Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement! Henry, lifted from your previous post, lifted from my previous post, "You: "McCown has earned the starter role, not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting in the last game we would have won, but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into." Me: What you are saying is, because Josh McCown had a full week to practice, unlike Seneca Wallace, he's better than Cutler...."prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into", implying that Cutler doesn't prepare himself? If so, then...wow You:"You made the implication Cutler isn't prepared." I'm sure you can see your response to mine, SHOWS you didn't understand what I was saying." You're damn right I don't know what you're saying because when my adult brain tries to comprehend it, it is flummoxed by how illogical it is. Not to get too pedantic here but I wrote a sentence. In it I stated that "not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting in the last game we would have won, but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into." You, like a child, ripped the last section from the whole sentence, compared it to one game-the one game McCown had prepped specifically for, ignoring the redskins game and lions game into which he was brought in cold, then you throw Jay Cutler and Seneca Wallace into the mix, and then you insinuate that I made the implication that Cutler doesn't prepare himself. Where did I make the implication? Please point it out for me. Yes, after all of this occurred I gave him shit about the prp just to #$%^ with you. Henry, you open your response with "What you are saying is," There couldn't be a better example of where the confusion lies here. What it should say is, "What I think you are saying is," There is a big difference. One puts words in mouth, totally misconstrued ones by the way, and the other tacitly states your opinion of my statement without sounding completely illogical and pathologically inept because of how far from the truth you are. In case you were wondering what I was saying I'll paste it one more time and maybe this time the whole sentence, the complete sentence with all the thoughts and ideas contained within it will sink through your thick skull to the little hamster riding his wheel. Here it is Henry, Big boy sentence: McCown has earned the starter role, not only because of his play and that we beat green bay in green bay and that had he been starting the last game we would have won(like we did this week), but because he was prepared and ready for any situation he's been thrown into. Oh Henry! No pun intended...Here you go again. I'll let you take this one up with everybody else on this forum. Blood Doping, just in case anybody was wondering: 1) You draw the athlete’s blood, centrifuge it (i.e. rotate it) at high speed, separating the red blood cells (RBC) from the plasma. 2) Your body will produce its own red blood cells to compensate from your blood loss. 3) You store the packed red blood cells in a refrigerator or freezer (RBC have a 120 day lifecycle). 4) Then just before competition, you re-inject the red blood cells back into your body. PRP 1.) You draw the athlete's blood, centrifuge it at high speed, separating the red blood cells from the plasma. 2.) You take the platelet rich plasma (prp) 3.) You inject it into the wounded area to accelerate healing time I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions. Is prp legal? Yes. Is this experimental? Yes. If this was under more scrutiny would it be considered doping? I think so. Sounds pretty damn similar to doping to me. Does it enhance your performance? Unfortunately for Jay Cutler it does not make you throw less interceptions.