Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/25/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
    None of this should be surprising. To this day, many conservatives still believe Al Gore claimed he invented the internet. The feeble minded do as they are told (by Fox News and other wingnut media sources).
  4. 1 point
    So I'm back from Venice and Rome. Simply amazing places. Full of good people, great food, great wine, fantastic history, and at least 1 ugly american. Ah Venice. View from the top of the Spanish Steps in Roma. Grappa - Italian jet fuel. The painted fishermen's houses on the island of Burano (near Venice).
  5. 1 point
    I'd agree if the idea was we all thought we were losing every off season until the last three years so what a relief to finally have some off season good vibes for a change. But that's not how it's been. Not even close. Heck Doc Walker makes a running joke about how we have been the kings of the off season for well over a decade, where there is always some feel good vibe about something. And then too bad the season starts.... We got this guy or that guy and it all feels good. Drafts -- FA's -- new coaches, etc. It's always something new to get jazzed about. And yes some of this stuff indeed works out. Some of it doesn't. Vinny's 2004 FA crop to this day is probably the best FA class here of all time. London Fletcher was a killer signing. We got Sean Taylor and Chris Cooley in the same draft. Heck some of us thought that Shanny got like 7 starters at the time after the 2011 draft. When we got RG3 we got our franchise QB and received stratospheric level crazy hype. On and on and on. This is just another chapter in it as opposed to one of the only versions of it. The problem here hasn't been the feeling that the off season had no victories to it. It's been that on the aggregate it hasn't translated to being a winning team. Heck as good as this off season feels in places, it doesn't change in my mind the outlook of this team beating their 7-9 recent runs (or maybe 8-8?) unless Haskins is the goods this season. Will see. And if your point is we have become a steady mediocre team (not awful and not great) and we should appreciate that. I get it sort of. But I disagree. I think I'd rather for example do the Gibbs 2 version of things where we go 2 out of 4 seasons to the playoffs versus being stuck with the 7-9-8-8 drill. I'd say the golden age under Dan was the Gibbs 4 year run not this run. But granted we are splitting hairs because neither run deserves celebration IMO. I do like how they operate now better than Gibbs 2 but again it has to ultimately result in winning. And real winning versus the ifs and the buts equaled candy and nuts drill. Keep in mind, Bruce had to earn his place with fans. They weren't against him from day 1. They were excited about him. Vinny is gone, hooray! So fans never thinking Bruce can have some victories in the mix of the off season -- not sure where you are coming from on that. It took work for Bruce to lose his standing with fans including me. Heck I recall the Vinny thread (similar to this one) where in the soup we praised him on somethings. In retrospect, some seem to think Vinny had no defenders but I recall them. I've said before Bruce IMO is mediocre at his job in the FO and does a poor job putting up a good face for the team publicly. I think he's improved his PR skills tremendously though this year. As for him as a FO guy to me he's "meh". Not terrible. Not good. I think he's the weak link (along with Santos) in the chain of the FO. And i've explained why many times. Because making moves that are perceived to be good and actually having a good team are two different animals. It's not the same thing. Dan has won the perception game plenty of off seasons. But fans aren't FO people. Just because for example I or whomever loved the Harmon pick in the 6th round doesn't mean squat. I am not a professional football guy. When I was in front of Scot that one time i told him I want done whatever he wants done. i don't think people here make it that hard for Dan and Bruce really to show us up. Most of us flat out say go win Dan-Bruce and show us your way works and then we will happily say you guys are right we are wrong. You'd think after all these years they'd do it based on dumb luck alone. It should eventually happen based on the law of averages alone. I just hope it's not 10 years from now but soon. I personally think you have to have a special front office and a bit of luck to develop a successful franchise without a franchise QB. Baltimore has sort of done that but otherwise it's been hard and rare. That's why for some of the people here who I gather would bask in people eating crow about Dan and Bruce -- I think then its all about Haskins, Haskins, Haskins. They get it right with him then you'll have plenty of chances to tell people to suck it up and give Bruce-Dan credit. And I'd have no problem doing it. Zilch. And I promise I'll do it with no disclaimers. I live and die with every game -- it gives me no joy to be right about anything negative about anything Redskins related. I'd love every minute of coming on here if they go 11-5 or whatever and head to the playoffs -- I'd first of all likely go to the game and I'll find some wi fi on the flight headed there and happily type on this very thread that Bruce-Dan's genius paid off. And my only disclaimer to it is I'd like to see more success than heading to the playoffs every 4 years or so. Heck I'd even take something like the Falcons-Gibbs 2 version of success -- every other year. But I won't wait for that before praising them.
  6. 1 point
    I wouldn't expect anything less from that piece of trash "news" organization.
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    Nuances of the sophisticated protection & how DH opened the zone he wanted to hit are football porn. We can talk about the subtle things done by the TE & T to help this protection if anyone cares to, but I’ve marked up a few screenshots from this YouTube clip on my iPad to highlight a bit of it. This was his best throw of the year, imo, but it was sandwiched by two of his worst. 4:07 starts the 3 play sequence.... poor, brilliant, poor. The brilliant. Better illustration of how the final piece of the play was won.
  9. 1 point
    At this point you are either trolling me or blind or both. But I'll play along, **** it. I first said this: Which clearly is pointing out multiple examples of things that we preferred our child (when she was a lot younger) not be exposed to that would commonly occur in the TV shows that we watched. It was an obvious general statement citing examples that did not have anything to do with the cartoon itself. You then replied this: Which took a general statement I made (one that was not specific to the cartoon itself) and inserted it into your response about the specific cartoon anyhow to fit your agenda. The above reply I made was not even related to the cartoon, yet you ignored that even though it was obvious. To clarify, I responded with this: Which clearly stated that I was providing examples of other topics that would sometimes pop up in the TV shows my wife and I watched that we felt inappropriate for her to watch back then. While also explaining that I never equated same sex marriage to violence, etc. and providing the example of not wanting her to see straight couples making out either (edit: I can see why this part of my statement was interpreted to be included in the cartoon. I did accidentally toss it at the end of my statement and did not clarify - my bad for that). Again, it was obvious that I was speaking to the context of the TV shows my wife and I watch and not the cartoon. Then you again ignore what I said and reply with this: Refusing to acknowledge (even though it was clearly spelled out for you multiple times) that I wasn't talking about the ****ing cartoon. And refusing to acknowledge that I was talking in general about what we didn't want my daughter seeing in the TV shows we watched. And I also stated that we never had to address this topic with our daughter when she was a lot younger as this specific scenario was not presented to us back then (in the cartoons/shows she watched) and that it occurred naturally when she happen to come across it while we were watching a show and she saw two people kiss that were the same sex ( she was age 8 or so). In which we addressed it and educated her and explained that it was normal and perfectly fine for two people, even if they are the same sex, to love each other and be together and get married. So, please, stop twisting my words, using my comments out of context and making false accusations that I'm homophobic when that clearly isn't the case.
  10. 1 point
    I've been so busy at work and with my new baby boy that I haven't posted anything about the finale yet. Just about everything has been covered already. To add my general $.02, I had no problem with the plot points at all for the entire season, except I wouldn't have wasted 2 full episodes on the Night King. But I understand they had to do something to wrap up that plot line, so, whatever. That included the finale. What bothered me is that they rushed through the most important plot point in like 45 minutes of the approximately 78 hours of television they created: Danny losing it. And we don't even really know why, except she lost it. Which is unsatisfying. From the time in episode 5 where she goes crazy and burns the city to the time Jon drives a dagger through her heart is about 45 minutes of total TV time. They had 75 hours to set this up, and just didn't. And that part is somewhat maddening. I liked the finale fine. It was an entertaining hour and a half of television. It was extraordinarily well acted, and it was beautifully shot. My hat goes off to Emelia Clarke and Peter Dinklage who I think did tremendous jobs throughout the episode. For Emelia, at least until she was stabbed through the heart. I loved the opening montage of Tyrian, Jon and Davos walking through the devastation. I thought the whole Danny Speech scene was outstanding. It was almost right out of the WWII era Nazi/USSR films, with the big banners, stoic troops, leader making a grand speech. It was extremely well done. I enjoyed the chats between Tyrian and Jon, Jon and Arya, and even the last scene between Jon and Danny. The first 40 minutes and the last Stark goodbye montage were outstanding. However. There are just so many unforced errors due to "lazy" writing. I actually don't like the term "lazy" but I don't know what a better term is. I rally do believe that the writers and show runners worked very hard at this, I just don't think they did a good job connecting the dots on things which they should have been able to connect the dots on. So here's my list of things that made no sense in universe that they could have explained better if they had just taken the extra few episodes HBO was willing to pay for: - How the hell did Greg Worm go from murdering Lanister soldiers to up the steps waiting for the queen before Jon got there? Did he apperate (Harry Potter?) Transport (Star Trek)? Get running lessons from Gendry? This made no sense. It looked like Jon walked straight from their first meeting to see Danny, and Grey Worm was already there, and looked like he had been there a while. Jon really should have bent the knee to Grey at that moment, or at least asked how the hell he got there so quick. It was jarring, and took me out of the moment. - When Jon goes to talk to Tyrian, he has to be disarmed. When he goes to talk to Danny, he is allowed to be armed. Danny is all alone in the throne room, and Tyrian has like 30 unsullied guards around him. Which is AFTER Danny walked away being escorted by about 10 unsullied. I get they needed Danny to be alone for the vision callback and the Jon killing her, but that was just not really believable. She would have had some guards around her. She's had guards around her every moment we had seen her in the episode up until that point. - How in God's name does anybody find out Jon killed Danny? Nobody sees it. Drogon takes her body away. Nobody's there. Jon walks down the stairs, tells the unsullied who might be lurking somewhere Danny wasn't there, and just walks out of the castle. Unless he told somebody, thee are no witnesses except a dragon which flew away. And I don't think Jon is quite stupid enough to TELL Grey Worm that he killed Danny. Maybe he is. I dunno. And if Jon does tell GW he killed Danny, GW kills him on the spot. Or at least tries to. Jon would die eventually because even if he could best GW, the rest of the magically multiplying unsullied would kill him, most likely. (As an aside, I would have LOVED to see a GW vs. Jon 1:1 fight. Regardless, it would have been nice to SEE how Jon gets captured and made prisoner, because that just seems horribly unlikely. None of this makes any sense. Like no sense. There are a million ways to tell this story by just writing it a bit better. - What happens during the 3 seconds of black screen and 4 inches of Tyrian's beard? How did all the characters get to Kings Landing? Why did they come? Who invited them? What was the purpose of the meeting? How are the Unsullied holding the city? Is there really anybody even left in the city to hold? Where did the Dothraki go? None of this makes sense. Literally, that 3 seconds of black screen and 4 inches of beard growth could have been an entire 48-52 minute episode. And could have been extremely compelling. Imagine a scene with Yara finding out Danny burned down Kings Landing. Sansa finding out Jon had been imprisoned by the unsullied for killing Danny. As a side note, I think if Arya wanted to break Jon out, I actually think she could have pulled that off. Which would have been a cool faceless man type of thing. There was a lot of story to tell there, and I wish we were able to spend that time with the characters. - Now we move to the dragon pit meeting. First, the people who attended (From left to right) Sam - representing house Tarley, which doesn't really exist anymore? Or the Maesters, but he's not wearing robes? This is weird. He's there because he's a named character. Unknown Dude. Edmure Tully. Who has been absent since season 6, and captive since season 3 I think? The best part of the entire sequence is Sansa owning him. Arya - faceless man assassin, youngest daughter of the Starks and resident bad ass. But no real political power Bran - This makes sense in that he's the eldest son and theoretically Lord of Winterfell, though he renounced it to Sansa so maybe it doesn't make sense? Sansa - Lady of Winterfell, this does make sense. Ser Brienne of Tarth - if she's there as a body guard to Sansa (and Arya, though there's no need for that) then it makes sense. If she has a vote, this makes no sense. Ser Davos - As an adviser, this makes sense. Gendry - if he's here to take another swing at Arya, great. Otherwise, he was made Lord by a usurper who burned down King's Landing. That's a tough beat for my guy. 2 more Random Dudes Yara - I guess this makes sense. The newly frocked and formerly mentioned Prince of Dorne (The PoD). Which kindof makes sense except that he says nothing. I'll get to that later. Robin Aryn - Lord of the Vale. Who has grown up a bunch since we previously saw him. Lord Royce - If Robin is here, Royce would not be. Another Random dude First of all, this collection of people as the most powerful people in Westeros is a joke. Second, how the hell does Tyrian, who is in shackles, end up running the meeting? Third, Grey Worm just goes along with the plan? After keeping Jon and Tyrian locked up for at least 4 inches of beard growth, the official time measuring stick of the season? Fourth, I don't get what Sansa is playing at. Her brother, the oldest son of Ned Stark, was just made King of the Seven Kingdoms. Bran is a Northern Lord. He is a Stark. Yet the Starks won't "Bend the knee" to the legitimate Lord of Winterfell? That makes absolutely no sense. The North would not so much be "bending the knee" to a southern ruler, as ruling the whole seven kingdoms. The reason is that they want Sansa as Queen of the North to finish her arc. And as a Sansa fan, I get that. But the setup makes no freaking sense. Fifth, as soon as Sansa secedes the union, my expectation would be the PoD to stand up and say, "Unbowed, Unbent, Unborken MFers, we're out of here." And then Yara to say, "We pledged to Queen Danny, who was unjustly murdered, we're out homies." I guess Sam and Edmure would go along with it. I have no idea what the Vale would do, but they have been very tight with Sansa, so they might go that route. Sixth, Bran does not have a better story than anybody. Which is why he was written off the show for an entire season. Arya might have the best story. Maybe even Sansa. Or Tyran. Or Jon. It just made no bleeding sense. The whole thing was really a tough look for my guys the Double D's who wrote and directed this. Really tough. - Bran is King of the Six Kingdoms. Sansa is Queen of the North. What in the name of everything Stark is stopping either one of them from setting Jon free of his bonds to the Night's Watch the moment Grey Worm sets sail for Naath? The answer: Nothing. Except that they wanted to get Jon back to Tormund and the North. Which might be where he wants to be anyway. But the whole setup made no sense. - Brienne being the head of the Kings Guard makes no sense. She pledged to protect Sansa and Arya. There's almost no chance that she doesn't go back to Winterfell with Sansa to be the head of her Queen's Guard. I like the Brienne writing in the book scene, but I just don't think it's realistic that Brienne stays in Kings Landing when Sansa heads north.
  11. 1 point
    I'm strapped in and ready to go. It's been too quiet around here, LETS GET SOME DRAMA GOING!
  12. 1 point
    LOL, Riverdale is sort of fun to watch in a MST3K way at this point. (it seems like each season gets more ridiculous and stupid, along with the characters) It is entertaining though.
  13. 1 point
    It is an nice breakdown. Regarding Wirfs, Volsmet has been crushing on him for a while and posted vids. I believe he is expected to be a RT. I have seen him go between the mid first round to the third in mocks, so probably the second.
  14. 1 point
    Nice breakdowns. I like that Wyatt focused on that Iowa game where someone opined that he didn't play well, addressed the concept and not the commenter. Iowa's O line is no joke, WE draft outta there, right? And correct me if I'm wrong, but Wirfs? Haven't I been hearing that name mentioned as a top prospect for next year? But yeah, it's hard to watch college play and prognosticate on how it translates in the pros. One thing I keep seeing is that Sweat stays aware of the play, I see him breaking off a block to pop a RB, stagger step on PA to follow the ball, that kind of situational awareness where he isn't just intent on being driven around the play by being too tunnel-vision about the man in front of him. Wyatt makes a good point vis-a-vis the way his play allows teammates to get there, as opposed to the fantasy football tards that only see the individual stats and then want to regale others with their prescience.
  15. 1 point
    I meant on defense, but, you are correct. I actually disagree with this. Sweat doesn’t have a lot of refined hand moves and counters, but he is going to overwhelm at times with his length and speed and power. He put Tytus Howard on his butt in the Senior Bowl, and did the same thing to Dalton’s Risner. When you are pancaking high draft picks with power and are also super long and run a 1.5 second 10 yard split and a 4.41 fourty, you’re a lot harder to defend than someone who doesn’t yet have much power, like Brian Burns. I think Sweat collects at least 8 sacks this year and looks good doing it.
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    This. $675/hr, even adjusted for inflation, is not some crazy amount for a top-notch lawyer. And in the field of bankruptcy, Warren was considered as expert as they come.
  18. 1 point
    The article interesting as hell with regards to the work she did for the plaintiffs. She got s good settlement from Dow Chemicals for their dangerous breast implants for instance. A misleading headline and lead.
  19. 1 point
    good for him. Alex Smith makes an appearance during the Redskins' third day of OTAs https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/photos-alex-smith-makes-appearance-during-redskins-third-day-otas
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    I don't have a problem with the article, I have a problem with the Washington Post though. They're constantly writing hit pieces on the Redskins. They only do that because they know we don't really mess with Snyder like that, we just like the team. They never attack any of the other teams like they do the Redskins and I'm kind of ticked off about it because it just feels so familiar.
  22. 1 point
    It's not just what he says here. It's how he says it. He's not tryin to look cute or act tough. He is cold-blooded, dead serious.
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    Arnold just shrugged this off like it was nothing.
  25. 1 point
    So if Martin starts, does everyone realize that would mean all 5 OL were drafted by the skins, as well as our 3 interior DL and both of our edges? Wow.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00