• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      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)

Sometimes I think people align too much the idea of a bad candidate with not being elected. 

 

HRC wasn't a bad candidate. She was an unpopular electoral college candidate. She would have made an acceptable POTUS and by accounts, an effective one too. She also was a middle of the road candidate (not a fringe one) that should have won against an extremist like Trump. Unless you accept that the GOP has become an extremist party since 2009 (it has...maybe).

 

 

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Sometimes I think people align too much the idea of a bad candidate with not being elected. 

 

HRC wasn't a bad candidate. She was an unpopular electoral college candidate. She would have made an acceptable POTUS and by accounts, an effective one too. She also was a middle of the road candidate (not a fringe one) that should have won against an extremist like Trump. Unless you accept that the GOP has become an extremist party since 2009 (it has...maybe).

 

 

I wanted Bernie, I still wanted Bernie. However, I still voted for Hillary because I had no doubt she would be a competent president. I don't understand how people could NOT like her, look at Trump, but see him as the better option. its mind blowing...

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I wanted Bernie, I still wanted Bernie. However, I still voted for Hillary because I had no doubt she would be a competent president. I don't understand how people could NOT like her, look at Trump, but see him as the better option. its mind blowing...

 

In the last 32 elections, there have been only 3 other candidates (Nixon in 1960, Gore, Kerry) who got a higher percentage of the vote and still lost the EC.

 

Only one of those other 3 actually got more votes than their opponent (Gore, like HRC did in 2016).

 

I fear we are heading into a very bad direction where the plurality of voters are overruled by smaller states with overinflated EC power.

 

 

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

In the last 32 elections, there have been only 3 other candidates (Nixon in 1960, Gore, Kerry) who got a higher percentage of the vote and still lost the EC.

 

Only one of those other 3 actually got more votes than their opponent (Gore, like HRC did in 2016).

 

I fear we are heading into a very bad direction where the plurality of voters are overruled by smaller states with overinflated EC power.

 

 

The GOP knows this, thats why you won't see a red state drop the the EC or stop gerrymandering. I can't tell you how proud I am to watch Virginia turn blue, I'm still around the "country folk" (and they're not bad people), but I'm happy to see the push into what i feel is the right direction.

 

I got into a debate with a Trump supporter just the other day, I asked her "what do you like that he's done?". I won't go into too much, but she didn't have an arguement or even facts, she didn't respond to facts. How do you reason with someone who doesn't even understand reason? if you like the guy, thats fine, but don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining...and then call it "fake news".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders is running on a plan to bail out rich kids

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-running-on-a-plan-to-bail-out-rich-kids/2019/06/25/0fd67d72-96bc-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.0f14a187bf5e

 

Quote

AS DEMOCRATIC presidential candidates prepared for their first debate Wednesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unveiled a sweeping plan to cancel $1.6 trillion in student debt (apparently including loans by private banks, as well as federal loans) owed by some 45 million people. Funded by $2.4 trillion in taxes on financial transactions over 10 years, Mr. Sanders’s plan would accompany another proposal to guarantee tuition-free public colleges and trade schools. This goes well beyond the already ambitious debt-relief plan of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — which may be no coincidence. Mr. Sanders has been losing ground to her in the polls and needs to rekindle voter interest. Alas, despite its progressive packaging, Mr. Sanders’s proposal is a formula for a massive upward redistribution of the nation’s limited resources.

 

Two-thirds of students who earned a four-year degree in 2017 borrowed to pay for school, according to the College Board, with the average bachelor’s degree recipient owing $28,500 upon graduation. This burden undoubtedly makes it more difficult for many of them to purchase big-ticket items such as houses or cars. Still, borrowing for college is an investment in one’s own human capital that pays off over a lifetime — to the tune of $1 million more in earnings compared with those who finish only high school. What’s more, better-off households owe a slightly disproportionate share of all student debt: The top 25 percent owe 34 percent of the money, according to data compiled by economist Sandy Baum of the Urban Institute. People with graduate and professional degrees — usually high earners — accounted for 26 percent of borrowers but 48 percent of debt. In the 2015-2016 school year, 38 percent of all new borrowing was contracted by 17 percent of households to pay for graduate and professional education.

 

In short, the democratic socialist candidate is running on a plan to bail out doctors, lawyers and their children to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars — while touting it as middle-class payback for the 2008 Wall Street bailout. Yes, Mr. Sanders would pay for his plans with a tax that fell mostly on the investing class; the point, however, is not the origin of the money but the alternative uses to which the money might be put. In that regard, it makes no sense to transfer so much of the revenue from one group of well-off people to another, when you could spend the $2.4 trillion on, say, pre-K schooling for poor children, college assistance for low-income young adults — or any of several other worthy public purposes whose benefits would reach a needier swath of the American population.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

The system is obviously rigged against *checks notes*, a millionaire white man serving in the US Senate. 😂

Edited by No Excuses
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great opportunity for Beto and Warren to make their case. Tomorrow night could be a **** show with everybody duking it out and gunning for Biden.

 

Beto and especially Warren have the opportunity to steal a lot of thunder from tomorrow's debate with the more big names. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

The system is obviously rigged against *checks notes*, a millionaire white man serving in the US Senate. 😂

 

But he's still not as picked on as Donald Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump raising so much money from the extremely well heeled might be a negative if Democrats use it correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Trump raising so much money from the extremely well heeled might be a negative if Democrats use it correctly.

He raised 24 million I believe in in 24 hours, more than the top 5 Dems running combined in their time. However, 10 of the came directly from the GOP coffers. The DNC (for now) will not donate to a candidate unless they win the primary. If you take that into consideration, along with the fact that a lot of them don't take corporate money...eh...not that impressed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is everyone going after Biden?

 

you can do that later. Right now you need to be better than the field. Go after the field. 

 

Or better yet just pitch yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Why is everyone going after Biden?

 

you can do that later. Right now you need to be better than the field. Go after the field. 

 

Or better yet just pitch yourself

 

I've wondered that also. Some of these folks could end up looking like the Dems who helped re-elect whatshisfatface. Can't tell who they are for. Just they are against Biden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tshile said:

Why is everyone going after Biden?

 

you can do that later. Right now you need to be better than the field. Go after the field. 

 

Or better yet just pitch yourself

 

I get where you're going with this, but I really do believe part of it is because he's the candidate that reminds everyone the most of Hillary.  Believe its deeper then him being the front runner, he's the closest thing to status quo of the candidates and the last two major elections (2016 and 2018) have said the people don't want that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Why is everyone going after Biden?

 

you can do that later. Right now you need to be better than the field. Go after the field. 

 

Or better yet just pitch yourself

 

frontrunner will always catch the most shots

 

In a crowded field, its hard to get attention. Booker was having a hard time getting traction before his little dust up with Joe. No saying that was the reason he did it, because I don't.

Edited by StillUnknown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like if 90% of the non-Biden candidates are going after Biden, they’ll be lost and the headline will be about Biden being attacked. You’re competing with everyone to be better at competing with Biden. 

 

It’s a chance to be the one that did something different and is a different headline that includes only you. 

 

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