Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

I worry too much. Update: Trump got thumped

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Agreed.  

I don't think there's much real discussion for the question of "Did you do this 100% on your own with zero help?"  

Public schools, police force, firefighters, roads, and a ton of other things. 

But that's where people seem to want to stay on this argument. It's more "fun" to argue it's an either/or situation. I don't think that's reality.

I think there IS real discussion as to "how much help" did a person have.

Warning - broad generalizations ahead:

Typically, the folks for small government think the balance tilts way more toward the successful people being responsible. They feel their success comes mostly from their ingenuity or talent or hard work and people who disagree are lazy and want things handed to them. 

Typically, the folks for more government think the balance tilts way more toward the government being responsible. They feel the successful people's success comes mostly from others and the government's help and the successful people who disagree are arrogant, privileged and ungrateful.  

Where the balance actually lies and how best to manage it can be good discussion I think. 

I think this is generally fair but I’d also add that there’s an enormous part of success and failure that comes neither from the government nor from an individual’s work ethic, etc.  I will call it “luck” although that may be interpreted too narrowly.  People can have different views about who should receive the benefits and drawbacks of luck - from my perspective both good luck and bad luck should be shared more widely among people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think this is generally fair but I’d also add that there’s an enormous part of success and failure that comes neither from the government nor from an individual’s work ethic, etc.  I will call it “luck” although that may be interpreted too narrowly.  People can have different views about who should receive the benefits and drawbacks of luck - from my perspective both good luck and bad luck should be shared more widely among people.

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

I agree but would add that folks for more government also feel that people that experience success, particularly those on the very top, have had it handed to them through generational wealth and connections. 

For sure. That's what I meant by privileged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think this can be a super interesting discussion.

To take a football example, reading about Sean Payton talking about Drew Brees today caught my eye.

Saints coach Sean Payton on what he has learned in 12 seasons side-by-side with Drew Brees, the NFL’s all-time leader in passing yards.

Quote

 

“So what has Drew taught me?”

Pause. Four, five seconds.

“Mental preparation. Every young quarterback should see what he does to prepare for a game. It’s extraordinary.

“The time he takes to play the game in his mind has been a revelation to me. In his first year [2006] he’s still coming back from his major shoulder surgery, and he’s working so hard to get every edge he can. So we have our bye, and I’m in the office on Sunday afternoon, and I look out onto the practice field, and there’s this one guy, alone.

“True story. The field’s a little far away, and I can’t see who this is, but he’s out there with a football, dropping back and I’d guess you’d call it simulating playing football—playing quarterback. So I go out there. It’s Drew, totally alone. I say, ‘What are you doing out here? It’s the bye. You’re off!’ He says, ‘I wanted to get my game in. I wanted to stay on my schedule, and this is the day and time we’d be playing.’ He’s just out there, you understand, playing against nobody, running through our plays, playing the game mentally.

“I say, ‘Who’s winning?’ He smiles and says, ‘We are.’

“I get in the car. And I thought, ‘I’m glad he’s mine.’

More here from Payton

“So what do you learn from this story? His passion for perfection is off the charts. It rubs off on the guys he plays with. It has made us better every single year. I think these teammates become better players than they’re supposed to be. Every week he’ll take the top 15 to 20 plays in the game plan, plays he’s almost sure we’ll run. And he’ll go through every one mentally. He’ll think how he’ll go to his first option, then go through it again and think how he’ll go to the second option, and then again with the third option, ad nauseum. Is that the right word—ad nauseum? He believes in the power of visually seeing something, and every possible option on a route. On the play where he set the [passing-yards] record, the throw to Tre’Quan Smith for the 62-yard touchdown, I can tell you, we worked on that all week, and we never thought the ball was going to Tre’Quan. But he was open, Drew threw it, and it was the right choice. He throws to the guy who’s open. Who was the guy who wrote that book, ‘Throw Me The Damn Ball?’ “

Keyshawn Johnson, he was told.

“Probably wouldn’t have worked with Drew.

“I have also learned another thing from Drew—faith. Back in 2006, we were all-in on Drew. But it was tough. Our city was half destroyed, and he was coming back from this huge shoulder surgery. And our team wasn’t good. Basically, our city and our team were both startups. It reminded me of that scene in ‘Jerry Maguire,’ where Tom Cruise quits that big agent firm to go off on his own. There was that great scene where he storms out and says, ‘Who’s coming with me!’ And here’s Renee Zellweger, kind of meekly, saying, ‘I’ll go with you.’ That was exactly us. And Drew saw our city and our team as sort of a calling, I think. He had faith in us, and we had faith in him.

“One of the most incredible memories of my coaching life comes from that first year. I come in one day and the message light on my phone is on, and I pick it up and I don’t remember exactly what it said, but it was something like this: Sean, this is coach Bill Walsh. I wanted to tell you how much I enjoy watching what you’re doing on offense—the precision, the timing, the discipline. There aren’t many offenses I enjoy, but yours is one. For a young coach like me, wow. We played phone tag after that, and I never got to talk to him about it, which is sad. He died the next year.

“Drew is such a big part of it all. He demands everyone be committed. His dedication, that’s something everyone can learn from.”

 

 

 

 

Bottom line, clearly Brees works super hard. Maybe he works harder than the other QBs. Payton thinks so. So to say Bree's success is just luck or privilege or not his doing, is dead wrong.

Throw in other players. Peyton Manning was clearly more privileged than Brees. He was throwing to NFL WRs in practice as a teenager. And was more gifted physically. Nothing wrong with having a Dad that's an NFL QB. But one can't deny the advantage.

Other players might be more physically gifted than both. But have more obstacles in other areas.

There was an article not long ago about how the near mandatory high school QB camps are so expensive, lots of players are weeded out financially in high school.

It's all intertwined.

So saying Brees isn't responsible is wrong. Saying Brees did it all on his own is wrong as well. Truth lies in the balance I think. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Agreed.  

I don't think there's much real discussion for the question of "Did you do this 100% on your own with zero help?"  

Public schools, police force, firefighters, roads, and a ton of other things. 

But that's where people seem to want to stay on this argument. It's more "fun" to argue it's an either/or situation. I don't think that's reality.

I think there IS real discussion as to "how much help" did a person have.

Warning - broad generalizations ahead:

Typically, the folks for small government think the balance tilts way more toward the successful people being responsible. They feel their success comes mostly from their ingenuity or talent or hard work and people who disagree are lazy and want things handed to them. 

Typically, the folks for more government think the balance tilts way more toward the government being responsible. They feel the successful people's success comes mostly from others and the government's help and the successful people who disagree are arrogant, privileged and ungrateful.  

Where the balance actually lies and how best to manage it can be good discussion I think. 

Yeah, I’m not sure people even disagree on what actual things society does that contribute to individuals’ successes, they just disagree on how big a deal those things are.  

The roads and bridges bit is a good example. Everyone agrees that the country paid for a highway system and roads and bridges, I’d say anyone who ships things over land could not possibly do that without them, many would say that’s not a significant contribution to the individual business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

Yeah, I’m not sure people even disagree on what actual things society does that contribute to individuals’ successes, they just disagree on how big a deal those things are.  

The roads and bridges bit is a good example. Everyone agrees that the country paid for a highway system and roads and bridges, I’d say anyone who ships things over land could not possibly do that without them, many would say that’s not a significant contribution to the individual business. 

Which is patently ridiculous for anyone who ships things over land to truly believe and/or being willfully obtuse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

I do think this can be a super interesting discussion.

To take a football example, reading about Sean Payton talking about Drew Brees today caught my eye.

Saints coach Sean Payton on what he has learned in 12 seasons side-by-side with Drew Brees, the NFL’s all-time leader in passing yards.

 

Bottom line, clearly Brees works super hard. Maybe he works harder than the other QBs. Payton thinks so. So to say Bree's success is just luck or privilege or not his doing, is dead wrong.

Throw in other players. Peyton Manning was clearly more privileged than Brees. He was throwing to NFL WRs in practice as a teenager. And was more gifted physically. Nothing wrong with having a Dad that's an NFL QB. But one can't deny the advantage.

Other players might be more physically gifted than both. But have more obstacles in other areas.

There was an article not long ago about how the near mandatory high school QB camps are so expensive, lots of players are weeded out financially in high school.

It's all intertwined.

So saying Brees isn't responsible is wrong. Saying Brees did it all on his own is wrong as well. Truth lies in the balance I think. 

As you may or may not know, I'm a huge Saints fan.  As a result :cracksknuckles: I feel pretty good about saying you're absolutely right that Brees is a perfect example.  Including in one really key area: the way we pretend someone doesn't have the kind of advantages he really does because it makes a better story if he doesn't.

"Manning was more gifted physically."

I wholeheartedly disagree with this.  He's bigger.  That's not the end of the story.  People think of Brees as some guy who doesn't have massive physical gifts, and that's really not the case.  The narrative around him (scrappy hard worker who wasn't as gifted physically) is, in a word, bullpucky.  Drew Brees beat Andy Roddick at tennis.  Twice.  (Yes, they were kids and yes he was 2 years older, but Roddick is the former #1 tennis player in the world.)  

He's 6' tall and he can dunk a basketball at 39 years old.

He lettered in three different sports in high school at a school that's known for its sports, and in fact almost was a baseball player not an NFL QB.  His father and grandfather were college athletes.  His little brother played in a college world series.

When we say Manning is more physically gifted, we mean he's taller.  Drew Brees is one of the most physically gifted athletes of this century.  We just don't say that because he's the plucky underdog who plays QB at 6' tall.  

He works his butt off, and that's why he's potentially the best there's ever been in a lot of categories, including accuracy.  He certainly belongs in the conversation given that he's going to own virtually every record a QB can get in the NFL for lifetime greatness.  But he's exceptionally physically gifted.  I would argue that other than height, moreso than Manning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't we be trying to develope ways to have it easy and prosperous without having to work our butts off? You hard working types are necessary for now but in a just and future society you'd just be super annoying. I'm not joking about this even a little.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

As you may or may not know, I'm a huge Saints fan.  As a result :cracksknuckles: I feel pretty good about saying you're absolutely right that Brees is a perfect example.  Including in one really key area: the way we pretend someone doesn't have the kind of advantages he really does because it makes a better story if he doesn't.

"Manning was more gifted physically."

I wholeheartedly disagree with this.  He's bigger.  That's not the end of the story.  People think of Brees as some guy who doesn't have massive physical gifts, and that's really not the case.  The narrative around him (scrappy hard worker who wasn't as gifted physically) is, in a word, bullpucky.  Drew Brees beat Andy Roddick at tennis.  Twice.  (Yes, they were kids and yes he was 2 years older, but Roddick is the former #1 tennis player in the world.)  

He's 6' tall and he can dunk a basketball at 39 years old.

He lettered in three different sports in high school at a school that's known for its sports, and in fact almost was a baseball player not an NFL QB.  His father and grandfather were college athletes.  His little brother played in a college world series.

When we say Manning is more physically gifted, we mean he's taller.  Drew Brees is one of the most physically gifted athletes of this century.  We just don't say that because he's the plucky underdog who plays QB at 6' tall.  

He works his butt off, and that's why he's potentially the best there's ever been in a lot of categories, including accuracy.  He certainly belongs in the conversation given that he's going to own virtually every record a QB can get in the NFL for lifetime greatness.  But he's exceptionally physically gifted.  I would argue that other than height, moreso than Manning.

Cool. Had no idea you were a Saints fan. Good for you and I don't mean to argue against Brees. For quarterbacks, as you know, height is a huge factor. I don't think you can say any QB that's 5' 11 is exceptionally physically gifted. It's not quite "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" but it's not far.  With Brees though, clearly, he's managed to be ok. (Giant sarcasm there. Brees and Brady are my two votes for best of all time).

Regardless, you know what I mean. Brees overcame obstacles. On his own. Some obstacles like height he was born with. Some like the major shoulder injury were dealt later. He worked his butt off. And continues to work his butt off. I've heard multiple sources echo Payton here on his mental preparedness is off the charts. That's on him.

And that's straying from the point.  When people don't acknowledge the work he did on his own, it feels like when someone says the successful business guy is only there because of all the advantages he was handed and he didn't really do it on his own.

Similar idea. 

Hope the Saints go all the way this year. I'm a fan too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 0:22 AM, irishidiot said:

He has no conception of work or the common man grinding out a living, day in day out.  He was groomed for politics & uses the same old tired crap.  Tax the rich because they are screwing you  over.  it is not your fault-----here some money-let's make this thing right, Oh and by the way vote for us. 

He has no conception of reality for the middle class & he tries to be the champion of them.   Actually not many elected officials do! 

There is not one single fact in that mess. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Shouldn't we be trying to develope ways to have it easy and prosperous without having to work our butts off? You hard working types are necessary for now but in a just and future society you'd just be super annoying. I'm not joking about this even a little.

That dives into Universal Basic Income and is worth discussion on both sides I think.  I'm not well versed in it but I think it's a fascinating topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Shouldn't we be trying to develope ways to have it easy and prosperous without having to work our butts off? You hard working types are necessary for now but in a just and future society you'd just be super annoying. I'm not joking about this even a little.

Capitalism needs an unending labor to supply to exploit, now the expense to extract natural resources are all that's left. Capital needs hard work to be labor's mantra to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Cool. Had no idea you were a Saints fan. Good for you and I don't mean to argue against Brees. For quarterbacks, as you know, height is a huge factor. I don't think you can say any QB that's 5' 11 is exceptionally physically gifted. It's not quite "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" but it's not far.  With Brees though, clearly, he's managed to be ok. (Giant sarcasm there. Brees and Brady are my two votes for best of all time).

Regardless, you know what I mean. Brees overcame obstacles. On his own. Some obstacles like height he was born with. Some like the major shoulder injury were dealt later. He worked his butt off. And continues to work his butt off. I've heard multiple sources echo Payton here on his mental preparedness is off the charts. That's on him.

And that's straying from the point.  When people don't acknowledge the work he did on his own, it feels like when someone says the successful business guy is only there because of all the advantages he was handed and he didn't really do it on his own.

Similar idea. 

Hope the Saints go all the way this year. I'm a fan too. 

Oh, I get it.  And I agree.  I also think there are two ways of taking that sentence:

1. He's only there because of all the advantages he was handed.  "The only reason he scored is because daddy made sure he started on third base."

2. He's only there because of all the advantages he was handed. "He'd still be doing well, but he wouldn't be a billionaire if he hadn't inherited $500 million."

And as far as Brees' height... 

Yes, the prototype is 6'4.  But for instance in 2016:

Garoppolo, Wilson, Fitzpatrick, Brees, Bridgewater, Rodgers, Prescott, Griffin, Dalton, Tyrod Taylor were all 6'2" and under.  At least two and potentially more of the players listed for that season as 6'2" and under are probably going into the hall of fame.

Brees is listed at 6' - Aaron Rodgers at 6'2". The suggestion that 2"-4" of height is more important for being "physically gifted" than the hand-eye coordination and footwork needed to beat a future #1 tennis player in the world or the athletic ability to dunk a basketball when the hoop is four feet taller than you are doesn't sit all that well with me. 

Philip Rivers is 6'5" and I absolutely do not consider him more physically gifted than Brees.  Brees changed people's minds in the NFL about what "physically gifted" means, in my opinion.  In the right direction.

Edit: and as far as injuries, his high school knee injury was one of the first major obstacles - nobody even thought he'd fully come back from that.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Oh, I get it.  And I agree.  I also think there are two ways of taking that sentence:

1. He's only there because of all the advantages he was handed.  "The only reason he scored is because daddy made sure he started on third base."

2. He's only there because of all the advantages he was handed. "He'd still be doing well, but he wouldn't be a billionaire if he hadn't inherited $500 million."

And as far as Brees' height... 

Yes, the prototype is 6'4.  But for instance in 2016:

Garoppolo, Wilson, Fitzpatrick, Brees, Bridgewater, Rodgers, Prescott, Griffin, Dalton, Tyrod Taylor were all 6'2" and under.  At least two and potentially more of the players listed for that season as 6'2" and under are probably going into the hall of fame.

Brees is listed at 6' - Aaron Rodgers at 6'2". The suggestion that 2"-4" of height is more important for being "physically gifted" than the hand-eye coordination and footwork needed to beat a future #1 tennis player in the world or the athletic ability to dunk a basketball when the hoop is four feet taller than you are doesn't sit all that well with me. 

Philip Rivers is 6'5" and I absolutely do not consider him more physically gifted than Brees.  Brees changed people's minds in the NFL about what "physically gifted" means, in my opinion.  In the right direction.

Edit: and as far as injuries, his high school knee injury was one of the first major obstacles - nobody even thought he'd fully come back from that.

Understood. 

I think we all know he's not 6' 0". Booger McFarland and Jason Witten were laughing about the 6'0" thing Monday. Which is even more impressive. And for sure it's all a balance. Tyreek Hill's quickness with Brees' accuracy and Patrick Mahomes velocity and 6'8" height would be perfect. But not happening. 

Here's a question I'd ask: among today's starting NFL QBs, where does Brees rank for measurable Size / Speed / Arm Talent / Agility type physical gifts? Meaning not mental. As it does seem we're going to abandon the original point. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Understood. 

I think we all know he's not 6' 0". Booger McFarland and Jason Witten were laughing about the 6'0" thing Monday. Which is even more impressive. And for sure it's all a balance. Tyreek Hill's quickness with Brees' accuracy and Patrick Mahomes velocity and 6'8" height would be perfect. But not happening. 

Here's a question I'd ask: among today's starting NFL QBs, where does Brees rank for measurable Size / Speed / Arm Talent / Agility type physical gifts? Meaning not mental. As it does seem we're going to abandon the original point. ;)

 

Yeah, he's definitely under 6'.

But Rodgers is also not 6'2".

As to your questions: size, bottom 10%; speed, top 20%; arm talent, top 2%; agility top 2%.  In my opinion.

Edit: speed ladder compared to Manning speed ladder

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Yeah, he's definitely under 6'.

But Rodgers is also not 6'2".

As to your questions: size, bottom 10%; speed, top 20%; arm talent, top 2%; agility top 2%.  In my opinion.

Thanks. 

One thing I love about the boards is I'm often surprised. I'm floored you think he's that elite physically but that's why I love the boards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. 

One thing I love about the boards is I'm often surprised. I'm floored you think he's that elite physically but that's why I love the boards. 

Check out my edit - speed ladder drill of Brees vs Manning speed ladder drill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

@Joe Bryant

How about this - do you think Michael Vick was a physically gifted quarterback?

Yes. But like Brees, too short.

Vick is a great comparison. Throwing out size, I think most people would say Vick is the most athletic QB in NFL history speed and agility, right? 

On the speed and agility scale of 1(worst) to 10 (best) let's say Vick is a 10.

Where do you see Brees on the speed and agility scale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mods, please clean up this thread and get it bad on topic.

Thanks,

-E

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would say, and many analysts would agree, that based on raw physical ability Cam sits at the top of that mountain.  His mechanics are suspect but raw physicality? Yeah that's all him..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

 

I'll send you a pm and stop cluttering this topic up.  Sorry to all for the tangent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

I'll send you a pm and stop cluttering this topic up.  Sorry to all for the tangent.

I'll move to Shark Pool. Fascinating topic. But not for this thread. Apologies all for me taking off the rails. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Yeah, he's definitely under 6'.

But Rodgers is also not 6'2".

As to your questions: size, bottom 10%; speed, top 20%; arm talent, top 2%; agility top 2%.  In my opinion.

Edit: speed ladder compared to Manning speed ladder

At :41 Brees stepped on the line, disqualification sorry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I'll move to Shark Pool. Fascinating topic. But not for this thread. Apologies all for me taking off the rails. 

I think it was a good tangent. I enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think this is generally fair but I’d also add that there’s an enormous part of success and failure that comes neither from the government nor from an individual’s work ethic, etc.  I will call it “luck” although that may be interpreted too narrowly.  People can have different views about who should receive the benefits and drawbacks of luck - from my perspective both good luck and bad luck should be shared more widely among people.

Has the It’s better to be born rich than gifted article been discussed anywhere?  While the article has some caveats to consider, I don't think the conclusions should be all that surprising.  And I'd  think what we are born with is all luck.

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

Shouldn't we be trying to develope ways to have it easy and prosperous without having to work our butts off? You hard working types are necessary for now but in a just and future society you'd just be super annoying. I'm not joking about this even a little.

Super annoying now also, IMO

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 5:28 AM, James Daulton said:

Was Obama born into wealth and I missed it?  Did he have everything, money, schools, connections handed to him by daddy?

I thought Obama actually had to work hard to get into Harvard and become head of their law review, etc.  Man the MSM sure likes to hide his cushy upbringing.

The outright baseless hate for Obama by so many on the right is scary.  All because he said they'd be able to keep their doctor and some of them weren't able to keep their doctor?  So weird. 

show me his work resume. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

show me his work resume. 

I believe it was stapled to his birth certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -fish- said:

I believe it was stapled to his birth certificate.

nope..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, irishidiot said:

show me his work resume. 

What does that mean?  Are you arguing that Obama's not a self made man?

I'm confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can tell you his work resume doesn't include tidbits like daddy making him a millionaire as a toddler. I can tell you there is nothing on his resume about paying the biggest fine ever for money laundering by a casino. I can tell you his father didn't use tax fraud to illegally transfer 100s of millions of dollars to the family.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats have ignored the working class during their campaigns yet again, which is exactly how they lost in 2016.  Instead of focusing more on the working class, they basically called white men, who make of the majority of the group, a bunch of racists who are ruining the country. I mean come on!  At least lie a little. Dumbest strategy ever.  The chickens will come home to roost next month. I've been telling you guys this for a year now. The "Vote for us or you're racist woman hater" approach doesn't work. Seems like the most obvious thing ever.  So dumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

The Democrats have ignored the working class during their campaigns yet again, which is exactly how they lost in 2016.  Instead of focusing more on the working class, they basically called white men, who make of the majority of the group, a bunch of racists who are ruining the country. I mean come on!  At least lie a little. Dumbest strategy ever.  The chickens will come home to roost next month. I've been telling you guys this for a year now. The "Vote for us or you're racist woman hater" approach doesn't work. Seems like the most obvious thing ever.  So dumb

Really haven't seen much of that. Of course I've been focusing on progressive candidates who are running on policy. Sounds like the establishment wing to me. Remember they are paid to lose it's not their fault.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

The Democrats have ignored the working class during their campaigns yet again, which is exactly how they lost in 2016.  Instead of focusing more on the working class, they basically called white men, who make of the majority of the group, a bunch of racists who are ruining the country. I mean come on!  At least lie a little. Dumbest strategy ever.  The chickens will come home to roost next month. I've been telling you guys this for a year now. The "Vote for us or you're racist woman hater" approach doesn't work. Seems like the most obvious thing ever.  So dumb

Come on, Ted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 1:57 PM, Dedfin said:

At :41 Brees stepped on the line, disqualification sorry.

Manning was just stabbing his feet into the line over and over again and calling it an agility drill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, flapgreen said:

The Democrats have ignored the working class during their campaigns yet again, which is exactly how they lost in 2016.  Instead of focusing more on the working class, they basically called white men, who make of the majority of the group, a bunch of racists who are ruining the country. I mean come on!  At least lie a little. Dumbest strategy ever.  The chickens will come home to roost next month. I've been telling you guys this for a year now. The "Vote for us or you're racist woman hater" approach doesn't work. Seems like the most obvious thing ever.  So dumb

These elections are local. Here in Colorado I don't see that kind of strategy at all.  Good chance the Democrats will gain a seat in the house. 

Edited by Mile High

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 11:57 AM, Dedfin said:
On 10/15/2018 at 10:58 AM, Henry Ford said:

Yeah, he's definitely under 6'.

But Rodgers is also not 6'2".

As to your questions: size, bottom 10%; speed, top 20%; arm talent, top 2%; agility top 2%.  In my opinion.

Edit: speed ladder compared to Manning speed ladder

At :41 Brees stepped on the line, disqualification sorry.

Hey, Walter, come on, it's just a game, man.

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, flapgreen said:

The Democrats have ignored the working class during their campaigns yet again, which is exactly how they lost in 2016.  Instead of focusing more on the working class, they basically called white men, who make of the majority of the group, a bunch of racists who are ruining the country. I mean come on!  At least lie a little. Dumbest strategy ever.  The chickens will come home to roost next month. I've been telling you guys this for a year now. The "Vote for us or you're racist woman hater" approach doesn't work. Seems like the most obvious thing ever.  So dumb

Comments like this make me wish we still had sigs :lmao:

The fact that a "conservative" thinks they should lie and not point these things out is priceless to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, flapgreen said:

The Democrats have ignored the working class during their campaigns yet again, which is exactly how they lost in 2016.  Instead of focusing more on the working class, they basically called white men, who make of the majority of the group, a bunch of racists who are ruining the country. I mean come on!  At least lie a little. Dumbest strategy ever.  The chickens will come home to roost next month. I've been telling you guys this for a year now. The "Vote for us or you're racist woman hater" approach doesn't work. Seems like the most obvious thing ever.  So dumb

Please link to democrats doing as you said? (Including not talking pilicybto help the middle class...don’t just predictably post one Democrat making some comment that you will

 spin)

Also show me what republicans are doing for the working class?  (And I mean actually doing for them...not what they claim they are doing while facts show otherwise).

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NCCommish said:

Really haven't seen much of that. Of course I've been focusing on progressive candidates who are running on policy. Sounds like the establishment wing to me. Remember they are paid to lose it's not their fault.

The establishment wing is running on policy too. Claire McCaskill might salvage her Senate seat in a Trump +19 state against a top shelf challenger based on defending health insurance coverage for preexisting conditions.

What he's talking about is the lazy cable news narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Please link to democrats doing as you said? (Including not talking pilicybto help the middle class...don’t just predictably post one Democrat making some comment that you will

 spin)

Also show me what republicans are doing for the working class?  (And I mean actually doing for them...not what they claim they are doing while facts show otherwise).

I think this might be one of those things where righties resent being asked for cites because it's simply a "different view of things."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NCCommish said:

Really haven't seen much of that. Of course I've been focusing on progressive candidates who are running on policy. Sounds like the establishment wing to me. Remember they are paid to lose it's not their fault.

Gotta hand it to you NCC.  With the Kavanaugh debacle still fresh and lots of migrant children still separated from their parents, bashing the “establishment” wing of the party (whatever that is) takes balls.  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I think this might be one of those things where righties resent being asked for cites because it's simply a "different view of things."

Months ago I was accused of trolling for asking people to back up theor assertions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Months ago I was accused of trolling for asking people to back up theor assertions.

That has happened to me on numerous occasions, particularly with Trump supporters (see HT) who seem to think that asking them to back up their claims is tantamount to trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Please link to democrats doing as you said? (Including not talking pilicybto help the middle class...don’t just predictably post one Democrat making some comment that you will

 spin)

Also show me what republicans are doing for the working class?  (And I mean actually doing for them...not what they claim they are doing while facts show otherwise).

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/indicators

GDP growth up, unemployment down, home ownership up, household debt down, disposable income up.  Things are better today than they were at the same time in 2016.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/indicators

GDP growth up, unemployment down, home ownership up, household debt down, disposable income up.  Things are better today than they were at the same time in 2016.  

 

Not if you're opposed to authoritarianism, which is on the rise here and around the world, or if you want to see progress made on the immense economic burden of a privatized health care system.  The current administration is also not the least bit interested in the expansion of voting rights and the integrity of our electoral process, let alone competent enough to do anything about them if they were.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Please link to democrats doing as you said? (Including not talking pilicybto help the middle class...don’t just predictably post one Democrat making some comment that you will

 spin)

Also show me what republicans are doing for the working class?  (And I mean actually doing for them...not what they claim they are doing while facts show otherwise).

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/indicators

GDP growth up, unemployment down, home ownership up, household debt down, disposable income up.  Things are better today than they were at the same time in 2016.  

Everything looks great, if you don't see the things that look and smell like a turd!

Edited by toshiba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Not if you're opposed to authoritarianism, which is on the rise here and around the world, or if you want to see progress made on the immense economic burden of a privatized health care system.  The current administration is also not the least bit interested in the expansion of voting rights and the integrity of our electoral process, let alone competent enough to do anything about them if they were.

Wait a minute.  The current healthcare system is a product of the Democratic party.  If the Democrats response to authoritarianism is socialism, you won't get much support from me on that front either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.