On 4/9/2021 at 11:08 PM, Original Sin said:

Off topic , but as big a Davis Mills fan as I am , I also really like Feliepe Franks , another QB who would benefit by red  shirting year one. He has the athletic ability , size , live arm , accurate passer , legs to pick up yards if things break down , small strike from me , because of his age , 23  but they can play to 35 now the way the rules protect them

I’m sorry but I think Franks stinks

No need to be sorry , you don’t have to like him .

2 hours ago, TEW said:

You might want to hold off on calling other people stupid and asking if other people have studied history when so much of what you said is factually false.

The New Deal had nothing, at all, to do with "the recovery." We have actual data on this.  The US didn't recover from 1929 for over a decade. UE was still in the high teens through the entire decade of the 1930's. There were multiple recessions within the 1930's. It accomplished virtually nothing in terms of a recovery. Not opinion. Fact. Data.

What started the recovery is what almost always, historically, causes the recovery from a super cyclical depression: war.

We went to war, that employed every man in the country, we destroyed the industrial capacity of basically the entire planet, and we were left as the sole productive center for the rest world. We then grabbed global currency reserve status, lent money to all of Europe to buy our goods from us, and that series of events actually caused the recovery and created the conditions for the halcyon days of the 1950's.

If you want to argue that The New Deal prevented something like the The Business Plot or our own version of an October Revolution, maybe there is some merit to that, but simply put The New Deal did not lead to a recovery at all.

You are right and wrong about this.  The economy recovered in waves in the 1930s.  That is truly what the data shows.  Yes, the war raised us out of the final throes of the Great Depression.  But GDP was rising before our involvement in the war.  The last recession was in 1937-38,  The multiple recessions were part of the waves of impact by some of the programs. But the data also suggests that without the measures of the New Deal, the economy would not have had those adjustments upward.  

You are flawed in saying the programs of the New Deal did not help that recovery at all and further I would suggest that they helped propel us after WWII towards prosperity with programs like REA, Glass-Steagall, FDIC, SS, etc.   I know for a fact that my initial employer would not have survived but for the RFC.   We can battle data anytime you want on your argument that programs of the New Deal lead to no recovery at all.  That is flawed interpretation from my studies.  

As always, there are differing views but most arguments are supposition because the majority of the New Deal survives and WWII did happen.   You are absolutely correct that war had a huge impact on our recovery but it was not the only impact and in fact, post 1937/38  (last pre WWII recession) the US was trending upwards. The advent of our participation in WWII makes it difficult to determine the course of the recovery from the programs but it is important to note that many programs outlived FDR, are around today and the 2008 recession sure suggests repealing Glass-Steagall wasn’t our best idea.  (But your suggestion that only war ends depression does not explain the rise out of the early 1870 depression.  I would posture it was a combination of the end of a significant drought, as also happened after the Great Depression, but through part of WWII,  and the rise of the industrial revolution  Well the acts of the New Deal certainly helped drive labor’s role in the wage and benefit increase post WWII,)

 

30 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

Off topic , but as big a Davis Mills fan as I am , I also really like Feliepe Franks , another QB who would benefit by red  shirting year one. He has the athletic ability , size , live arm , accurate passer , legs to pick up yards if things break down , small strike from me , because of his age , 23  but they can play to 35 now the way the rules protect them

Peyton Ramsey?  Not sure he has an NFL arm but as accurate as Frank’s behind more suspect lines and did produce wins.

1 hour ago, Original Sin said:

Feliepe Franks

 

2 hours ago, 315Eagles said:

I was told the Moderna, which is what I got, is 50-60% after the 1st.  Then 90-95% after the 2nd.

I read an article just now that cited statistics where Moderna is 80% effective after the 1st dose. While intuitively I rather have twice as many people with 80% protection, I wonder what the counter argument is... would partially immunized people let loose in the new normal cause a surge. This kind of circles back to the J&J vaccine which is only 66% effective anyway.

37 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

You are right and wrong about this.  The economy recovered in waves in the 1930s.  That is truly what the data shows.  Yes, the war raised us out of the final throes of the Great Depression.  But GDP was rising before our involvement in the war.  The last recession was in 1937-38,  The multiple recessions were part of the waves of impact by some of the programs. But the data also suggests that without the measures of the New Deal, the economy would not have had those adjustments upward.  

You are flawed in saying the programs of the New Deal did not help that recovery at all and further I would suggest that they helped propel us after WWII towards prosperity with programs like REA, Glass-Steagall, FDIC, SS, etc.   I know for a fact that my initial employer would not have survived but for the RFC.   We can battle data anytime you want on your argument that programs of the New Deal lead to no recovery at all.  That is flawed interpretation from my studies.  

As always, there are differing views but most arguments are supposition because the majority of the New Deal survives and WWII did happen.   You are absolutely correct that war had a huge impact on our recovery but it was not the only impact and in fact, post 1937/38  (last pre WWII recession) the US was trending upwards. The advent of our participation in WWII makes it difficult to determine the course of the recovery from the programs but it is important to note that many programs outlived FDR, are around today and the 2008 recession sure suggests repealing Glass-Steagall wasn’t our best idea.  (But your suggestion that only war ends depression does not explain the rise out of the early 1870 depression.  I would posture it was a combination of the end of a significant drought, as also happened after the Great Depression, but through part of WWII,  and the rise of the industrial revolution  Well the acts of the New Deal certainly helped drive labor’s role in the wage and benefit increase post WWII,)

 

You can thank Clinton for that.  It was a stupid idea and led to all the Wall St. and corporate malfeasance in the last 20 years.

Wonder how much different and better off the US would be if we didn't repeal of Glass-Steagall and when William Paley and David Sarnoff went down to DC to cut a deal with congress over US airwaves for TV if congress would have told them that we'll give you the air for 23 hours per day where you can do whatever you want within reason (and decency, hey it was the 50s, FFS) and make whatever profit you want during that time, but for an hour a day you work for the US citizens and provide the news for FREE without advertisting.  I think our nightly news would look loads different than it does today if that were the case.  Like more objective and more informative and less sensational for the sake of ratings.  Dare I say we might be a more education and aware nation?

 

14 hours ago, Infam said:

War is always ugly and no side stays innocent, but if there ever was an example of a war of good vs evil it was WWII.

The NSDAPs were about as evil as it gets, and thank god the US beat them or we'd all be living in the dark ages now.

(NSDAPs? Lol the filter...)

Not to diminish how bad NSDAP Germany was with what they did, but the Red on the other front were 10x worse.   History paints Hitler as this because he plunged the entire world into War a second time that century, but Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot eclipse him in terms of evilness. 

11 minutes ago, Green_Guinness said:

You can thank Clinton for that.  It was a stupid idea and led to all the Wall St. and corporate malfeasance in the last 20 years.

Wonder how much different and better off the US would be if we didn't repeal of Glass-Steagall and when William Paley and David Sarnoff went down to DC to cut a deal with congress over US airwaves for TV if congress would have told them that we'll give you the air for 23 hours per day where you can do whatever you want within reason (and decency, hey it was the 50s, FFS) and make whatever profit you want during that time, but for an hour a day you work for the US citizens and provide the news for FREE without advertisting.  I think our nightly news would look loads different than it does today if that were the case.  Like more objective and more informative and less sensational for the sake of ratings.  Dare I say we might be a more education and aware nation?

 

I’d have to catch my news at 3am or some awful hour the networks would be willing to give away (but I get the point, if it was like 6-7pm). Honestly, I’m unsure how much over the airwaves news content I even consume anymore - which ain’t so good either.

33 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Not to diminish how bad NSDAP Germany was with what they did, but the Red on the other front were 10x worse.   History paints Hitler as this because he plunged the entire world into War a second time that century, but Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot eclipse him in terms of evilness. 

More time, broader range of perceived enemies, really bad social and economic plans that produced more real/perceived enemies. Given that they came to power through civil war, had a bit more of running start. They all get top marks on evil.

Catching up...bit my tongue after my first response for the past 10 or so pages.  I agree with quite a few of you, take it to CVON.  I respect a great deal of you's's opinions when it comes to football.  I don't want that marred by your ishy views on other things.

 

On a side note, Watson is probably never playing football again.  His attorney is already out in complete defense/self preservation mode saying that consensual encounters occurred.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/deshaun-watson-attorney-defends-texans-qb-against-allegations-says-some-consensual-encounters-occurred/

58 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Not to diminish how bad NSDAP Germany was with what they did, but the Red on the other front were 10x worse.   History paints Hitler as this because he plunged the entire world into War a second time that century, but Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot eclipse him in terms of evilness. 

All of this goes back to an AP History class I had as a senior in HS where our teacher was more about the philosophy of history than the dates (which is also where I first learned about Glass-Steagall and Paley/Sarnoff).  He mentioned how Stalin killed more of his own people (the number thrown around is 25M) than Hitler killed yet Stalin rarely gets discussed as such an evil entity.  It's always politics and POV that paints the overall picture instead of the simple facts.  Yes, Hitler was an evil POS and damn good thing he was defeated, but Stalin and Pol Pot (who also killed millions of his own people, narcissist and paranoid much?) mostly get overlooked in history as evil mass killers.  More people should be made aware that they were just as evil and vicious.  When we fail to know history is when we are more vulnerable to repeating it.

 

4 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Catching up...bit my tongue after my first response for the past 10 or so pages.  I agree with quite a few of you, take it to CVON.  I respect a great deal of you's's opinions when it comes to football.  I don't want that marred by your ishy views on other things.

 

On a side note, Watson is probably never playing football again.  His attorney is already out in complete defense/self preservation mode saying that consensual encounters occurred.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/deshaun-watson-attorney-defends-texans-qb-against-allegations-says-some-consensual-encounters-occurred/

Dominoes are falling on Watson.  Too many women coming out confirming the same MO on his part.  He has a sexual pathology.  He easily could have paid top end escorts to play out his fantasy and sign NDAs, but instead chose to go after women not known for providing sexual services.  Young, rich, nice looking man and this is what he decides to do to satisfy himself?  Utterly stupid. 

43 minutes ago, Green_Guinness said:

All of this goes back to an AP History class I had as a senior in HS where our teacher was more about the philosophy of history than the dates (which is also where I first learned about Glass-Steagall and Paley/Sarnoff).  He mentioned how Stalin killed more of his own people (the number thrown around is 25M) than Hitler killed yet Stalin rarely gets discussed as such an evil entity.  It's always politics and POV that paints the overall picture instead of the simple facts.  Yes, Hitler was an evil POS and damn good thing he was defeated, but Stalin and Pol Pot (who also killed millions of his own people, narcissist and paranoid much?) mostly get overlooked in history as evil mass killers.  More people should be made aware that they were just as evil and vicious.  When we fail to know history is when we are more vulnerable to repeating it.

 

Stalin came out of WWII on the winners podium.  I also finding it baffling that Che is glorified by many as well.  Brilliant dude, ahead of his time and there's a lot to learn from his TACTICS but holy heck was he an evil one too.

57 minutes ago, Green_Guinness said:

Dominoes are falling on Watson.  Too many women coming out confirming the same MO on his part.  He has a sexual pathology.  He easily could have paid top end escorts to play out his fantasy and sign NDAs, but instead chose to go after women not known for providing sexual services.  Young, rich, nice looking man and this is what he decides to do to satisfy himself?  Utterly stupid. 

People want what they can't have, it's the thrill of doing something you are not supposed too. It's like when people say " just break up with the person instead of cheating on them" how many people do you actually see do that? Not to many because there is no thrill in it there is no strategy or hunt to it. Some people are just more wired to pursue this type of behavior then others. Some even take to levels like Watson. 

9 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

People want what they can't have, it's the thrill of doing something you are not supposed too. It's like when people say " just break up with the person instead of cheating on them" how many people do you actually see do that? Not to many because there is no thrill in it there is no strategy or hunt to it. Some people are just more wired to pursue this type of behavior then others. Some even take to levels like Watson. 

I hate painting someone before due process has it's chance, but it hard not to have a formulated opinion with the way the dominos were stacked and beginning to fall.  It's almost just short of full blown damage control at this point.

Funniest part of that article is the talk of Instagram and using it for business while simultaneously saying he exploited his own 'business platform' to subvert someone else's business due to the pandemic.

I wonder if Houston is looking at how to cut Watson free and clear?  Actions detrimental to the team?   I'm sure the procedure is in the Labor Agreement.  But, they don't have 1st and 2nd round picks this year to draft a QB.  The Rockets are tanking but not doing it well like OKC.  The Astros are serial cheaters.  Fun times in Houston. 

7 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Peyton Ramsey?  Not sure he has an NFL arm but as accurate as Frank’s behind more suspect lines and did produce wins.

I haven’t  seen enough of him to offer a opinion , I have seen that a few teams have met with him  though .

Spent the morning watching more Kwitty Paye highlights.  My initial thought on him was he's Brandon Graham 2.0.  It's easy to do so when they are pretty identical in size, play the same position and both played at UM.

However, after watching more and trying to be more open to him rather than just saying eh, this is BG, I think his game is more Dwight Freeney than it is BG.  He's almost a combination of the two.  He's much more explosive than BG and seems to have violent hands to shed blockers. 

Still not a fan of picking him at 12.  He has the lowest ceiling IMO when comparing him to Jaelan Phillips and Greg Rousseau.  He's also the oldest, turning 23 during his rookie year.  Phillips turns 22 in May and Rousseau just turned 21.  I think Rousseau is the biggest risk of busting but you can't teach that size.  Phillips brings the injury concerns.

I just don't know where the sweet spot for DE is in this draft.  I do think these three guys are tier 1 prospects compared to the rest that are available this year. 12 seems too high but don't know if any of them make it to 37.

I take , Rousseau or Oweh late rd one , both shouldn’t see the field often in year one , they need to go to a team who doesn’t need to rely on them right away , both huge upside , if forced to pick one , I would choose Oweh 

I like Ossai mid rd 2 , elerson  Smith early rd 4 .  It’s not a very advanced edge class this year , these guys all have big upside but need to go to a team deep at the position , looking for a guy  to step in next year 

10 hours ago, RLC said:

If the 1st round ends with the Eagles getting Devonta Smith + 2022 1st rounder, that's not a bad outcome.

I think he is going to be very, very good. The guy whom I like but more questionable about is Waddle. 

I’m fine sitting out the DE class until day 3. There are too many players at other positions I like more than the DEs when the Eagles pick (at least based on the mock draft machines I’ve been doing).

Just take some size-athleticism guys (Kaindoh for example) on Day 3 and hope you can coach them up or wait until next year. 

Seeing’s as I believe in building a D back to front , inside out , this is a good draft for that , close to 7 CBs will go top 50 , IMO 

and I like a few DTs in this class, not a bunch of big namers or first rounders , but guys in mid rds 

In order

McNeil 
Williams

Marshall

Nixon 
Tufele