Hoss

Love the stat, Eleven. I did not realize it was only three. Especially after I read the question and immediately thought of both Mannings. Since 1990 there have been 36 QBs draft in the top 10. So 8% of QBs drafted in the top 10 since 1990 have won a Super Bowl. Looking at it a little differently, here's a list of Super Bowl winning QBs since 1990 with their draft position listed next to them: 1990: Joe Montana (Rd 3, Pick 82 in 1979) over John Elway (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1983) 1991: Jeff Hostetler (Rd 3, Pick 59 in 1984) over Jim Kelly (Rd 1, Pick 14 in 1983) 1992: Mark Rypien (Rd 6, Pick 146 in 1986) over Jim Kelly (Rd 1, Pick 14 in 1983) 1993: Troy Aikman (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1989) over Jim Kelly (Rd 1, Pick 14 in 1983) 1994: Troy Aikman (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1989) over Jim Kelly (Rd 1, Pick 14 in 1983) 1995: Steve Young* (Rd 1 of 1984 Supp. Draft) over Stan Humphries* (Rd 6, Pick 159 in 1988) 1996: Troy Aikman (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1989) over Neil O'Donnell (Rd 3, Pick 70 in 19990) 1997: Brett Favre* (Rd 2, Pick 33 in 1991) over Drew Bledsoe (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1993) 1998: John Elway (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1983) over Brett Favre* (Rd 2, Pick 33 in 1991) 1999: John Elway (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1983) over Chris Chandler* (Rd 3, Pick 76 in 1988) 2000: Kurt Warner (Undrafted in 1994) over Steve McNair (Rd 1, Pick 3 in 1995) 2001: Trent Dilfer* (Rd 1, Pick 6 in 1994) over Kerry Collins* (Rd 1, Pick 5 in 1995) 2002: Tom Brady (Rd 6, Pick 1999 in 2000) over Kurt Warner (Undrafted in 1994) 2003: Brad Johnson* (Rd 9, Pick 227 in 1992) over Rich Gannon* (Rd 4, Pick 98 in 1987) 2004: Tom Brady (Rd 6, Pick 1999 in 2000) over Jake Delhomme* (Undrafted in 1997) 2005: Tom Brady (Rd 6, Pick 1999 in 2000) over Donovan McNabb (Rd 1, Pick 2 in 1999) 2006: Ben Roethlisberger (Rd 1, Pick 11 in 2004) over Matt Hasselback* (Rd 6, Pick 187 in 1998) 2007: Peyton Manning (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1998) over Rex Grossman (Rd 1, Pick 22 in 2003) 2008: Eli Manning (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 2004) over Tom Brady (Rd 6, Pick 1999 in 2000) 2009: Ben Roethlisberger (Rd 1, Pick 11 in 2004) over Kurt Warner (Undrafted in 1994) 2010: Drew Brees* (Rd 2, Pick 32 in 2001) over Peyton Manning (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1998) 2011: Aaron Rodgers (Rd 1, Pick 24 in 2005) over Ben Roethlisberger (Rd 1, Pick 11 in 2004) 2012: Eli Manning (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 2004) over Tom Brady (Rd 6, Pick 1999 in 2000) 2013: Joe Flacco (Rd 1, Pick 18 in 2008) over Colin Kaepernick (Rd 2, Pick 36 in 2011) 2014: Russell Wilson (Rd 3, 75 in 2012) over Peyton Manning (Rd 1, Pick 1 in 1998) 2015: Tom Brady (Rd 6, Pick 1999 in 2000) over Russell Wilson (Rd 3, 75 in 2012) *Indicates a player playing that game for a team other than their first team (meaning they played a regular season game for another team first) From that group: 40/52 are appearances by a QB playing for his first team. Breakdown by round: 27/52 first rounders 4/52 second rounders 6/52 third rounders 1/52 fourth rounders 0/52 fifth rounders 9/52 sixth rounders 0/52 seventh rounders 1/52 ninth rounders 4/52 undrafted So get your QB in the 1st or 6th. And keep them.

I'm not sure why you jumped on me for not responding since I just wasn't on the site for a few hours. I feel as though the same circumstances should be treated the same as far as legal punishment goes regardless of the genders involved. I do not know this case well enough to say whether the woman should be in jail, but if a male faced jail time for a similar offense then she should as well. That's it. That's all I care to say on the subject.

It's worth pointing out that a single example does absolutely nothing to point towards a double standard. There are examples of males not serving jail time for statutory rape. It's a pretty irrelevant discussion point.

I spent about an hour today watching videos of colorblind people try out these new glasses that allow them to see color like everybody else... And I never realized how much just seeing color can be taken for granted.

Good on you for asking. Gooderer on her for not farting. Unless you're into that kind of thing.

I've been an RG3 fanboy every step of the way. Before his Heisman season he was my Heisman pick. I made sure to watch every game of his whenever I got the chance. He's unbelievably talented, but Mike Shanahan broke him forever. I would still take a shot on him if he came for pennies on the dollar (no more than a 4th + EJ). But I don't think that'll happen. He'll likely be a free agent after this season, though. I can't see Washington picking up his option.

Carucci came out with this nugget: The #Bills have offered Marcell Dareus more than $90 million in a deal that would add 6 yrs to 1 yr he has, according to #NFL source. I'm assuming Marcel wants Suh money (6 years, $114M).

Dareus on contract talks: "They’re making it hard. And it’s just really making me unhappy. I feel like they don’t really want me here.”

Didn't say that even. I said silent and motionless should warrant some response from you other than "totally putting it in now." Also: echoing those who liked sizzle's post. A long post with substance. Almost all points covered. The only bad part was the insinuation the feminists are fine with fashion and social trends. That's quite the opposite of the truth. Otherwise a lot of good points. Parents need to be smarter and better.

I said multiple times "silent and motionless." If she suddenly stops engaging with you both verbally and physically then you should likely figure out why that happened before proceeding.

Hence "explicitly."

True. But if you explicitly withdraw consent during the act and the other individual continues it is rape.

Cute. Do you have anything productive to say or is this the beginning of your tantrum? Also, what in the world do you find so ridiculous in my post? This is just lazy. Clearly you felt incapable of reasonable response so you threw your hands up and quit. Weak.

This specific scenario, then, isn't something that me, or probably anybody else here, has a clear answer for. Imagining it myself it seems like there would obviously be a point where the woman just goes silent. If she's still kissing and engaging in the contact, as well, after leading to the bedroom and removing clothing then it wasn't sexual assault. Now if you're getting ready to have sex with somebody and suddenly they become silent and are no longer engaging then you stop. Who wants to have sex with somebody who is laying their essentially motionless and silent? Re-introduce conversation into the situation. Ask if they are okay if they have gone silent and motionless.

I do not see this scenario you speak of. My original response was to JJ's questioning about a woman "not showing reluctance." There was no scenario. He then went on to mention that they've made their way back to her place from the bar, but I don't see anything about clothing being removed. Removing clothing, if the individual is clearly willing and never stops you/assists you, is a green light to begin sexual contact. But both individuals STILL reserve the right to say "no" or "just oral" or "just handjobs" or whatever they feel comfortable with in that moment. The way to be safe here if you're in that scenario is to say something like "let me get a condom" or something along those lines. If they don't want sex they will say "no, I don't want to have sex" or something similar.

So the momentum here seems to be that there is an assumed yes until there is a no. Where many, like myself and most women's rights groups, are trying to get to is that there is an assumed no until there is a yes. THAT will prevent rape. Always assume the answer is no until you get a clear green light. Now if you meet somebody at a bar, he/she takes you to their place, both individuals are coherent enough to give consent and both mutually head to the bedroom then there is a green light there. If one individual then says "no" or "not that far" then you don't go that far. Simple as that. It's not a difficult concept in my opinion.

So you believe the onus of not having sex lies totally on the woman in this scenario? It's her job to not have sex here, not the man's. He gets to have sex with her up until she says no. Gotcha.

BINGO. In some states it is actually ILLEGAL for educators to say the word "condom" in an education building. How messed up is that? Sex education shouldn't be a one-day thing in high school that everybody just giggles away. It should be part of a larger "life" class. Said class should spend at least a month on sexual education. It should also include a plethora of other world-skills, but sex education should be expanded. There should be lessons on how to apply condoms, how to confirm consent, what to do when your period is late, etc.

My candidate for song that gets stuck in my head most often is "Where Is My Mind" by the Pixies. I recently heard a great piano cover for the first time (below), and it's such a relaxing sound. I played it while cooking today and it was a very nice set up before I head to work. If you're unfamiliar, this is a song that was popularized by Fight Club and is connected to Chuck Palahniuk for basically ever now. http://youtu.be/4NZdggNUvq0

If somebody is discussing financials with you and how they want to help you do you reach in their pocket for their wallet without asking just because they never told you not to?

Nope. But I do think there are many who just shrugged off AP's assault of his child but find what Rice did as horrifying. In both situations they were attempting to teach another individual a lesson who they clearly overpower. Using force instead of appropriate action. I think Rice deserved at least a shot in someone's camp to see if he has the ability left. If he's anywhere near what he was then he's going to help a team. Unfortunately for him I don't think that's happening. Now I'm not going to cry for Ray Rice. He dug his own grave.

You know nothing of what you speak.

Obviously.

I think the better way of saying what Liger is saying is women should have the peace of mind that when they say no it will be respected. Unfortunately that's not the case in all situations.

Yes. It does.