• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

857 Excellent

About Gally

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Minnesota Vikings

Recent Profile Visitors

3,409 profile views
  1. I agree it was a bad move and one I wouldn't make...especially giving up an additional pick....however having Barkley over DJ isn't going to make a bit of difference especially if you don't think Barkley is all that and DJ is a stud. No doubt the owner isn't a good owner regardless.
  2. I assume you mean weird for the Yotes. Kings aren't going anywhere this year and Kuemper was a UFA at the end of the year so moving him for an upside play at Reider seems like a good risk to take. You at least get something for a commodity that basically expires at the trade deadline. Not sure why the Yotes wanted Kuemper but they obviously wanted him beyond this year as they extended him right away.
  3. I am not assuming either side. I am just giving a plausible reason that someone would think DJ is better than the 1.01 (Barkley) pick regardless of team situation. If you don't think Barkley is all that and you think DJ will be a stud for the next 3-4 years then I can see where moving the 1.01 for DJ makes sense even in a rebuild. You may disagree with that being the case (DJ a stud for the next 3-4 years) but that is a plausible reason for making the move.
  4. You are assuming that Barkley will be a top 5 RB for the next 3-5 years. There is no guarantee that will happen and at least DJ has had two years of putting up good numbers in the NFL. He has shown he can be a top 5 RB in the NFL and he doesn't have the miles to think he will fall off a cliff in 1-2 years. If you aren't sold on Barkley being a 100% top 5 RB for the next 3-5 years and you believe that DJ is then I would say regardless of your team situation the 1.01 and DJ are equivalent commodities. If I was in his shoes I would have help the 1.01 until closer to the draft as the price will continue to go up as everyone wants the shiny new toy. But I don't think making this move if you aren't sold on Barkley and are sold on DJ is a bad move.
  5. I disagree. Guns aren't the root cause of the violence.
  6. I am not objecting to anything. Just stating in order for anything to truly change a root cause has to be found. The tool of the violence isn't the reason for the violence.
  7. I never said you have to forgo simple efforts and realize that the root cause is a complex thing to figure out. I just don't see much discussion on getting to the root cause. It's just ban guns on one side and don't ban guns on the other side. This issue seems to muddle any true discussion to get at a root cause.
  8. I know I am not saying anything new. That wasn't my point. Root cause doesn't seem to be of concern to the ban guns side. Taking away a tool doesn't address the root cause of why the tragedy is occurring in the first place. Sure it may be low hanging fruit that may make it more difficult for the perpetrator but it doesn't address why it's happening.
  9. I didn't give any reasons so I am not sure where your "third reason" came from. I just simply stated to solve a problem in most industries you have to find the root cause of the problem. I agree that information is lacking to get to the root cause but that should be the first step. If you never find the root cause removing tools will not stop the problem. Do you believe AR-15's to be the root cause of these mass shootings? Without the AR-15's there would be no more mass shootings? If that is your belief regarding the root cause then I would agree with your approach that banning the AR-15 will eliminate all mass shootings. However, I don't believe that to be the root cause so just getting rid of the tool won't stop anything. Society is broken. Too many people don't seem to have any issues with opening fire on a group of people and killing as many as possible. To me this is the issue and root cause. Why do people feel the need to do this? Fame? Depression? Bullying? That is what needs to be studied and solved for this issue to go away.
  10. Typically in most industries when you have something go wrong the first thing that is done is an analysis to find the root cause because if you take care of that the issue goes away. However, for mass shootings everyone jumps straight to the tool being used instead of trying to figure out the root cause and solve that issue. Is that because the root cause is too difficult to figure out? Or because it's just easier to say ban guns?
  11. But that is a key component to the worth of a QB. Bradford has shown he cannot play 16 games and has a chronic knee issue that isn't going away. He has no mobility. I would put Bradford (factoring in all aspects) well below Cousins as a QB at this point.
  12. Health. That is a huge concern with Bradford and why I wouldn't want to rely on him or pay anywhere near what he will probably be asking for. His knee is shot and will be a chronic problem and it would not surprise me if he never plays a 16 game season.
  13. I think the point he was trying to make is that nobody of sound mind wakes up one day and says, hey I am going to kill a bunch of people today. There are signs, history, decisions, comments, etc that show these people are not mentally stable. They may not meet the classic legal definition of "mentally ill" but they do have issues and warning signs before it escalates to the mass shooting. Stating very few mass shooters are mentally ill is not really staying in reality either.
  14. I can almost guarantee he doesn't have $20M in the bank.....
  15. I think the crux of the argument is "mass" killings. The ban on assault rifle movement is trying to cut down on the mass killings. I don't think most are overly concerned with the total number of death by guns.