David Boston!

My San Diego Chargers just signed David Boston! Wow I am all warm and fuzzy inside, this is the best player I have seen an SD team sign since the Padres got Kevin Brown from the Marlins. Anyways if you can't tell I am pretty happy about it, and I think we will definately make the playoffs next year with the additions we are making.

Wow, that''s a hell of a grab. Could be the key to make San Diego a Super Bowl contender. Too bad for Arizona though, who lost both Boston and Plumber. Looks like they could give Detroit a run for the worst team in the NFL now.

"Elysium" wrote:

Wow, that''s a hell of a grab. Could be the key to make San Diego a Super Bowl contender. Too bad for Arizona though, who lost both Boston and Plumber. Looks like they could give Detroit a run for the worst team in the NFL now.

Phenoix is run by morons. They should have never let the snake go.

Denver is looking a lot better.

San Diego has a team?

If the Bears get Kordell Stewart (like they probably will), I think we can give Arizona and Detroit a run for their money.

[edit] Oooooooh. You''re not arguing that Kordell will save the Bears. Good, +5 credibility back to you

By the way, have you seen my avatar''s hat? It''s green and has a ''G''. The ''G'' stands for Great.

Not to nitpick, Elysium, but I think asands2''s point was that Kordell Stewart will give Ari and Det a run for ""NFL''s Lousiest Team""... thus meaning the opposite of what you interpreted.

Wow, you''re right. I''d gotten so used to his innane ramblings about the certain and positive future of the Bears, that I missed that point.

The Bears could have had Bledsoe for a first round pick. Now they are going for Kordell? Someone needs to be fired.

2002 Comparison

Bledsoe: 4359 Yards Passing: 61.5 Completion %: 26 total TD''s: 2002 Pro Bowl

Kordell: Let''s just say if he didn''t suck so bad he could have played the whole year.

I must be into S&M because I am a Cardinals FAN. I honestly think they are trying SUPER hard to be a worse franchise than the Bungles in Cincy.

I understand letting Plummer go, but Boston was the real deal. Guy was built like a horse, but nimble like a cat. Now we lost two top starters and have no one to even show for it. I think other teams would have at least tried to sign and trade.

Blah, Go Cardinals....

At least my boyz snatched up the Snake... Muhahahha, Arizona!

Go Broncies!

Let''s hope for the Chargers that Boston is off ""the blow"" and knows better to get behind the wheel after 20 too many.

Awesome player, but he KILLED me in fantasy football last year. Damn you illegal drugs...DAMN YOU!!

He was injured last year, I don''t think the illegal drugs had anything to do with missed games. Also getting a DUI these days is not hard or unusual for young people these days. I think he will be fine, but the Chargers supposedly covered themselves by having a stipulation in his contract that he doesn''t get paid if he misses games for that sort of stuff.

yea, unfortunately I know all too well the saga of David Boston last year. He was my second round pick, and I came soooo close to taking Marvin Harrison, but thought Boston would have a huge year. Instead I got a bum knee, some cocaine, and some alcohol.

I think I know what you mean about the DUI''s, but it sounds funny how you state it ""Also getting a DUI these days is not hard or unusual for young people these days"" I''m sure a lot of old people do too, but regardless of age or anything else doesn''t make it any better. I''ve been no saint when it comes to this in the past, but I think it''s a little more serious than how you state it. Hell, he''s rich, get a limo or something!

We had a super talented receiver here in New England named Terry Glenn...all the talent in the world but couldn''t get his head out of his ass. Let''s hope it doesn''t happen to Boston, he''s a stud and when healthy and clean is one of the best in the games.

You know what tho? If the Pats signed him, I would have said...Cocaine, DUI...who cares!!!

I think I know what you mean about the DUI''s, but it sounds funny how you state it ""Also getting a DUI these days is not hard or unusual for young people these days"" I''m sure a lot of old people do too, but regardless of age or anything else doesn''t make it any better. I''ve been no saint when it comes to this in the past, but I think it''s a little more serious than how you state it.

I agree. Driving under the influence, whether you are young, old or a celebrity is serious. If you''re caught once... fines, impisonment, community service, etc. If you''re caught a second time, you should be pulled over and immediately shot.

And yet, here in Minnesota, we recently had a news story about some reject that had been picked up on his 23rd DUI violation. He said he planned to drive as soon as he was released.

I never said it wasn''t serious, but the fact is I have a DUI and know quite a few peole in their 20''s that have them as well. I Drank 3 beers one night drove home got pulled over for something stupid. Had I been 21 I would have been fine, but I was 19 at the time. Anyway the point is there really needs to be some kind of level of DUI, at least here in California. I mean you basically get the same punishment for driving after drinking 3 beers as someone who is falling down drunk.

I am not aware of the specifics of Boston''s DUI but it is still a misdemeanor violation which can happen to anyone that drinks alcohol even in moderation. In my DUI classes there was one person who got a DUI because he had taken Nyquil, another 50+ year old man who got one after drinking 2 glasses of wine with dinner, and one who was there because he decided he would sleep in his car but since the keys were in the cab with him and he was intoxicated it was considered a DUI. To further complicate things, even if you are under the legal limit you can still get a DUI if the cop thinks you are under the influence. I think driving under the influence of alchohol is a serious issue but at the same time I also think the law is being taken advantage of by local governments to produce a large amount of revenue.

The cocaine on the other hand.... well it didn''t affect Michael Irvin.

And yet, here in Minnesota, we recently had a news story about some reject that had been picked up on his 23rd DUI violation. He said he planned to drive as soon as he was released.

Here in California after your third DUI it becomes a felony and they force you to pay to have a device installed in your car that will not allow you to start your car until you breathe into it and it verifies there is no alcohol on your breath.

<disclaimer>I swear Stric9, I''m not judging you for your past. This is just my position on the matter.</disclaimer>

Here in California after your third DUI it becomes a felony and they force you to pay to have a device installed in your car that will not allow you to start your car until you breathe into it and it verifies there is no alcohol on your breath.

GREAT! I wish we had something similar in Minnesota. I''m not going to preach, and I''m not going to judge, but I have _no_ sympathy for repeat DUI offenders. None. I honestly have no interest in someone that self-centered being a part of society. I say after a third DUI they should remove your license permanently, maintain a federal database of repeat DUI offenders to prevent them from obtaining licenses in another state, and if caught behind the wheel again have a mandatory 20 year federal felony prison sentence. Ok, maybe I''m going to preach a little bit....

With that said, I''m also a firm believer in helping people who need help, and would support free alcohol and substance abuse programs for those convicted of a DUI and who want counseling. Then again, I''m one of those crazy spend, spend, spend liberals so, go figure. It makes a difference when you know someone who lost a loved one because someone had a couple of beers and thought they were fine to drive home.

Anyway the point is there really needs to be some kind of level of DUI, at least here in California. I mean you basically get the same punishment for driving after drinking 3 beers as someone who is falling down drunk.

Personally, I disagree. There is a level of DUI, a line at which it is scientifically proven that your ability to operate a motor vehicle is seriously impaired. When you (the general you, no one particular) are at a point that you are a hazard to others on the road, then I don''t care if you''re blitzed or just tipsy, you should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle. Despite what you see on ''Worlds Worst Drivers'' and the like, the majority of drunk drivers who cause serious harm to themselves or others did not feel they were drunk when they took the wheel, had only drank in ''moderation'', and did not think they were impaired.

Too many people think driving a vehicle is a right.

In my DUI classes there was one person who got a DUI because he had taken Nyquil, another 50+ year old man who got one after drinking 2 glasses of wine with dinner, and one who was there because he decided he would sleep in his car but since the keys were in the cab with him and he was intoxicated it was considered a DUI.

These sound mysteriously like a lot of urban legends. I''m not saying they didn''t tell you this was their case, but I''ve heard a lot of people with DUIs justify themselves, and often stray from reality.

Can you tell you hit one of my buttons?

I totally agree with you about repeat DUI defenders. I also agree with the California law I posted above. My main point which I realize I forgot to mention in my rambling, is that David Boston should not be vilified as being a bad person simply because he has a DUI. Especially when we have people like Ray Caruth and Jayson Williams to deal with.

One other note there is no ''scientific'' point at which a driver is impaired, alcohol affects different people in different ways. That is why here in CA the police can still arrest and convict you of DUI even if you are below the legal limit. Not to mention the legal limit is different in different states.

On the one hand I do think that coming down too hard on people is better than coming down to soft. I mean you defiinately learn your lesson. Also supposedly in Arizona they do have a much stiffer penalty if you are over twice the legal limit, again something I completely agree with.

These sound mysteriously like a lot of urban legends.

Ok so you caught me :oops:, two of these were related to us by the teacher of the class as students she had previously had in the class. However I see little reason to doubt her as she has seen tons of people with DUI''s and is being paid by the people who were prosecuting me. The old guy with the 2 glasses of wine was in my class however. His story was he pulled over to look at a map and the cop pulled him over for driving on the shoulder.

There is a level of DUI, a line at which it is scientifically proven that your ability to operate a motor vehicle is seriously impaired. When you (the general you, no one particular) are at a point that you are a hazard to others on the road, then I don''t care if you''re blitzed or just tipsy, you should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle.

I personally feel you shouldn,t be behind the wheel after a SINGLE beer. In the UK the limits one beer now and its going to be 0 beers shortly and I for one am damn glad, if I''m driving I don''t even touch alcohol at all.

is that David Boston should not be vilified as being a bad person simply because he has a DUI. Especially when we have people like Ray Caruth and Jayson Williams to deal with.

This, I completely agree with. People make mistakes.

In the UK the limits one beer now and its going to be 0 beers shortly

So are they going to arrest all catholics as they leave church? Or maybe just the priests?