• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         1
      In today's Divisional Debacle, the Defense under Greg Manusky in the first half, gave up 207 yards of offense (105 rushing/102 passing) and two touchdowns.  That said, they did manage a single INT on which the Offense actually managed to score a touchdown off of. They allowed 12 of 16 passes to be completed . 
       
      In the second half it was 107 yards given up (58 rushing//49 passing) a field goal and a touchdown. They traded their first half pick for a second half sack. However, Dallas completed all five of their pass attempts. 
       
      Don't read that thinking "Well it seems like they tightened up some in the 2nd half."  They didn't. They simply had about half the plays in the second half. 30 plays in the First and 18 in the Second.
       
      So far in two Divisional matchups, the Defense has faltered in the Second half. They start out like a house of fire for the first few drives until their opponents gradually make adjustments. This Defensive coaching staff fails make any adjustments, whether in game or at the very least at Halftime. They've given up over 30 points per game for a total of 63 points given up in two games. While the Bears are up next, the Pats await and they've put up over 70 points in two games. Yeah. Ok. They did shut out the Dolphins today which is looking like the NFL version of ... ahem... shooting fish in a barrel. 
       
      The frustrating thing is Manusky is the DC that the Front Office actively looked to replace during the off season without firing him. When you know they're looking to replace you, most people would make a concentrated effort to show an improvement. Yet Manusky's Defense still keeps acting like it's starring in Groundhog Day.
       
      In his post game presser, when asked directly about if any coaching changes would be made, Gruden said "No, I think after two games – you’re talking about playing two very good offensive football teams and two of the best offensive lines in pro football we just played back-to-back. That’s no excuse whatsoever, but I don’t think we need to hit the panic button yet. We just have to continue to focus on what we can do better to win. Get Jonathan [Allen] in here, get a couple of our corners back in here and let’s go back and strap it up against Chicago [Bears] next week and see what happens.” 
       
      Here's another frustrating thing. The defensive communication was an issue last season as well. Wasn't this supposed to have been worked on during OTA's and Training Camp? It's understandable that the rookies would still be on a learning curve, but NFL vets like Collins and DRC you'd think they would have down by the start of the season. 
       
      Gruden said they're a very talented group on Defense but that they weren't reaching them. When questioned as to why the coaching staff that has been in place for several years, wasn't reaching them, he defended the comment as them being a young defense. “We have some moving parts now. Landon Collins is a veteran guy but this is his first year, [Montez] Sweat’s in his first year, [Cole] Holcomb, it’s his first year, [Jon] Bostic is in his first year. We’re playing Dominique [Rodgers-Cromartie] at corner and this is Jimmy Moreland’s first year, so it’s not like we are the most experienced group. We feel like were very talented, but we`re still fighting through somethings. There are a lot of things to look forward to, without a doubt, but we do have to play better and strap it up and get back to work."

       
       
       
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Baby Sharpie vs Batwoman or Batman

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, justice98 said:

 

Those people dont even really care about winning.  They know full well they have no shot.  I'm guessing being able to say you ran for President is rather lucrative.  In a 20-something person field, that bottom half is in it for the money.

Except Trump disproved that. What was he polling in the summer of 2015? He had no shot.

12 hours ago, visionary said:

 

Well you guys can't deny that the Dems are falling into the bat **** crazy lane now can you? So looks like the Dems said heck with if Repubs can do Bat chit crazy we'll top them in that category.

Edited by nonniey
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

 

For someone who’s been near the top of the pack for much of the campaign so far there hasn’t been a lot of coverage (neutral, positive, or negative) of Bernie or his past like there has with other candidates.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I said long ago I thought he should be the VP pick and I’d be happy with him there because his GOTV ability would be hugely beneficial to the ticket. 

 

I don’t want him running for the Senate though. That ship has sailed. 

 

We dont have to agree, but to me hes jus a pretty face that can string some words together.  I'm not interested in his reparations plan, it's a non-starter cause it's never gonna happen.  He really does need to drop out and run for Senate, get on some intelligence committees,  then try again.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nonniey said:

Except Trump disproved that. What was he polling in the summer of 2015? He had no shot.

 

 

I think Trump proved it more than disproves it.  He was only in it for the money and didnt care about winning either.  Even on election night he didn't think he was gonna win.  

 

And even then, he was a charismatic celebrity.  These jokers are as anonymous and dull as longshot candidate could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nonniey said:

Except Trump disproved that. What was he polling in the summer of 2015? He had no shot.

 

Trump was the favorite and ahead in the polls in July 2015 and never really relinquished that lead for the rest of the primary. You idiots flocked to him once he started opening his racist moronic mouth. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, nonniey said:

Except Trump disproved that. What was he polling in the summer of 2015? He had no shot.

Well you guys can't deny that the Dems are falling into the bat **** crazy lane now can you? So looks like the Dems said heck with if Repubs can do Bat chit crazy we'll top them in that category.

 

Trump didn't declare until June.  He was in first place in the RCP in mid July.

 

He didn't have no shot based on the polls.  People thought the voters would wake up and realize he would be a mess of a President.

 

Why?

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Joe Biden — 37%

Elizabeth Warren — 17%

Pete Buttigieg — 11%

Kamala Harris — 9%

Bernie Sanders — 9%

Cory Booker — 5%

Beto O’Rourke — 4%

Andrew Yang — 3%

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys give Trump too much credit with the 2016 polling. I believe it was 70%/30% for Clinton/Trump respectfully, so she would win about of out of 3 elections if there were that many. Trump just happened to win the first one. There are also somethings you have to take into consideration:

 

1. Comey coming out and saying Clinton was under FBI investigation (but didn't mention Trump) clearly hurt and dropped her poll number just a couple of weeks before the election.

 

2. Polling isn't as accurate when it comes to presidential races, the EC really muddies the water when you try to get the full picture on what you predict is going to happen.

 

3. Clinton wasn't a very strong/likable candidate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie doing an interview on fox. They were showing an “if the election were held today” and trump was about 8 points under Biden, Bernie and Warren I believe and was tied with Harris and Mayor Pete.

 

something something fake news, our own internal polls something or other   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

 

 

No, I don't think Paul thinks that there is a lot of evidence supporting the automation thesis is right or he wouldn't have written an OP-ED saying it is wrong.  If he knew that, I suspect he'd not have written such an OP-ED.

 

I suspect that Paul thinks he's right and that there isn't a lot of evidence that people pushing that automation is killing jobs are wrong.

 

(I said years ago during the Great Recession, I knew people that were leaving the labor force, moving to less nice areas and home schooling their kids.  And in some cases it was the fathers.  Those people aren't coming back into the labor force at least until their kids transition to a normal school (which might not be until college) and that isn't happening yet (their kids are at most in their early teens).

 

The other thing you have is mid-20s is still in school for more and more people.  We are going to have redefine prime ages.

 

The labor participation rate for people 35-39 years old in May was 82.9%.  The average based on data going back to 1982 was 83.5%.

 

We're 0.6% below the average.  Pretty similar for 30-34 year olds 0.7 points below the average.

 

For people that were less likely to have young kids during the great recession and are less affected by having to go to school longer, the labor participation rate is pretty much what you'd expect based on historical data and not indicative of a large change due to automation.

 

The decline in the labor participation rate is heavily tied to things related to having kids (and for males has been declining for 60 some years).

 

https://equitablegrowth.org/declining-labor-force-participation-rate-causes-consequences-path-forward/

 

There is no reason to invoke issues related to automation when talking about the labor participation rate.  People in the US get to a point where it makes more sense to stop working and stay home and raise kids due to the associated costs and as more women have gotten better jobs more males have taken on that role.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny but quite sad that another Bush was the GOP's voter's likely choice for the nomination before Trump swooped in and stole their blackened hearts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you Dems should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

you Dems should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

 

 

Seems like the main sentiment from the article isn't that Dems have an issue with a female candidate/President, but fear that a female candidate would have a harder time winning votes from independents and possible GOP converts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, twa said:

you Dems should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

 

I bet that number is triple  among the GOP. They prefer the Sarah Palin,  Michelle Bachman types.

56 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Funny but quite sad that another Bush was the GOP's voter's likely choice for the nomination before Trump swooped in and stole their blackened hearts. 

He didn't steal their hearts. They welcomed him into their hearts. He awoke their true nature.

Edited by Rdskns2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.