Shotgun

A 6th for Boldin is a great trade for the 49ers. I don't know the details of his contract but I'm wondering if it had something to do with it.

+1 Vincent Jackson -1 Bobby Wagner Robert Griffin -3 Roddy White 3 Vernon Davis -1 Andre Smith 0 Sebastian Vollmer 0 Bobby Wagner -4 TJ Ward 0 Safe: LeSean McCoy 5 Vincent Jackson 5 Elim: Kenny Phillips -5

I just got it in the mail today! Dude, this is the first autographed anything I've ever had, and it's of my favorite player. I don't consider this something "very little," and I really appreciate it. Thanks a lot!

That's what they get for not signing him to an extension last year when he was one play away from the Super Bowl. Good for Flacco. I've seen worse deals though. If you consider the amount of money teams waste on free agent busts, and draft busts (historically), it's hard to say this is one of the worst uses of their money. He isn't good enough to be the highest paid player in the NFL but at least he's good enough to win Super Bowls. Maybe he can win one more within these six years and make it worth it for them.

I think this is the right way to go for the long-term. I think they'll definitely notice their absence in the pass defense, but I don't think it'll be anything major, and not moving on now will just set the positions further back.

I think it'll be another pretty good draft for D-linemen and a decent one for O-linemen, but overall this is a pretty weak draft class. According to Mayock he doesn't see very much top-level talent, but there is a lot of depth for rounds 2-4.

Franchise tagging him would cost more than he's worth, but I can see the Bucs match or beat any offer another team would likely make.

Thanks! I'll expect a little more than nothing and be happy with it

Your Favorite NFL Team - Tampa Bay Buccaneers Your Three Favorite Players (in order, if at all possible) - Gerald McCoy, Vincent Jackson, Doug Martin How you prefer your eggs cooked - Over medium Your Favorite School Subject - History Are you Okay with F4E sending you a package in the mail - Yes Sorry I didn't post earlier, I had forgotten about this.

What an awesome ending to the game. It looked like it might end up being a blow out in the first quarter but the 49ers put on a good show. Congratulations to all the 49ers fans, especially if you didn't experience their Superbowl wins in the 80's/90's.

My parents were poor so I didn't have cable for most of my childhood. Basic TV at least had access to some kick ass super hero shows.

I wouldn't get too judgemental too quick on the guy. It's possible he really was duped. Mormons are pretty weird when it comes to their kids getting in relationships. If it was the case for him I can see him being susceptible to some online fake relationship if he never had the experience of having an open relationship that his family knew about. He was also probably embarrassed about having an online relationship with someone he never actually met before, which is where all these lies about meeting "her" very well could have come from. I wouldn't be surprised if he never even talked to "her" on the phone but doesn't want to admit it. I mean think about it. Every time he probably mentioned her to someone they probably asked him where they met. Meeting people online is still considered a bit weird. If he was told by this fake persona that she went to Stanford, saying they met after a game to save embarrassment would be a logical conclusion. If they never actually talked on the phone, he's unlikely to admit that. These phone conversations he said they had could have just been conversations he had with her over messaging. Unless there was a girl in on it that got on the phone to mess around with him.

I believe there can be momentum within a game but it's clearly based on their psychological state of mind, and one big mistake can always put a stop to it. I've never believed in momentum on a multi-game basis. I think it's a lot more difficult to take a state of mind from one game to another when you have so many days and distractions in between. When I look back at Superbowl winners from the last decade there's always at least one area on both sides of the ball that they dominated in at least near the end of the season, and then showed that in their first playoff game. With the Giants it was their D-line and deep passing game, the Packers it was their overall passing game and turnovers on defense, same with the Saints. Some teams like the Steelers had crushing defenses and a persistent offense, and some like the Patriots had explosive offenses with persistent defenses. I didn't see it in the Seahawks or Ravens. The Falcons still need to finish their game and the Pats gotta play there's but so far the 49ers defense and ground attack with Gore & Kaep looked rather special in their first playoff game.

It seems like just about all the analysts I follow are picking the Seahawks to win this game. Talk about giving the Falcons a chip on their shoulder. I'll still be rooting for the Seahawks but I won't be surprised to see the Falcons run away with this game. Talk all you want about the Falcons not having proved anything, but the Seahawks aren't exactly as hot as the Packers or Giants were the past couple playoffs. With a healthy RGIII they probably wouldn't even be in this game right now.

Trying to not be a homer, but I think Martin is better than Morris. I'll take the guy who didn't lose 3 fumbles, actually has a big impact receiving wise, and is far better in terms of big plays. All but 2 of Morris' TD's were at most 17 yards away from the endzone and he may have more rushing yards but Doug has way more receiving yards. It's hard to argue with 11 20+ yard plays and 5 40+ yard plays during the season, and Morris has the added advantage of teams watching for RGIII to run the ball off a fake handoff. People putting Morris over Doug in a rating just shows they didn't look at anything beyond their season totals for rushing yards and TD's.

If he keeps running as often as he has I don't see him being around for a long career. I've heard a lot of people and coaches talk about running QB's and it seems to be pretty universally accepted that these running QB's eventually have to be transitioned into a more pass-heavy QB to lessen risk of injury. I think the smart thing to do for more run-heavy QB's, is to allow them to play as they are for the first season to acclimate to the NFL while still being able to help their team win games in the most impactful way possible. After that, take a portion of these college style option plays out and put more that are NFL style and pass-focused in. This will probably lead to worse overall play at first, and people will probably mislabel it as a "sophomore slump" but ultimately I think it's the best thing for these more run-focused QB's. Now I don't think doing this would actually work for most running QB's, but RGIII is a pretty good passer so if anyone can make a transition like this, he can. If the Redskins do what they should do, I'd say the high end of 8-12 seasons.

Some of the best guards in the league are picked up in the late rounds or even undrafted. I honestly don't see the value in taking a guard that high. I suppose if every other position was solid and Guard was the most needed spot on the O-line I'd consider it being a decent pick-up for a run-heavy team. Other than that I feel more impactful talent could be picked up elsewhere.

There is so much I disagree with for every party I find it difficult to affiliate myself with anyone group. Doing so causes people to assume I believe in certain things that I do not, or that I'm against certain things that I am not.

I think this is the best decision. Freeman's problem is mental and that's far more difficult to fix than physical mechanics. When the team is playing good and winning he's in "the zone" and makes a lot of great plays. When someone or many people on the team is struggling he seems to take on a mindset that he has to go all super hero and make retarded throws in order to win. He basically psyches himself out. Unless he can get that under control I don't see the team going far with him. It's kind of a shame because he's technically the best QB this team has had in a really long time as far as his physical skill set and the type of offense we've been able to create around him. If we had him on the team with the old Buc defense he wouldn't be going anywhere and we'd probably be dominating people. Unfortunately that's not the case, our defense is no longer good and we can no longer settle for any sort of mediocre play on our offense. Sounds more like people are speculating and talking about it being a possibility rather than something actually being discussed between the two teams. People will take shit like that, word it just how he did, and get people to incorrectly assume it's something being discussed among teams to get more attention. People like this is why rumors with no truth to them get spread all the time.

Wild Card: over over Divisional: over over :Patriots: AFC Championship: over Wild Card: over over Divisional: over over NFC Championship: over Superb Owl XLVII: over

I think the Broncos and the Packers have the best potential to really step up and make an interesting show offensively and defensively. I honestly don't trust rookie QB's nor Kaepernick and Ponder to put on a worthwhile showing against the typically aggressive defenses we see in championship and Superbowl games these days. ATL could surprise us too. The talents there so maybe they can put it all together finally.

I like Christmas, but for me it's more about the nostalgia from when I was a kid. For a long time I've hated receiving presents, though I like to give them to close family members. It's a good holiday to get family together (most of which believe there's a God but aren't active in churches). Christmas dinner is often just like our Thanksgiving dinner as well.

The friend that has a kid with autism was not one of the friends with a violent kid, I was just using them as an example as to how people are often given incorrect advice, and how important it is to see other professionals. That's not the only way we're screwed up. Even the people who do get their kids help rely on quick fix medication rather than non-medication therapy. I don't honestly think our mental health care system needs to be expanded, it needs to be altered all together. It's not the funding that's the issue, it's the application. Something like 20% of Americans are on psychiatric medication. The problem with that is it's used as a quick fix to cover up symptoms rather than fix the actual problem, which can be done through non-medicated long term therapy. A lot of kids are put on psychiatric medications for anything from mania & depression, to ADHD, but what they don't tell you is those meds have an uncommon side-effect that can cause violent acts and suicide. In fact there have been many well-known murders and mass-murders (like columbine) where the killer was on psychiatric drugs and many physicians have argued the drugs were a major cause.

That social worker she talked to was a retard and it's a common problem to get incorrect and unhelpful advice from people like that. She needs to talk to others and look into getting help on her own rather than taking the word of that individual. As I've mentioned I know people who have had children/siblings with mental problems that made them violent, and I've talked all about this with those friends. There are plenty of services available for people including crises intervention programs. The U.S. may spend less percentage wise of their health budget on mental health than other countries, but in terms of per capita we spend a rather large amount on mental health. Is it enough? I don't think so personally. De-institutionalization happened for a reason but caused more problems than it helped. The biggest problem with people not getting mental care is a mix of them thinking they can fix the problem on their own, and misinformation being provided to them as far as the type of help that is available to them. One friend for instance had a child with autism and was told he was so regressed she would have to put him in a mental care facility. She didn't listen, got more advice, was sent to a specialist in California, and her son is now doing quite well considering his disability.

I'm not sure why people are bringing up better access to mental care after a situation like this. While I agree that sort of care needs to be improved for other reasons I don't honestly think it necessarily applies to the people who've committed these types of crimes. It's not as if the parents of this kid didn't have the money to get him some professional help. They lived in a wealthy neighborhood. And even if they didn't have a whole lot of money there is still access. I've known a couple different low-income families through friends that had to get one of their kids help because they were violent. Typically people who do not get help either don't because no one helps them get help, or the individual refuses to get help. Improving access won't change those situations. I don't think increasing mental health access would even reach the typically suburban people that have been committing these crimes so long as the family members aren't active in their lives and providing them with help. Perhaps limiting access to guns would prevent people like this from going on rampages as I honestly don't think most suburban people even know how to go about buying an illegal weapon from some random guy, but that will most likely cause other crime related issues in a country like this so that's probably not the answer. I really think it's up to the people close to these individuals to step up and do something rather than take a "it's not my problem" or "let's wait and see" approach. And I guarantee you the media providing these sorry excuses for human beings so much attention has done more to cause others to do these acts than either gun control or mental health access. Instead of limiting freedoms maybe we should look at the narcissistic society that's been created and make some changes to ourselves.