For all this talk of run blocking, if there's any week to have a 90-10% pass-run ratio it's this week.

1 minute ago, RLC said:

For all this talk of run blocking, if there's any week to have a 90-10% pass-run ratio it's this week.

Agreed. Running is pointless this week. 

12 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yes except in this case it's not like all 20+ women met him at the same time or met each other at any point. They all have separate accounts, each meeting with lawyer at separate times.

 

So? It's the same lawyer. I don't know whether he's guilty or innocent. I'm going innocent until otherwise proven.

6 minutes ago, Utebird said:

And genocide...

Not hyper woke just able to follow history 

I‘d even say that goes for pretty much every country of the west.. 

16 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

You have no idea what's going on at colleges campuses throughout the country.  It is not just at a few institutions; it is widespread and pervasive.

Just using 'N-word", not the actual word, has resulted in the firing of a least two academics that I can recall off the top of my head.

Yikes

8 minutes ago, Utebird said:

And genocide...

Not hyper woke just able to follow history 

I can follow history, thank you. I just reject the shoddy scholarship underlying the 1619 project.

https://www.thebulwark.com/the-fight-over-the-1619-project/

PLease people, I dont mind when you offer an occasional opinion on something like social issues , but if you start to debate the issue (which usually some moron turns it into a political debate and starts labeling everyone who disagrees with them) 

 

please take it to CVON.  Thats where you can join the other masses of political label experts. 

 

 

Just now, greend said:

So? It's the same lawyer. I don't know whether he's guilty or innocent. I'm going innocent until otherwise proven.

Yes by law he's innocent til proven guilty In a court of law, which still doesn't take away the overwhelming evidence against him.

Rothlisberger was never found guilty of rape or sexual assault in a court of law does that mean he didn't commit sex assault?

Paying off ones victims doesn't erase what one actually did.

5 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

PLease people, I dont mind when you offer an occasional opinion on something like social issues , but if you start to debate the issue (which usually some moron turns it into a political debate and starts labeling everyone who disagrees with them) 

 

please take it to CVON.  Thats where you can join the other masses of political label experts. 

 

 

Stop censorship, you hippie-fascist.

✌😁

13 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

Did you not see the pictures? On the first photo, Hurts is on the 27 (not sure of the exact yard line, but use that as your starting point.) Reagor is 10 yards away from him on the 37. The DT is on the 31.

In the second frame, the football has been released and goes past Dickerson's left shoulder. Now, you may be wondering, why is the ball going past his left shoulder? does that mean he has spun all the way around and is looking back at the qb? And the answer is yes, that's exactly what happened.

For the ball to be where the OP wanted it to be, Hurts would have had to throw the ball so that, instead of going past Dickerson's left shoulder, it would have had to go past Dickerson's right shoulder. Now go back to photo number one. What was right next to Dickerson's right shoulder in the first frame as Hurts was getting ready to release the ball? If your answer is a defensive tackle, then congrats, you just got a little bit smarter today.

QB just can't throw a ball where it's impossible to be caught.  If your assertion is correct then the QB didn't make the proper read, or throw.

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yep.  There is certain posters in here who love when this kind of stuff pops up so they can pounce.  Hell there is one, who's 90% of his posting is done in CVON and who's whole online identity is political, was in here yesterday trying to stir crap up.  

Yeah I can guess who that was. and I can tell you I would not have seen his posts, only the responses to it as I have close minded people ignored. 

4 minutes ago, Infam said:

Stop censorship, you hippie-fascist.

✌😁

lol... not censoring- there is a place for that kind of clown show. It is CVON

20 hours ago, downundermike said:

You are really f'ing dense.  If you really believe that the FBI would not investigate all as part of the purview of the investigation, you are either a moron, or being intellectually dishonest.

For the 3rd time, how did the Gruden stuff come to light ???  AS PART OF A SEPERATE INVESTIGATION YOU FREAKING DOLT.

I am sure even though we are not on the best of terms, even @Allhaildawk will back up that the investigation into Watson's accusers for bribery / blackmail will extend to all accusers.

I’ve got no problem with you man, you just jumped the gun on me a bit there. We all have our days. Go birds and yes you’re right about the investigation to a degree. You’d include anything that had sufficient predication and relation

Slay was robbed. 

11 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yes by law he's innocent til proven guilty In a court of law, which still doesn't take away the overwhelming evidence against him.

Rothlisberger was never found guilty of rape or sexual assault in a court of law does that mean he didn't commit sex assault?

Paying off ones victims doesn't erase what one actually did.

And one doesn't know what anyone else did if they weren't there. 

11 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I'm gonna give you the same advice you give us.  Don't feed the moronic trolls.  

Well I guess I'll listen to you just as much as you listen to me.

10 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

I can follow history, thank you. I just reject the shoddy scholarship underlying the 1619 project.

https://www.thebulwark.com/the-fight-over-the-1619-project/

Not going to read all that now, I gotta get my kid to school, but seems like a lot of conjecture by both sides.

When it would be far easier to state the obvious, that America was built on the back of slavery whether or not the founding fathers approved of slavery doesn't erase what actually happened nor does erase the role slavery had in the country after the founding fathers up until the civil war which was fought over slavery.

 

28 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I think they mainly used Taylor against 12 personnel and goal line.  It was still Wilson and Singleton in against other packages.  He had 24 snaps and I think 4 tackles.  Certainly not a breakout game at all or a game that put him on a path towards starting.  It was progress and he did make a couple of nice tackles.  LB is still very much a need on this team.  

He needs to play more and more, so we can find out how big a need it is.  I don't think he's the guy to be a long term starter... but maybe.

4 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Not going to read all that now, I gotta get my kid to school, but seems like a lot of conjecture by both sides.

When it would be far easier to state the obvious, that America was built on the back of slavery whether or not the founding fathers approved of slavery doesn't erase what actually happened nor does erase the role slavery had in the country after the founding fathers up until the civil war which was fought over slavery.

Africans used slavery.  They actively took part in the slave trade.  There were even free blacks in this country that owned slaves of their own.  They use slavery in parts of Northern Africa even today. Native Americans used slavery.  Slavery has always existed in this world's history. It is hardly unique to early America as some in this country so desperately want to paint it out to be as if an excuse to tear apart everything in the name of it. It is an ugly aspect of humanity that is shared by many cultures, not just this country's. 

4 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Not going to read all that now, I gotta get my kid to school, but seems like a lot of conjecture by both sides.

When it would be far easier to state the obvious, that America was built on the back of slavery whether or not the founding fathers approved of slavery doesn't erase what actually happened nor does erase the role slavery had in the country after the founding fathers up until the civil war which was fought over slavery.

 

One could argue that this is true for southern plantation society - for the North, it's not so clear.

5 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Not going to read all that now, I gotta get my kid to school, but seems like a lot of conjecture by both sides.

When it would be far easier to state the obvious, that America was built on the back of slavery whether or not the founding fathers approved of slavery doesn't erase what actually happened nor does erase the role slavery had in the country after the founding fathers up until the civil war which was fought over slavery.

 

Take this nonsense elsewhere.  You are wrong, but this isn't the place to go into it.

4 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

According to the hyper-woke, that's what the country was founded on.

I think both sides get it wrong when they either idolize the founders or cast them as villains. I don't think we should shy away from criticisms of the past nor should we just ignore the philosophical underpinnings of our system of government.   I think we can say that sometimes they acted in a way to carry out those ideals to the long-term benefit of people.   At times, they ignored those ideals and acted in ways that enshrined inequity that has lingered.    In my view the invention of the Cotton Gin had more of a negative impact on the treatment of African-Americans in America than the 3/5ths compromise.  

27 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

PLease people, I dont mind when you offer an occasional opinion on something like social issues , but if you start to debate the issue (which usually some moron turns it into a political debate and starts labeling everyone who disagrees with them) 

 

please take it to CVON.  Thats where you can join the other masses of political label experts. 

 

 

While I understand this, the issue I have is there are people in the blog that I don't mind discussing this with and I am not looking for an echo chamber of ideas.  I think we should be able to talk about some of these things without getting upset.  I really do not mind differing opinions on issues. I mean it is so frustrating that we as Americans, especially now, are doing nothing but casting stones at each other.  I am as guilty of it at times as others so I am not sitting here blaming anyone. 

In case anyone was wondering how to get a 7 day ban from Twitter, mention John Brown, slavery, treason, hanging, and recent Presidents that may have committed treason. 

15 minutes ago, greend said:

And one doesn't know what anyone else did if they weren't there. 

Well I guess I'll listen to you just as much as you listen to me.

4 for4 is obsessed with me, it's creepy,Ive been living rent free in his head for months now,  and he just can't seem to not make references of me to other posters, he has me on ignore and I him so the only time I ever see anything he posts is when he is quoted and way too many times he's making thinly veiled remarks about me, I have no problem making out in the open remarks about him, he's an admitted A hole and I agree.

1 minute ago, NCiggles said:

While I understand this, the issue I have is there are people in the blog that I don't mind discussing this with and I am not looking for an echo chamber of ideas.  I think we should be able to talk about some of these things without getting upset.  I really do not mind differing opinions on issues. I mean it is so frustrating that we as Americans, especially now, are doing nothing but casting stones at each other.  I am as guilty of it at times as others so I am not sitting here blaming anyone. 

I feel the same way, but... there are other places that you can have that discussion.  You can also have that discussion via PM.  

 

However, the conversation doesn't stay respectful, others that want to be more divisive get involved and it turns into the stone casting.   Best to keep it where it belongs, and out of here.  

 

 

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I feel the same way, but... there are other places that you can have that discussion.  You can also have that discussion via PM.  

 

However, the conversation doesn't stay respectful, others that want to be more divisive get involved and it turns into the stone casting.   Best to keep it where it belongs, and out of here.  

Fine - I'll stop....probably.