others I just mentioned. They are all a means to an end. Prostitution is just more direct, and therefore more offensive in the eyes of a prudish society like ours.

Pitt - Bal Phi - STL Sea - SF Not the worst lineup. Certainly not the best, either. At least Miami gets Monday night .

Something I've noticed a lot more frequently than I care to on Youtube/Facebook comments is people being ridiculed for liking a song for this reason or that. Example: Individual A comments how much he loves Sympathy for the Devil after hearing it on Black Ops. Individual B comes in and states what an unworthy fan he is because he discovered the song on a video game rather than discovering it.....whatever way it is that makes the other person better than him. Using myself as another example, I play lots of GH and RB, and that's how I have discovered and come to appreciate songs I previously didn't know about. This type of logic runs rampant on social networks, where there are people who basically take on this type of elitist mentality, thinking they are better fans of a band or appreciate the music more because of this reason or that. Keep in mind, I'm aware that the world's best and brightest are not heavily represented on YT and FB comments as a general rule. However, they do make up a large group in society. Frankly I don't understand it, especially when the main point is for fans who appreciate a band to come together and reach consensus that they all like it, regardless of why. Wondering how ya'll feel about it. Does this happen to you? Do you agree that someone who grew up listening to the Stones (or any band) is better than someone who discovered them by chance through games, movies, etc? If so, why? This is all just random curiosity, because I apparently have nothing else to think about at the moment . Let me know what you think.

I'm going to guess the bigger premium was placed on QB and WR instead of backs, which isn't a terrible move or anything. I do think you need a tad more depth there, but everyone else looks pretty good. A lot will really depend on how improved (or not) that Raiders offense is. Darren is good, but isn't a single-handed team beater. Green-Ellis looked pretty good last year, considering he wasn't an every down guy, so we'll see if that continues.

The underlying factor here seems to be upside vs. consistency. Vick is, hands down, still the most athletically gifted quarterback in the league. And last year's amazing passing improvement over his pre-Leavenworth days are enough to convince me that a repeat season should place him in the elite tier. The physical skills are there, the weapons are there, and the attitude/maturity level has most certainly changed in a big way. But until then, I think Romo should get the vote based on his consistency when healthy.

Bush/Thomas. Best. Duo. Ever. :allhail: Okay, okay...all kidding aside, I have a hard time choosing between Charles/Jones and Bradshaw/Jacobs. I think they have very complimentary styles with the speed and bruiser combos needed to wear defenses out effectively. I'd probably vote McCoy/Brown if I thought Brown could stay healthy all season.

I think in terms of overall threat, it will be White/Jones. Maclin/Jackson was very tempting, though, considering how perfectly their styles seem to compliment each other.

Really diggin' these. Nice job, fellas.

MVP: Aaron Rodgers. The Packers are my favorite right now to do it again, and it will be in no small part due to Rodgers. Offensive POTY: Michael Vick. He's lightning in a bottle, even at his age, and if he stays healthy I don't see why he can't produce a 3K/1K type of season. Defensive POTY: Clay Matthews. It was a toss up for me between Clay and Cameron Wake. Both are tenacious and fast, and both are going to get to the QB alot this year. COTY: Schwartz. I like underdogs, and I think that if he can get the Lions into the wild card playoff race, he'll make a good case for it. Offensive ROTY: Julio Jones, for pretty much the same reasons Stevo said. My dark horse pick: Roy Helu Defensive ROTY: Patrick Peterson. Comeback POTY: If we are including injury comebacks, I'll take Tony Romo. Otherwise, I'll go with Plax.