TMK9973

What a team. Preseason my older sister became friends with Gary Clark. My sister was a 20 year old hooters server. I was a dorky 18 year old kid. Sat night before 1st game - Gary Called my sister and said "Hey -I got tickets for you to the game tomorrow. Want to go? We can hang out after". She said "no. But my brother would love to go" and handed me the phone. To this day Ive never heard a more disappointed voice in a grown man (Gary Was a really good guy. So no judgement. Just stating a fact). She ended up dating Chip Lohmiller on and off for most of that season. Add to the personal touch you had a DOMINATE team. You had Tony Kornhisers "Bandwagon" You had Shut Out city. Was at the NFC championship game as well. So nervous but 1st play - Sack Fumble. IT was a party. Small historical note. The lions and the Redskins meet in the NFC championship that year. IN the 30 years since, Only 2 NFC teams have not reached the NFC title game Washington and Detroit.

John Madden taught me football. Never meet the guy -Not a video gamer -but growing up in the 80's he did a LOT of Redskins games. For those that never saw him announcing or only saw him on MNF -It is hard to explain how good he was at announcing with Pat Summerall. Not saying he was bad on MNF, but with Pat Summerall -It was different. He didn't just tell you the plays or offer his thoughts, he showed you and explained to you why a play was called. Why it worked (or didn't). He reviewed the rules but in a different way every time. He found a way to show in detail how a TE on the far side of the field was key to success of a screen pass on the other side. IT didnt matter if you were watching a NFL game for the 1st time ever, or for the 1000th time. You learned something new from John Madden and it was explained and showed in way that was never condescending, never repetitive, and never boring. Combined with Pat Summerall it never got too sidetracked either. And if you did see a lot of John Madden and Pat Summerall- you even picked up on their inside jokes ("Next on CBS, Murder..........................................She wrote" Was one of the ongoing jokes). In addition -What made him really special and in the booth -I bet you EVERY FAN of EVERY NFL team who watched madden to this day will tell you "He LOVED my team". For 90% of the announcers out there I can tell you what team they like, if they don't like the WFT, or if they don't care. With Madden - He knew so much about every team you always thought he was a fan of YOUR team. RIP

Damnit - I didnt see it. Even did a search! I wonder if I can delete?

Sorry -Didnt see a thread already existed!!

Rules changed 3 days ago! https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-nflpa-agree-to-modified-covid-19-protocols-cutting-standard-isolation-period Im mad for 2 reasons 1 -Its BAD science and gonna lead to more players getting sick 2- It came 2 weeks to late!

Doesn't matter. if he has no fever by day 4, and his symptoms are gone or "Improved" he can return. I am SURE that is bad science, but the below applies to everyone. An individual to clear protocol must meet other qualifications beyond the five days since their initial positive test, per a memo to all 32 teams obtained by Pelissero. An individual must clear at least 24 hours since their last fever without the aide of fever-reducing medication; other symptoms must be "resolved or improved"; individual must be cleared by team doctor in consultation with ICS and NFL; and any local regulations or requirements have been satisfied.

yes. I always think people underestimate Coaches desire to win. To be a NFL coach you have to be competitive as hell. Players sometimes may be done. They have a vacation coming up, they got their money, they are competitive but might check out from the team. But a NFL coach? It is extremely rare to ever find a NFL head coach at any point on any team not trying to win at all costs.

I think people are reading to much into Rivera statement. What I heard "TH is the starting QB. But If the game is lost I or TH looks terrible I am gonna put Allen in, but i don't want to make it sound like its a benching or out of the blue and I want to give Allen some reps in case that happens, so im just gonna say we are gonna play both"

I saw a stat the other day that says we have not won a game without Scherff in like 3 seasons.

Jack Del Rio has a bad core belief about this defense that is gonna hurt us. He recognized at start of year that the secondary was week and the front 4 was strong. So he had a core belief that he had to stop the big play. He could rush 4 straight up (No stunts, little blitzing) drop more into coverage to help the bad secondary and that would work. It didn't. Because a basic 4 man rush wasnt getting pressure and almost any NFL QB, given enough time, will find someone open in a zone. Then Sweat got hurt and Collins moved to Linebacker and really wanted to blitz. So he said F it -Lets start blitzing more and try to put pressure on them. It worked. We gave up more big plays (Which is the risk) but less long time consuming drives. We were blitzing and running stunts and while our coverage still stunk, the plan was to not give the QB enough time to go past his 1st or 2nd read. Overall it, it worked. Then Covid hit, he had guys who had hardly ever practiced with the team, more backups, etc. So as a result -He went back to his CORE belief that he must stop the big play at all costs. So once again he started to just do the most basic 4 man rush. It is almost a prevent defense. Drop all these guys back, soft zone, rush 4 straight up. That was the defense 90% of the game last night. It is a BAD core belief. Giving up big plays suck. And I understand that fear. BUt what are you worried about? That a team will drop 56 points on you? Even with guys right off the practice squad -He should be sending the house. The more you drop back the more time the QB has, the more he will find a open receiver and do a long drive and eventually, someone will miss a coverage or fall down and the big play will happen anyway. If you send everyone more often then not you will rush the QB, force him to get rid of it. YES -You will sometimes give up the big play. But even that, with a team full of backups and recovering covid players, that is OK. At least then the D gets to go rest and the offense can take the field again. Here is the issue -Coaches do not change core beliefs. They may change players and schemes even. But a core belief is different. If his core belief is that its better to give the QB time vs giving up the big play - That will never change.

I don't think effort was the issue. These are real human's. Over the past week many of them have been hit with Covid (Who, even those with mild and no symptoms report days of tiredness and easily winded). They saw a teammate have a major car accident, be in the hospital, and the passenger killed. They were physically outmatched and esp on defense, out coached. The effort obviously dropped as the game went on because, well, they are human. Hard to still go 100% physically when nothing is going right. The monday night massacre 11 years ago against the Eagles is a example of a team that gave NO effort. This team last night just got their ass whooped after a physical and emotional 10 days.

That was on obviously a complete beat down. But I don't understand what Jack Del Rio is doing. Last two weeks he has run the most basic defense scheme on 90% of plays. No stunts, next to no blitz. Just a 4 man rush with a soft zone. It's like playing prevent defense the entire game. I get that we have backups and 4th stringers in some spots but the logic makes no sense. He should have just been doing 5,6 even 7 men rushes the entire game. Yes, makes the risk of a big play more but by sending only 4 and doing the soft zone you allow the QB to just take all the time in the world and find the open guy. Plus with backups and guys that haven't played together much they are more then likely to blow a coverage. Any NFL coach can game plan against a 4 man sorry zone defense being run 90% of the time.

I cant wait to beat the Eagles and then hear for years how its unfair that they had to play more of our regulars with our QB off the street.

Tim Settle back.... While thats good news Im a bit concern that if that is being leaked and nothing else is....then that is all there is.

Dude has a bunch of good games and its "Hes lucky, it was great plays by others, its this, its that" He has a TERRIBLE game and its "well that shows you its all over". Do I think Heinicke is a a future HOF -No. Do I think he gives us the best chance to win games in the last 10 years? Yes (Outside Alex Smith).. Kirk Cousins was a better QB, but doesnt have "it". WHen the game is on the line, when you need your QB to light a spark, when you need a QB to be a leader -KC will prob throw a INT or fight with a WR. TH will run around like crazy and drive you down the field. KC has 19 4th qtr game winning drives out of 117 games. He is also 1 game under 500. So 16% TH has 4 4th qtr game winning drive out of 13 (Not even counting the TB game where his great drive ended the game) and is 1 game under 500. Yet, without a doubt, KC has much better talent and skills and has played on better team for longer. The players all tell you TH has "IT". The numbers say he has "IT". Despite the Terrible game he had, Im still convinced that If he was able to come in for that last drive -he would have lead us down for a score. BTW-I did look it up. Kyle Allan -17 games started, 1 4th qtr game winning drive.

I was discussing this before with someone. Everyone DOES just seem angrier these days. Just ready to snap at the smallest things. Personally -I'm very thankful delta 8 and now pot is legal in VA. That helps me!

I do think there is room for a 3rd way political party. If you start small. There are many Republicans out there that are not the party of Trump, still believe less regulation and lower taxes is the way to go, esp for investment and corporate but are uneasy with the social extremes Republicans have fought for and do not agree on ALWAYS lowering taxes for everything. Meanwhile Many people vote dem for social and because they feel there is a major role for Government to take, but are uneasy about the extremes of the dem party and the far left wing. But really, there are HUGE number of Americans that just want to tweak a few things and don't want a massive overhaul of the US system. Many who don't think the country needs a sharp change to the left or right.

This is exactly the kind of Idea I was thinking with this thread. Easy solution that would prob pass if introduced. No more political standoffs EVERY year. As for 3rd party -A 3rd party cold def work these days. My issues it is seems all those interested and capable of a 3rd party always want to start with the presidency. That aint gonna happen. Start with a purple state. Run a few state legislators under a new party platform and refuse to alway vote with 1 party or the other. Introduce a few "3rd way" bills and pass or not, run on them. Move from state legislators to congressional districts and after a few elections, then Governor and senator, and 12-20 years after you can run someone for President. President should be the LAST step, not the 1st.

Have you ever noticed that when online - Any debate on Politics sooner or later end up just repeating the same talking points of elected leaders from both major parites? However - When talking 1 on 1 with a friend IN PERSON who is on "The other side" very often you all find common ground and then move on? My take - there are 330 million Americans - but Ideas for solutions seem to only come from a few hundred, maybe thousands (If you include think tanks). But Many great, compromisable ideas, are out there. But they are NOT making it up to the right people. What are you simple, but good ideas that can move us forward again? I'll start with my 2. 1 simple, 1 not so simple. 1 -Filibuster. There is not doubt that the Filibuster is now being abused and is now being used to require 60 votes for ANYTHING. IT was never suppose to be that. IT was a quirk in the rules that in theory - the minority party could use on the most extreme laws and positions of the majority party. Today- because its easier (you don't need to do a talking filibuster anymore) its used for everything. At some point, I'll go over all my ideas to fix congress (I got lots! ) but for now - I think we could fix just this one. I don't want to vote to remove the filibuster because the result would be a consistent battle to pass and repeal laws every time the majority changed. So I think the filibuster is a good tool, just abused. So here is my simple change. Require 40 votes to continue the filibuster. You may be thinking, that's the rule now. But its not. The rule todays is you need 60 votes to END a filibuster. But that is reverse. I think the last big bill to die in the filibuster with a vote was the bipartisan bill to investigate Jan 6th. died with it was 54 to 35 to end the filibuster. 5 votes short of the 40 you would need if my idea passed. Would there have been another 5 senators that would have shown up to vote against the investigation? We will never know. Change the "burdon" and lets see what happens. Next one -Will be a little more controversy. 2- Voting rights and Gun rights - look. I support gun bills and voting rights. HOWEVER the other side has a point. Gun rights are in the constitutional and we have to be careful about how we limit constitutional rights. I also support easy voting for more voting - but try as I might, somethings like Voter ID laws, dont really bother me (Except in places that pass voter ID then limit the type of ID). Here is my simple bill. Tie voting and gun rights together. Same day registration for voting? Then Same day registration for a gun. No pre registration needed for gun? Then no pre registration needed for Voting. 3 day limit to be approved to purchase a gun or you are able to purchase it? Then 3 day limit on how long it must take to be approved to vote. I could go on and on. But BOTH are constitutional rights. BOTH have limits (Felons, non citizens have their rights limited). So tie them together. This will make places like Texas and GA rethink what voting limitations they are willing to do, while it will also limit some states on what gun laws they pass. Ok -your turn. What are some simple answers for complex problems??

im not expert nor do claim one (I help with the non medical part of the clinics), so will only talk about the cards and how we did it / doing it. For the cards I can tell you that at the clinic i help at, if you have your card we will fill it out and use the space marked "other" for the booster. If you DON'T have your card -but got the 1st two shots with us (same clinic) we will make you a new one with the booster in others. If you don't have your card AND you didn't get one of the two shots from us -we give you the website for VA dept of health vaccine records (Which has all shots in va). and if you got it out of state - we tell you to reach out to your state to get your record. We wont fill out info on your card that we did not do. Another reason the cards wont last much longer. I do strongly recommend you get digital proof of your vaccine and your state record. https://www.va.gov/health-care/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-record/ that is for VA. Every state is different.

So about the cards -The US and CDC screwed this up in the start (I dont blame them- I doubted anyone though there would be this kind of push back against the vaccine). When the vaccines first came out - The CDC literally told agencies and clinics that the cards were NOT going to be used for proof of vaccine. That they were really just appointment reminders (Flip your card over -It literally has a spot to fill out the date / time of your appt for the 2nd shot), and would be a way for the people to simply remember where and what they got for their 1st shot. The CDC actually thought that all shots would be recorded on VAMS. The issue was VAMS wasn't mandated, and had lots of issues at first so many states and clincs used their own system. I worked a clinc starting last Dec. The cards were NOT secured at first. In fact -When we ran low CDC just told us to use a copier can make new ones. The cards were just on the front tables and to be honest -Anyone could have grabbed dozens of them walking by and no one would have blinked. Hell -because my handwriting is so bad -I had more then a few people fill out everything on their own except the lot number, which they got from the actual vaccinator but even that wasnt automatic at first (My first shot was in Dec and I dont even have the lot number on my card!) In VA (and most states) you can get a actual certificate that shows the info from the state dept. And if you did use VAMS, you can log in and get your own certificate. Many states are also moving to QR codes. My point was - Fake cards are out there in the ton - because they were never suppose to be the proof and wont last long as the proof.

Well -This isnt exactly true although I may not have used the correct terms. For instance - Type 1 diabetes is a autoimmune disease where the immune system is over active and attacks the pancreas thinking the insulin is bad. That is a extreme but a overactive immune system is a issue. Some people may have a overactive immune system and not even know it -but boosters could trigger it (in fact -Most type 1 diabetics i know, including my sister who have asked their Dr if they should get a booster have been told no. Not right now). I am not expert -nor do I claim to be. I repeating what I read by some of the FDA experts that voted AGAINST the recommendation. Im not against boosters either -but unless there is some evidence that people under 60 without high risk factors would benefit- I dont see the rush. And I am strongly pro-vaccine because the science was clear.

So for boosters -I can tell you 1st hand knowledge its the honor system. You say you need it because of health or at risk job, no one is questioning it. you will get the booster. HOWEVER -I urge people to do what has been urged since day 1. Trust the science and the Experts. There is no evidence that most healthy people under 60 need the boosters, and there IS a unknown risk that "overstimulating" the antibodies could end up causing more problems. If you are under 60 and have no other health risk and been fully vaxed, while a booster shot might offer you some increased short term protection against getting covid -in all likely hood all it is doing is reducing the chance you get a mild to asymptomatic case of covid - which may not be worth the unknown. Booster will prob be needed for everyone eventually -I see no reason to rush out and get it before it shows a vailt reason to. and no -I am no expert. Which is why i will continue to defer to the general consensus of the experts.

So baseball fans -I got a question after watching the Nationals lose yet ANOTHER extra inning games. Regardless your thoughts about starting with a man on 2nd -I feel all mangers are handling this wrong. The way its been played -is the away team plays normally and tries to score as much as possible on the top half of the extra inning, and then if they fail to do so - the Home team will bunt the guy from 2nd over and win the game with any play that can advanced the guy home. But Im not sure the odds support this. because if you do not score that 1st run - you are going to lose. To me - it would make sense that even the visitor team should bunt. If you do not get that 1st run - the odds are very high you will lose. So I think you need to play first for the tie, then for the win. 3 chances to get 1 hit or lose OR 2 chances to get a hit or a scarifies and extend the game.

This is the reckoning. My generation (I'm 48) is the last generation experience the Glory Years in it's entirety. And at 48, the idea of fighting traffic, putting up with Drunk aholes, overpriced and below avg food and drink with no entertainment vs watching at home or a local sports bar isnt there. Yet I still go to 25-30 Nats games a year despite WFT being my true love. Most stadiums now are either in a entertainment district (and people go early and stay late), or the stadium itselfs offers something (Giants stadium for instance has a area where you can try your luck kicking FGs, sit in a cool area and watch pregame projected in big screen, kids have a little football obstacle course). The entire experience around going to a game is terrible. Fans will come to a big game, but short of that. Can't do much about it now. What they should do ASAP is allow people to pack and bring their own food in (like the Nationals). It would be cheaper to go AND they prob would still make the same since those that didn't would have shorter lines and might go more often to buy food.