skinny21

Members
  • Content count

    4,092
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About skinny21

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/28/1977

Contact Methods

  • Location
    Round Rock, TX via Cabin John, MD
  1. Lots of change this year with two new safeties, a healthier Fuller competing for the slot corner role, a well regarded corner added in the draft, depth additions in Holsey and Nicholson (and Smithson) and, perhaps most importantly, a coach that is apparently a very good teacher to help with the basics and improve the communication breakdowns of last year. In short, expectations should be higher for this group, but how much so?
  2. As much as I want to point out that it's crazy to think the Left has any say in how long and where the Special Investigation goes, maybe you can tell me why you believe this? As to the other investigations - the FBI investigation, the Senate Intelligence investigation, and the House Intelligence investigation - what do you mean by "I do not know when they started so I can't say they were one side or the other?"
  3. Are you saying Democrats are driving the investigation? Or maybe you're saying that they will be the ones to decide when the investigation is over? I think many GOP supporters have bought into the idea that this whole thing is a partisan witch hunt and are 1) ignoring any GOP voices that insist on the need for it (the investigation), 2) ignoring the fact that 4 separate investigations were commenced all by GOP lead groups. This last point would be a good sign if the WH weren't tainting the proceedings. Nunes on the House Committee, Trump's dealings with Comey (not to mention Session's) affecting the FBI investigation, and now the campaign to fire Mueller. It's a shame that so many of the President's lies are bought into by his supporters ("Russia wasn't responsible for hacking", "This is a witch hunt", etc.). Even bigger shame that our President's strongest character trait seems to be "liar". Sounds like hyperbole, but no...somehow it's a very fair judgement on my part.
  4. The growth of Medicaid births is very interesting. Also interesting that many pretty staunchly GOP states top the list, along with the fact that states like California, New York and Texas are so high. Whether it's concerning depends on so many factors that I don't have enough info on: what were mothers doing prior to using Medicaid? What is and what was the financial impact (on the family/state/fed/taxpayer)? Who is better and worse off with these changes?
  5. Your first sentence is what I was getting at in my post, yes. As for the 2nd sentence, would you say conditions (and, maybe more importantly, perceptions) have worsened in the last several months? You've seen other countries leaders speak up about bringing in the workers the US seems to be shunning? But no, I did not say the US is a bad option for foreign workers (doctors), but I'd at least say the gap between us and some other countries is lessening. Wouldn't be surprised if the US (assuming a need to work in rural areas especially) was no longer one of the top options in the near future.
  6. It was petty of Trump to rail against Obama's golfing. Now he's hypocritically doing doing the same thing on a far grander scale (with conflict of interest issues to boot)... as well as not getting stuff done and bragging about how much stuff he's gotten done. Really though, Larry's right in that it's all a distraction from the bigger issues. On a general level, it's horrifying how many smaller things would be major issues/stories with any other presidency, but we can't be too distracted from the current major issues.
  7. Well, yes and no. Money and the ability to locate/study in the US have been a draw for foreign doctors (to more rural areas), but increase in crimes, immigration laws and sentiment against them might stunt that flow. Couple that with other countries stepping into that breach and it could get even tougher. Money is a big draw, as you allude to, and laws/practices can be changed, but it sure seems like a lot of damage has already been done... perhaps enough that we can't recover from it. As I wrote this I realized you probably already thought of all of that and you're just playing your usual Devil's Advocate role. Funny that playing Devil's Advocate means advocating/defending GOP practices... but you probably recognized that irony eons ago.
  8. Very valid point about the fiery guys SIP. I thought for sure I could come up with others, but outside of Norman and maybe Spaight (and that's only because I saw him doing pregame stuff last year) and the 2-3 you mentioned... I wonder how much of this attitude is built up in the offseason with trash talk (between O and D that we hear about) and physical practices. It certainly seems to help when we'd get the occasional big hits on D or ST, but we need more than (just) that. The good news is that you don't need a team full of those type of guys, they just need to bring out some of that passion/aggression/attitude in others. Gonna be interesting. Edit: and, right after posting this I see the article on Swearinger in BRBN http://m.washingtontimes.com/ “D.J. is a leader,” said secondary coach Torrian Gray. “He’s intense. He’s the one who kind of gets the group together and kind of says a lot of things to get us going and brings that juice and brings that attitude, so it’s been great having D.J.”
  9. Mondragon, lol. Wheel of Time, eh? Was big fan early on, I'll be interested to see what comes of it... though my expectations are depressingly low.
  10. Can't recall if they referenced it in the show, but Dragonstone supposedly has a deposits of the (did they call the material dragonstone too?) stuff that killed the white walker. Which makes some sense to have her land there. On the other hand, she has actual dragons and can probably make her own, lol.
  11. That's so strange to me because this seems (and Brandt backs it up) the most complete and talented team we've had in decades. Now sure, you have to buy in to the potential a bit. Allen, Pryor, Doctson, Swearinger and Brown all have to perform... but they have a serious pedigree. On the 2nd tier, Breeland, Cravens, Fuller, Galette/Smith, Kelley/Perine have to show us some good play, but again - there's pedigree there. This isn't a bunch of cast offs or UDFA's we're hoping will solidify a unit. We also have the benefit of (generally speaking) very solid talent at qb, oline and ST. And I hardly touched on some of our best players - Reed, Norman, Crowder, and Kerrigan. Bulletin board material indeed.
  12. Mostly agree with everything here. Really, I'm just putting down my impressions, I'm with you about leaving conclusions till TC. If they keep a 6th receiver, I do think that ST ability may be weighed heavier than you think... but what do I know.
  13. Only way I could see them keeping 4 backs is if Marshall really shines. Serious doubts that happens (in fact, I am almost certain it doesn't), but he's different enough from the other 3 that I think it would make for a tough decision (in that scenario).
  14. @goskins10Right... but "not worth comparing their salaries" is because they'd have very different roles (if my impression is correct). I wasn't (the one) comparing Quick's salary to Grant because I had Grant as the #4 and Quick fighting for #6. So, I was assuming (my bad) Quick would easily be more expensive than whoever else might be fighting for the #6 spot - Davis, Pascal or whoever. Overall though, I agree with your point. I mean, who knows, Quick could be our #3 (playing outside in 3 receiver sets). He's shown some decent production in the NFL. Hasn't lived up to his draft position, but that's hardly our problem. Judging by coaches comments and ST play (as well as comfort in the system and with Kirk) though, I have Quick fighting others for the #6. Assuming Grant and Harris both stick and play ST, you're right that it might not matter how able Quick is to play teams. With the little info I have, I think I'd prefer keep a young guy over Quick, but it doesn't really matter much to me.
  15. Well, first off, I said he's too expensive as the 6th receiver. Now, I didn't know his cap hit was quite that low (thanks for the info!), but if Grant is the #4 backing up all 3 positions, it's not really worth comparing their salaries. I also said "and doesn't seem much of a ST guy". My bad for not being more clear, but I was including that in the expense. Overall though, I take your guy's points - his salary isn't much of a factor. I'm not quite sure what you mean about not playing more than 4 receivers?