Pete Prisco's top 50 FA's

[zipster9]

I'd be happy with a a top CB or SF and Colston or Lloyd. The rest can be used for number crunching, plug in, value guys.

Offsense:

Meachem/Colston + Lloyd.


Defense:

Brooks + Samuel (if he wants back)

 

[TriplecHamp]

What game were you watching?
The defense let the Giants walk right down the field on the game ending drive.

Did they score? Love how everybody loved to point out how our D is bend but don't break and the whole 31st in yards thing didn't matter but then we flip the script when the season is over and try to act like our D wasn't giving up long drives and holding on all year long.
You want to say that isn't their fault because on the Patriots only drive all they did was take 6 minutes of the clock flip field position from -8 to +12 and would have iced the game if Welker didnt drop the pass?
So you acknowledge the Patriots offense had a chance to kill the game and they didn't, glad we have that out of the way.
Does a defense have any responsibility to make plays when the game is on the line in your world?
They forced a pair of fumbles the ball just didn't bounce their way. I agree that we need to make even more plays though. ONCE again the defense isn't great but they are what they are what they are and they kept us in the game the whole time. There is plenty of room for improvement but 17 points from our offense isn't going to cut it with this D. Throughout the season it never had and never did.
If they hadn't allowed a 50 yard time consuming drvie from the 8 yard line on the other possession Welkers catch wouldn't have been needed, and Brady would have had 3 1/2 minutes to get the game winning drive instead of 57 seconds.


Eli Manning in the 4th quarter was 10-14-118 and was sacked zero times.
Yeah, the D was great

every argument with you is one clusterfu*k of a strawman.

 

[Ring 6]

It is very difficult to respond to your statement when you put them within the quoted text. if you hit [ then quote the ] it will set off your comments so you dont need to bold

Did they score?

yes, easily

Love how everybody loved to point out how our D is bend but don't break and the whole 31st in yards thing didn't matter but then we flip the script when the season is over and try to act like our D wasn't giving up long drives and holding on all year long.

So your argument is that they shouldnt have to make a game winning stop because they were 31st in yards? Really?

So you acknowledge the Patriots offense had a chance to kill the game and they didn't, glad we have that out of the way.

What are you talking about? You want to argue the defense isn't blamable because the offense didn't make them unnecessary? When has anyone not acknowledged the game is over if Welker makes the catch. Talk about strawman.

They forced a pair of fumbles the ball just didn't bounce their way.

Is your standard so low you rejoice on coming close to making a play?

I agree that we need to make even more plays though. ONCE again the defense isn't great but they are what they are what they are and they kept us in the game the whole time. There is plenty of room for improvement but 17 points from our offense isn't going to cut it with this D. Throughout the season it never had and never did.

Why would you argue that the offense needs to be so good that we don't need a defense instead of making the defense better?

 

[Ring 6]

every argument with you is one clusterfu*k of a strawman.

How is it a strawman?
You said this

6 points, the giants scored 6 points in the 4th quater. Our Defense could be better but the fact is we couldn't score one damn time in the 4th quater and majority of the 3rd quater as well. The defense is a few players, health and a full offseason away from becoming top 10 in my opinion.

and that is exactly what I responded to.
Do you know what a strawman is?
It means I make up an argument you didnt make and pretend it was yours.
Please show me where I did that.

 

[TriplecHamp]

yes, easily

no they didn't they punted and pinned us deep

So your argument is that they shouldnt have to make a game winning stop because they were 31st in yards? Really?

my argument was that they did what they did all year. God forbid they give up a touchdown (willingly) after the giants make a few great plays. Would you have rather them held the Giants to 3 and give TB 20 seconds to work with?

What are you talking about? You want to argue the defense isn't blamable because the offense didn't make them unnecessary? When has anyone not acknowledged the game is over if Welker makes the catch. Talk about strawman.

blamable? Wins and losses aren't about pinning the blame on a single aspect like small minded people do. They come down to getting breaks and execution. The fact of the matter is the offense didn't execute nearly enough Whereas the Defense played above what they did throughout the season. Why you expected them to become a big play 3 and out team all of the sudden with the talent they have is beyond me.

Is your standard so low you rejoice on coming close to making a play?

Rejoice? Once again you over exaggerate every chance you get, its actually quite comical. You don't know football if you honestly believe that the way the ball bounces determines weather a defense did its job or not, they rolled with the punches and allowed 19 points to a potent Giants offense. If you wan't to put the game on them because of one drive than have fun trying to debate football with any with common sense

Why would you argue that the offense needs to be so good that we don't need a defense instead of making the defense better?

My turn to be you now. The offense needs to be so good that we score more than 21 goddamn points? That sho am an elite offense Andy. Sorry if thats too much to ask. By your logic, we could have scored 6 points and the defense pitched a shutout the whole game then on the final drive Eli makes a few plays and the giants put up 7 and win the game and the defense would be totally at fault./Andy Johnson logic

How is it a strawman?
You said this




and that is exactly what I responded to.
Do you know what a strawman is?
It means I make up an argument you didnt make and pretend it was yours.
Please show me where I did that.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

Do you really need me to show you where you use my general statements such as me stating the Defense is not to blame for the loss and you turning it around as me "rejoicing" in the defensive play? Do you really need me to do that for you Andy?

 

[Ring 6]

yes, easily

So your argument is that they shouldnt have to make a game winning stop because they were 31st in yards? Really?

What are you talking about? You want to argue the defense isn't blamable because the offense didn't make them unnecessary? When has anyone not acknowledged the game is over if Welker makes the catch. Talk about strawman.



Is your standard so low you rejoice on coming close to making a play?


Why would you argue that the offense needs to be so good that we don't need a defense instead of making the defense better?

My turn to be you now. The offense needs to be so good that we score more than 21 goddamn points? That sho am an elite offense Andy. Sorry if thats too much to ask. By your logic, we could have scored 6 points and the defense pitched a shutout the whole game then on the final drive Eli makes a few plays and the giants put up 7 and win the game and the defense would be totally at fault./Andy Johnson logic


Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you really need me to show you where you use my general statements such as me stating the Defense is not to blame for the loss and you turning it around as me "rejoicing" in the defensive play? Do you really need me to do that for you Andy?

You have to learn how to use the quote function. Now you have your comments in quotes and mine as if they are your post. Its unreadble.

And yes when your direct response to whehther you feel the defense is responsible to make a play in the clutch was they forced 2 fumbles but the ball didnt bounce to them you are certainly making the argument that this is something very positive for them. "Rejoicing" is poetic license with a bit of sarcasm, but far from a strawman, because you made the exact argument that those plays are the answer to my point that they failed to make a play in the clutch. You ARGUED that coming kinda close like that is enough.

 

[Ring 6]

ORLY? Because McCourty, Chung, Dowling, and Moore aren't talented players? They've all shown incredible talent (Dowling was considered the 2nd best CB in last years draft), it's consistency that's been the issue.

I guess we have a different definition of talent.
And our secondary had many more plays with Arrington, Brown, Ihedigbo, Barrett, Adams, Moulden, Edelman than with Dowling or Moore.

I also have no idea what talent you saw in Moore, other than enough to be borderline NFL caliber.

 

[Ring 6]

yes, easily

So your argument is that they shouldnt have to make a game winning stop because they were 31st in yards? Really?

What are you talking about? You want to argue the defense isn't blamable because the offense didn't make them unnecessary? When has anyone not acknowledged the game is over if Welker makes the catch. Talk about strawman.



Is your standard so low you rejoice on coming close to making a play?


Why would you argue that the offense needs to be so good that we don't need a defense instead of making the defense better?

My turn to be you now. The offense needs to be so good that we score more than 21 goddamn points? That sho am an elite offense Andy. Sorry if thats too much to ask. By your logic, we could have scored 6 points and the defense pitched a shutout the whole game then on the final drive Eli makes a few plays and the giants put up 7 and win the game and the defense would be totally at fault./Andy Johnson logic


Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you really need me to show you where you use my general statements such as me stating the Defense is not to blame for the loss and you turning it around as me "rejoicing" in the defensive play? Do you really need me to do that for you Andy?

By the way, if you can figure out how to correct this post so that your comments and mine are properly identified, I will respond to whats in it.

 

[TriplecHamp]

You have to learn how to use the quote function. Now you have your comments in quotes and mine as if they are your post. Its unreadble.

And yes when your direct response to whehther you feel the defense is responsible to make a play in the clutch was they forced 2 fumbles but the ball didnt bounce to them you are certainly making the argument that this is something very positive for them. "Rejoicing" is poetic license with a bit of sarcasm, but far from a strawman, because you made the exact argument that those plays are the answer to my point that they failed to make a play in the clutch. You ARGUED that coming kinda close like that is enough.

eh I hate breaking up text like that, I'd rather just make reply directly within the post and make the other person dealwithit. Its far from legible but somewhat confusing.

I believe you left off the second half of statement that their is room for improvement and we need to make more plays. The fact that two balls popped out and we weren't able to recover them is part of football but its not like they aren't capable of making plays. The fact of the matter is you're trying to play the blame game and you can't do that in the game of football but even if you wanted to its laughable that you woud blame the defense which was one of the worst all year long for doing what they did all year long. Our offense on the other hand did not play like the number 3 offense in the NFL.

By the way, if you can figure out how to correct this post so that your comments and mine are properly identified, I will respond to whats in it.

nah, you aren't that stupid. If you don't feel like coming up with your typical BS then don't.

 

[Ring 6]

eh I hate breaking up text like that, I'd rather just make reply directly within the post and make the other person dealwithit. Its far from legible but somewhat confusing.

Well we are just talking about being courteous and making it easy to have a discussion. Do what you want but I'm not going to weed through that long of a post trying to decipher where your comments are and where the ones you quoted are especially when you do it backward.

I believe you left off the second half of statement that their is room for improvement and we need to make more plays. The fact that two balls popped out and we weren't able to recover them is part of football but its not like they aren't capable of making plays.

Do you dispute the Giants marched right down the field with little resistance on the game deciding drive? They never even had to face a 3rd down in an 88 yard drive. There is no adjective this side of pathetic that can describe the defense on its most important drive of the season.

The fact of the matter is you're trying to play the blame game

No I am not, I am stating a fact.
My original comment, which has led to the entire exchange was

Sobering fact. By playing good 4th quarter defense we could have at least 3 more rings, maybe more.

That is not assessing blame it is stating a fact. One you seem to want to go into long winded responses to avoid directly agreeing or disagreeing with.
Becuase really, its impossible to honestly disagree with, so YOU are trying to 'play the blame game' to deflect that.
YOU responded to that by blaming the offense.

and you can't do that in the game of football but even if you wanted to its laughable that you woud blame the defense which was one of the worst all year long for doing what they did all year long. Our offense on the other hand did not play like the number 3 offense in the NFL.

Wait. You disagree that we would probably have 3 more rings with better 4th quarter defense on the grounds that the defense was bad in the regular season and the offense was good? Come on.

nah, you aren't that stupid. If you don't feel like coming up with your typical BS then don't.

It not a matter of smart of stupid, its a matter of me having to take your poorly laid out post, and redo it for you in order to respond. No thanks, what you said wasn't worth the time.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Do you dispute the Giants marched right down the field with little resistance on the game deciding drive? They never even had to face a 3rd down in an 88 yard drive. There is no adjective this side of pathetic that can describe the defense on its most important drive of the season.

They made some great plays, why is that so for you to except? Their tallent on offense excedes most defenses in the NFL. You're one of those "Giants didn't win it, Patriots lost it." types

No I am not, I am stating a fact.
My original comment, which has led to the entire exchange was

Sobering fact. By playing good 4th quarter defense we could have at least 3 more rings, maybe more.

That is not assessing blame it is stating a fact. One you seem to want to go into long winded responses to avoid directly agreeing or disagreeing with.
Becuase really, its impossible to honestly disagree with, so YOU are trying to 'play the blame game' to deflect that.
YOU responded to that by blaming the offense.

lol Its really impossible to argue with you because you make sh*t up. You point the finger at the defense and I say that football isn't a game where you can point fingers but if you wanted to its funny that you point it on the mediocre defense who gave up less points in this game than their season average against a much more potent QB and group of receiver as opposed to the 3rd ranked offense that scored far below their season average.

Wait. You disagree that we would probably have 3 more rings with better 4th quarter defense on the grounds that the defense was bad in the regular season and the offense was good? Come on.

probably? We probably would have 3 more rings if the ball bounced our way, we probably would have 3 more rings if the offensive line executed for 4 quarters, and if the receivers got open. This is seriously the dumbest argument I've had on this website. This is a clear example of you trying to play the blame game btw.

It not a matter of smart of stupid, its a matter of me having to take your poorly laid out post, and redo it for you in order to respond. No thanks, what you said wasn't worth the time.

you don't have to do **** but read and respond but you can't do that without making things up. If you aren't smart enough to know your words from mine maybe you should shut down the computer.

 

[Ring 6]

lol Its really impossible to argue with you because you make sh*t up.

I made nothing up
I made a statement that with better 4th quarter defense we would have won 3 more SBs.
You responded by blaming the offense and saying I was 'playing the blame game'
Those are the facts.

You point the finger at the defense and I say that football isn't a game where you can point fingers but if you wanted to its funny that you point it on the mediocre defense who gave up less points in this game than their season average against a much more potent QB and group of receiver as opposed to the 3rd ranked offense that scored far below their season average.

What does how good the offense and defense were in the regular season have to do with the fact that the defense in the 4th quarter turned a win into a loss?
Are you saying the defense shouldn't be expected to do anything, and Big Brother offense must wipe their ***** for them?

probably? We probably would have 3 more rings if the ball bounced our way, we probably would have 3 more rings if the offensive line executed for 4 quarters, and if the receivers got open. This is seriously the dumbest argument I've had on this website. This is a clear example of you trying to play the blame game btw.

You are speculating to try to assign blame.
I am saying that in 3 different seasons the defense took the field with the chance to win a SB (I'm assuming beating the colts in 06 would have led to a win over the Bears in the sb, right or wrong) and in all 3 cases they failed.
Its not placing blame, or analyzing fault, it is stating a fact.

you don't have to do **** but read and respond but you can't do that without making things up. If you aren't smart enough to know your words from mine maybe you should shut down the computer.

You have yet to show anything I made up, because I didn't.

If you arent smart enough to form a post that identifies to the reader which words are yours (Yours were under 'original post by Andy Johnson' and mine were in the text as if they were your post) then you shouldn't question someone elses intelligence.
I have no interest in correcting your post so that I can respond to it in an intelligible manner. If I quoted your post, I'd be responding to my post and your words wouldn't be there. Is that so hard for you to understand? You f-ed up the post, not me.

 

[Smokeeye123]

I guess we have a different definition of talent.
And our secondary had many more plays with Arrington, Brown, Ihedigbo, Barrett, Adams, Moulden, Edelman than with Dowling or Moore.

I also have no idea what talent you saw in Moore, other than enough to be borderline NFL caliber.

You really judge a rookie CB by 1 1/2 games? He got injured in the 2nd game of a shortened season...

The very implication that Edelman is better at corner/safety than Ras I Dowling is laughable.

 

[Ring 6]

You really judge a rookie CB by 1 1/2 games? He got injured in the 2nd game of a shortened season...

The very implication that Edelman is better at corner/safety than Ras I Dowling is laughable.

Where do you get that?
I said those players PLAYED MORE PLAYS than Dowling and Moore.
I didn't even come close to implying anything about Dowlings talent.

 

[ATippett56]

The very implication that Edelman is better at corner/safety than Ras I Dowling is laughable.

The implication that Edelman is a viable cornerback in the NFL is laughable.

 

[TriplecHamp]

I made nothing up
I made a statement that with better 4th quarter defense we would have won 3 more SBs.
You responded by blaming the offense and saying I was 'playing the blame game'
Those are the facts.

You don't know what happens if we have better 4th quater defense, you are speculating that everything else would remain the same. Let me say that again, you are SPECULATING. I can sit here and do the same thing and say if Welker catches every ball that hits his hands or even a more general statement like if the Pats offense played better we would have 3 more superbowls. Speculation is stupid. Keep playing the what if game if you want.

What does how good the offense and defense were in the regular season have to do with the fact that the defense in the 4th quarter turned a win into a loss?
Are you saying the defense shouldn't be expected to do anything, and Big Brother offense must wipe their ***** for them?

So now only offense can win and lose games by your logic. If we're up in the 4th quater and the other team wins the defense lost them the game. If were down and the other team wins it looks like the defense played poorly in the first 3 quarters and lost them the game.

You are speculating to try to assign blame.
I am saying that in 3 different seasons the defense took the field with the chance to win a SB (I'm assuming beating the colts in 06 would have led to a win over the Bears in the sb, right or wrong) and in all 3 cases they failed.
Its not placing blame, or analyzing fault, it is stating a fact.

You bring up the the whole 3 superbowls IF stuff and Im the one speculating.....not sure if trolling or incredibly stupid. What you are doing is exactly what we call placing the blame. You are taking one variable and saying that they are the reason we didn't win. I also love how you assume we beat the colts. You aren't speculating at all man.

You have yet to show anything I made up, because I didn't.

Thats because you drop it every time you're wrong. You talked about how the Giants had a long opening possession and I asked if they scored and you said yes when the Giants punted on their first possession.

If you arent smart enough to form a post that identifies to the reader which words are yours (Yours were under 'original post by Andy Johnson' and mine were in the text as if they were your post) then you shouldn't question someone elses intelligence.

confusing laziness with stupidity. The only reason I even tried to change it was because you were *****ing about how hard it was to respond to. Oh you!

I have no interest in correcting your post so that I can respond to it in an intelligible manner. If I quoted your post, I'd be responding to my post and your words wouldn't be there. Is that so hard for you to understand? You f-ed up the post, not me.

Yet Im in here deleting and adding quotation marks to make things easier for you. Cool.

 

[Ring 6]

The implication that Edelman is a viable cornerback in the NFL is laughable.

That is probably why no one implied it

 

[Ring 6]

You don't know what happens if we have better 4th quater defense, you are speculating that everything else would remain the same.

Absolutely not true, because I am talking about stopping the FINAL drive.

Let me say that again, you are SPECULATING. I can sit here and do the same thing and say if Welker catches every ball that hits his hands or even a more general statement like if the Pats offense played better we would have 3 more superbowls. Speculation is stupid. Keep playing the what if game if you want.

It isn't speculating. If they did not allow those TDs on those drives, they win.
There is no debate. If they make those stops, they win.

So now only offense can win and lose games by your logic. If we're up in the 4th quater and the other team wins the defense lost them the game. If were down and the other team wins it looks like the defense played poorly in the first 3 quarters and lost them the game.

When have I said at any point anyone lost us the game?
I am saying that if we had a defense that could stop 80 yard drives on the last drive of the game, we would have won 3 more SBs.
That would be true in a 7-6 games as well as a 99-98 game.
Only you are trying to ignore this clutch failure by trying to find blame elsewhere.

You bring up the the whole 3 superbowls IF stuff and Im the one speculating.....not sure if trolling or incredibly stupid.

Yes, you are speculating about what would have changed the outcome during the course of the game and I am saying if they could stop the final drive they win. There is no speculation involved there.

What you are doing is exactly what we call placing the blame.

Call it what you want, but you are wrong. At no point did I place blame, I simply stated that those stops happen and we win. ITs a fact.

You are taking one variable and saying that they are the reason we didn't win. I also love how you assume we beat the colts. You aren't speculating at all man.

If we stop the Colts on the last drive we win. Again, its a fact.

Thats because you drop it every time you're wrong. You talked about how the Giants had a long opening possession and I asked if they scored and you said yes when the Giants punted on their first possession.

You need to reread what you type. My statement that you quote and appears exactly before you asked if they scored was.
The defense let the Giants walk right down the field on the game ending drive
Please read back and acknowledge that, otherwise you are being disingenous.
I haven't dropped anything and I havent made anything up, which you basically just proved to be a true statement.

confusing laziness with stupidity. The only reason I even tried to change it was because you were *****ing about how hard it was to respond to. Oh you!

You are the one who started the stupidity argument.
I don't know what you want. There is an established method of posting that everyone but you follows. So you call me stupid because you write a post that can't be effectively responded to without reformatting the whole thing?
Now you are just trying to be a dlck.

Yet Im in here deleting and adding quotation marks to make things easier for you. Cool.

So you are doing me a favor by following the correct way to post?
Is it impossible for you to admit that you screwed up that post? Why would you insist on trying to use your mistake to throw jabs at me?

 

[TriplecHamp]

Absolutely not true, because I am talking about stopping the FINAL drive.

Patriots had a possession to answer the last score all 3 games that you're talking abut.

It isn't speculating. If they did not allow those TDs on those drives, they win.
There is no debate. If they make those stops, they win.

and if the offense scores more they win. You are speculating on what would happen if something didn't happen. Its just as fair if I speculate on another drive or another possession. Any logical person reading this would agree.


When have I said at any point anyone lost us the game?
I am saying that if we had a defense that could stop 80 yard drives on the last drive of the game, we would have won 3 more SBs.
That would be true in a 7-6 games as well as a 99-98 game.
Only you are trying to ignore this clutch failure by trying to find blame elsewhere.

If wes welker caught the ball we would have won the game, Im not blaming anyone though. Im just saying if we had an offense that could drive 80 yards on the last drive of the game we would have 8 more SBs.



Yes, you are speculating about what would have changed the outcome during the course of the game and I am saying if they could stop the final drive they win. There is no speculation involved there.
And if the offense could score they win, no speculation involved there.

Call it what you want, but you are wrong. At no point did I place blame, I simply stated that those stops happen and we win. ITs a fact.
lol wut?

If we stop the Colts on the last drive we win. Again, its a fact.
If Brady answers back we win. Again its a fact.



You need to reread what you type. My statement that you quote and appears exactly before you asked if they scored was.
The defense let the Giants walk right down the field on the game ending drive
Please read back and acknowledge that, otherwise you are being disingenous.
I haven't dropped anything and I havent made anything up, which you basically just proved to be a true statement.
I acknowledge that I misread your statement and I am wrong in my response to that statement alone. On the other hand you have made plenty up for example:

Sobering fact. By playing good 4th quarter defense we could have at least 3 more rings, maybe more.

That isn't a fact it's speculation. (what is "good" defense?)

You are the one who started the stupidity argument.
I don't know what you want. There is an established method of posting that everyone but you follows. So you call me stupid because you write a post that can't be effectively responded to without reformatting the whole thing?
Now you are just trying to be a dlck.

You're stupid if you can't differentiate your own words from mine thats a sobering fact. Even if you couldn't its not like my words aren't in the quotes. There's an established method of posting that everyone but me follows? lol Something else to add to your list of fairy tales.
So you are doing me a favor by following the correct way to post?
Is it impossible for you to admit that you screwed up that post? Why would you insist on trying to use your mistake to throw jabs at me?

 

[DonBlackmon55]

What game were you watching?
The defense let the Giants walk right down the field on the game ending drive.
You want to say that isn't their fault because on the Patriots only drive all they did was take 6 minutes of the clock flip field position from -8 to +12 and would have iced the game if Welker didnt drop the pass?
Does a defense have any responsiblilty to make plays when the game is on the line in your world?
If they hadn't allowed a 50 yard time consuming drvie from the 8 yard line on the other possession Welkers catch wouldn't have been needed, and Brady would have had 3 1/2 minutes to get the game winning drive instead of 57 seconds.


Eli Manning in the 4th quarter was 10-14-118 and was sacked zero times.
Yeah, the D was great

Stats are for losers.

Patriots D gave up 19 points in SB 46(Actually I would argue only 12 because of Bonehead Brady Safety which also resulted in D going right back out after they stopped Giants on 6 minute+ drive. Giants had the ball for 12 of 15 mins in 1st Quarter). They held Giants on 2 other Drives to FG, else the game would've been a blowout the way Pats offense was once again a no show

Patriots D gave up 17 points in SB 42

The Mighty Patriots offense scored combined 31 points in those SB's. Avg of 16.5

Only 4 SB's have ever been won with winning team scoring 16 points or less. Last one was 1975. Defense did its job in both games for 60 MINUTES AS BB says...two great catches(Tyree, Manningham) are what they are, great plays.

On the other hand the vaunted PAtriots "REGULAR SEASON STATS PADDED" offense, offensive coaches have laid a FAT ASS EGG both SB's, mentally, and game execution, and game planning.

They scored 14 and 17 and lost both SB's, deservedly so.

IN SB 42 it was because they forced everything and it was Wlker and Moss only show.

In SB46 the offense again got exposed. Piled up nice stats during season but poor depth at WR position completely exposed the team once Giants knew Gronk was a decoy.

This is why more WR depth is needed - to have a balanced team

You keep spewing out same garbage that D could not stop the last drive. Give it a rest - you make no sense