nboucher

You should grow a beard, Avid. Then you can trim to your heart's content.

Okay, changed my underwear, riskkid; I'm okay now RW, you're being a bit harsh. As a lifelong Pats fan, I have to admit: I think the best team on the field won that game. Manning's offense in the second half deserves huge credit. Yes, the Pats blew some key chances: the dropped pass in the end zone, an ill-timed roughing-the-passer penalty, a lousy passing route by Troy Brown at a crucial time late in the game--the kind of mistakes the Pats don't usually make. Seymour seemed gimpy the whole game, they really missed Rodney Harrison in the secondary, and their lack of receiver depth caught up with the Pats in this game. Late in the third period, the Pats defense looked exhaustedlegs and hamstrings cramping up, players weakened by the flu, etc. The inability of Maroney to get going hurt the Pats' clock-eating running game, which meant the offense spent way too little time on the field. The Pats peaked last week in San Diego. None of this should detract from Manning's precise passes and Indy's nicely varied play calling. I really enjoy having the Pats kick Indy butts, but last night, after a very iffy start, Manning really delivered. My small consolation is that Vinateri wasn't a factor. Congrats, Indy fans. (My wife's from Chicago, so I'm afraid we're going to have to root against you on Feb. 4, though.)

wives ;D

There's gotta be medication for that.

Avid, that's a tough break indeed. Just over the weekend I was thinking of dropping you a PM to see how the PT was going. I'm sure you'll consider this a setback and not a defeat. And as your official Fork roomie, I'll help down there however I can.

For Patriots fans and haters, I offer this: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070119

I still think those are RW's smallies. Maybe they PhotoShopped the guy in around them. ;D

That your truck in the background, Russ?

Judging from the size of the smallies . . . can that be RW?

Pretty funny, Glenn. But it's not Brady who's everywhere (and who won't be in the Pro Bowl), it's Manning who hawks every product you see on TV. When the Colts played the Patriots at Gillette Stadium last season, one of his commercials even played on the stadium JumboTron during the game. You can guess what the reaction of New England fans was . . .

Way to go! .1, 1.0--they're just numbers. As long as they're going up.

I'd be surprised if either game is a blowout. Unfortunately, after last Sunday's SD-NE game, I don't have any nails left to bite. I think it's the end of the road for the Bears, unless their defense really stiffens up against the run. The Pats will win if (1) their defense can get some pressure on Manning to get him moving around and (2) they can successfully run more than they did against San Diego, thus softening the Indy defense enough to allow Brady to throw lots of short, precise passes and have a look downfield for those big-yardage opportunities. The Colts will win if (1) their defense can get some pressure on Brady to get him to rush his passes and (2) their running game is really on, thus softening the NE defense enough to allow Manning to throw lots of short, precise passes and have a look downfield for those big-yardage opportunities. (In other words, these teams are so alike they'll be trying to do the same things. ) I'll be watching the Pats' offensive line early; if they can block Indy the way they did SD, the Pats should be okay. The Colts will not fall apart the way the Bolts did.

That's the perfect mileage for staying in shape, and don't worry about speed. You already have a great base from which to work if you do want to train for speed or distance. Ironically, the key to both is to slowly work in one LSD (long, slow distance) run each week. You can start by adding one mile to one run, but running it AT LEAST a minute per mile slower. So, if your longest run is a four-miler, do one five mile run at the slower pace. The following week, make it a six-miler, etc., until you get to about 10 miles, then add two miles to your longer run, but only every other week to give your body time to recover. The important thing to remember is that you cannot run those longer runs too slowly. If you do this, you'll find you'll easily be able to increase the speed of your daily runs. Next thing you know, you'll have trained for a marathon.

rocknfish, I am now 55 and have been running on and off for most of my adult life. I ran my first marathon in October 2005 (Chicago), because somehow I'd never gotten around to it before. As you can see from the replies you got to your post, people either hate running or love it--I've met few people in between. I have always enjoyed the rhythm and solitude that come with running (I seldom run with others) and have some long training runs mapped out in my town that take me through some beautiful areas. It's amazing what you'll come across on a long run, from baby coyotes to some real babes. In fact, I like running so much that when I blew out one of my knees while skiing and playing volleyball (no, not at the same time) 14 years ago and had to get a slice of my patella tendon screwed into my knee to replace my ACL, my instruction to my surgeon and physical therapist was: "Whatever you have to do to make sure I can keep running, just do it." (I went back to the surgeon two years ago so she could scrape out some scar tissue to keep me running. When she treated my daughter recently for a gymnastics injury, she looked at my wife and said, "So you're the sane one in the family.") Whenever I'm irritable at home, my wife says, "Why don't you go run," and she's right: I always come back in a great mood. Now that I'm an old man whose genes carry the family history of hypertension and high cholesterol, I run to try to control those things, as well as my weight, which has a tendency to creep upwards. I also find that I eat better when I'm running, probably because lousy food makes me feel heavy and slow. So keep on running, rocknfish, and run smart--you've got decades of road miles ahead of you!

Carl, I'm there, my friend. And as for that other team, talk to me in six months. Marty, you're right that the boneheaded plays happened on the field, but I fault the Bolts' coaching staff for not preparing their relatively young team for the playoff pressure and atmosphere. You have to pound it into these guys' heads that all those people will be screaming the whole game and not to get swept up in all that, to stay in control of their emotions and stay focused on their play. I do think the Pats, whether because of coaching or experience or both, were better prepared for the mental side of a playoff game. I thought LT and Rivers handled the atmosphere pretty well, but the rest of the team did not.

None taken! But any football fan has got to admire what they've accomplished these last few years. I go back to the Boston Patriots days, so I've survived many many losing years and one or two humiliating Super Bowl defeats along the way. No offense, but I am loving this team . . .

Okay, just got my heartbeat back to normal this morning after the Pats win. I thought the Pats were going to get spanked by LT and the rest of the gang the way things were going in the first quarteruntil that brilliant decision to go for it on fourth and eleven. What is this, Pop Warner??? With bonehead coaching like that, I figured the Pats had a chance. On paper the Bolts are the better team, but fortunately games aren't played on paper. Their players seemed to alternate between crisp execution and something like panic. Two untimely personal fouls, dropped passes, a defense that would suddenly go soft for five minues at a time: the Bolts choked. Now let's see how Indy's defense does next week.

Great baits. They seem to trigger all aggressive fish. In waters where there are pickerel, they will all but shove the bass aside to get to these.

He's a stowaway with me way too often. Actually, I just checked my log from 2006. I was skunked twice out of 40 days out, so I guess I've been skunked 5 percent of the time.

Matt, it's brutal getting the rug pulled out from under you like that. You're strong and sane to put all else aside and get back up off the floor and working again. Best of luck to you and your family.

Craig, I saw the post and cringed. As the editor of a magazine, I know where you're coming from. I mark up manuscripts that way all the time. However, it would irresponsible of me to publish the manuscript with all my comments on it, as you in effect did. You served as that author's editor without having the opportunity to address your comments directly to the author, and as a writer yourself, I'm sure you would hate to see that done to your work in a place where so many can see it (unless you think your work is without flaws, of course). I think you would have been better advised to send that to one of the forum's moderators. As was once written somewhere, do unto others as you would have done to you.

The irony about the whole global warming debate nationally is that everyone in my part of the country is convinced that global warming exists because of the record-breaking warm temps we've been having in the Northeast this winter. In my view, it's good that people are tuning into the issue, but the irony is that global warming probably has, at most, little to do with the weird weather this year. Climatologists who are convinced carbon emissions and greenhouse gases are having an effect on global temperatures are the first to point this out. They say that an unusual patternan abnormally vigorous el Nino in the Pacific coupled with an unusually persistent warm-circulation pattern the Atlanticare pretty clearly responsible for the high temps in the Northeast and the Midwest, and timing of the Colorado snows. Even the increased warmth of the past 20 years may have little to do with climate change. I now regularly see species of birds around me all year that I never saw when I took ornithology in college because they had always been more southern species. But this could be a normal cycle of fluctuation. None of this proves that global warming is not happening, however. The chemistry makes sense, and the timing with the rise of the industrial age in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Human actions may be intensifying a naturally occuring cycle and, as I posted earlier, may nullify all, or part of the later part of the cycle, which depends on the trends in place long after our lifetimes. Oh, my qualifications? Citizen, reader, aspiring angler. Pretty good husband and father (depends who you ask), a softball coach with a losing record . . . Need I go on?

do you have to have a baitcaster to flip/pitch? No, it is possible to flip/pitch with spinning, but, casting reels are more suited to handle heavier lines which are commonly used for this technique. Disclaimer: I have only recently started using/practicing this technique. But I have been practicing with both spinning and baitcasting reels, and each seems to have its advantages. Part of it is the old backlash issue. If, like me, you're also fairly new to baitcasters, you can easily get overruns pitching, so just as you need to practice casting with this type of reel to prevent backlashes, you'll need to do the same pitching with a baitcaster. Pitching with a spinning reel seems a bit more awkward because you have to use your free hand to stop your line instead of just your thumb. But I don't see that as much of obstacle to pitching with a spinning reel, especially with lighter jigs or weightless plastic presentations.

Fin, I actually don't think we're that far out of agreement. I think it may be a matter of time scale. As a New Englander and an angler, I'll benefit from whatever minimal effect global warming will have in my lifetime (I won't have the northern climate to blame for my ineptness, that is). The more immediate problem for the flora and fauna is habitat destruction, which is the prime cause for the accelerated extinction rates. That doesn't have anything to do with global warming. Still, as someone raised to believe humans have a stewardship responsibility toward what we've inherited, I do think there is enough evidence to be concerned about global warming over the longer term (100 years? 200? 500?) . No one can be 100 percent sure whether the accelerated warming trend that coincides with industrialization turns out to be just a coincidence or a consequence, but so far the accelerated rate of carbon emissions makes the most logical sense. On the other hand, it seems too easy (to me) at this point to just dismiss this as a blip, though, as you say, the size of the time frame means that can't entirely be dismissed eitherit may be too short a time to show up in any core samples. But that combination of caution and openness to the hypothetical as the evidence is examined is how science works best, I think. Better to keep an open mind about what evidence there is, IMHO, than dismiss it as yet another political trick or hype created by ambitious scientists. Okay, now we're way off topic, I suppose, so I'll shut up . .

Avid, great point. As someone who has spent his career as a member of the mediahold the spitballsI'll make two points: 1. Reporters/writers have jobs to do, and some are better than others. Some are lazy and some are not. All make mistakes. The problem, of course, is that their mistakes can cause a lot of damage because their jobs are so public. How many of us would like hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of people judge our job performance very single day? Teachers are in similar situations, though their audience is smaller. Politicians have public jobs, but they also have staffs to spin and protect them. Reporters can be their own worse enemies when they can't admit to mistakes or are not honest enough with themselves to control their own biases. I have filed stories that I just didn't have enough time to be 100 percent sure about and that probably shouldn't have run, but I hope they've been few and far between. 2. It's no secret that over the last ten years just about all forms of media have been consolidated until relatively few corporations now own most of it. This has exaggerated the "pack mentality" where everyone is covering the same stuff and fewer reporters are encouraged to take an original approach or to dig beyond the conventional wisdom. Bloggers have been trying to fill some of this void, but the quality there is wildly uneven. Bottom line (pun intended): more than ever, media outlets follow the money. My favorite example of this is morning TV shows. Half of their content is focused on promoting products (movies, other TV programs, books) put out by other arms of the same corporation. So you have a "news" show covering the lastest Survivor winner, etc. I don't mind right wing or left wing as much as I mind no wing: let people duke out the facts and opinions, but save us from all this marketing and empty content. Just my .02.