• 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

Just now, spjunkies said:

 

I'm going to let this suffice because if I reply to that fool I'm guaranteed to get banned. 

Pretty much.  My hope is that this thread doesn't get completely derailed with people trying to get the last word, no good will come from that, we've already seen that before.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha!  If there is anyone that DOESN’T know about the 3rd world, it’s Donald J Trump.  The only thing he knows about 3rd world countries is what he sees on Fox News.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm going to ban myself from any political debates. Have fun y'all and HTTR. 

Edited by Thomas Finney
Just being cool

Share this post


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

 

My initial point was valid. It's very hard to beat an incumbent president. Bush 41 lost because of Perot and Carter lost because of Iranian hostages. Polarizing presidents like Dubya and Obama won second terms because of the incumbent advantage. It's going to take someone extraordinary to overcome that, and I don't see that person among the current contenders.

I pretty much agree with this, although I think Bill Clinton would've beaten GHWB due to the recession earlier in his term (and Bill was a generational politician) and Carter also got killed by stagflation. Incumbents do get credit for not screwing things up badly, but Trump is going to put it to the test. Not because of his policy positions but because of his insufferable ego. He may win the EC vote again, but I also think he loses the popular vote again.

 

I also agree that the Democrats shouldn't nominate someone that is TOO far left. In your opinion, of the names being considered for 2020, who in your mind would have the best chance to defeat Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thomas Finney said:

I'm going to ban myself from any political debates. There appears to be something of a consensus on this board and nobody seems overly keen on debating their positions other than throwing out a few tired insults. Have fun y'all and HTTR.

 

TWA has been on this forum for years and I don't agree with almost anything he says, but he doesn't come off as a racist pos. We don't mind other voices, but you come across really bad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

That would have been my preferred action by her.

 

Still, think it was foolish to claim NA and then release a blood test that shows she’s 99% white.

 

 

 

I'm willing to listen if someone can show me what she is doing from a ritual or cultural standpoint outside of just saying she's part Native American.  What is she doing for the reserves in Massachusetts that's different from anyone else that's in office there?  Is it a priority or a political talking point? 

 

Obama never defended himself being half-black instead of full black because the very concept is stupid and won't make him a better commander in chief then someone who isn't.  He got treated like a minority, from what I've read people got upset with her for even insinuating to claim that she was while she was teaching.

 

When Native Americans are saying the DNA test makes a mockery of the attempts to confirm heritage and misses the point entirely, we should be listening.  I like her, but she absolutely needs to STFU about that. 

 

This is a big reason why I don't like anyone calling me African-American, I'm not from Africa, I'm almost 90% certain my direct ancestors where enslaved by other Africans first before they were sold to whites and brought here because that's how they rolled in West Africa at the time.  I want to visit, but its not like I'm "going home", I'm not getting off the plane wearing African Garb when I do either, frontin.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Why would you want this? What about the recent republican party makes you think that they deserve a cross party ticket?

 

What part of “I don't think there is a Republican worth a damn that will run” did you not understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

What part of “I don't think there is a Republican worth a damn that will run” did you not understand?

 

And then suggested Kasich? 

 

I don’t understand idea of the cross party ticket in general being something you’d like to see

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Man, we are finally getting into the 2020 race and someone is trying to get the thread closed.

 

Carter lost because of the economy and same with Papa Bush.

 

At the moment, Trump is going to be hard to beat. The perfect storm is brewing that could make his defeat possible. 

 

If I were a Dem, I would run now. Even if you have no shot, it doesn't hurt.

 

as for the GOP, they are  wasting their time. As long as Trump has over 80% GOP support; no one is beating Trump in a GOP primary.

Edited by Rdskns2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

And then suggested Kasich? 

 

I don’t understand idea of the cross party ticket in general being something you’d like to see

I don't know, because I think the country would benefit from the massive divide between the parties being bridged? Showing that putting the country first and not just beating the other "side" is more important?  There are people on this board who have declared anyone that votes Republican as enemies of the state. You think that's healthy?

 

And Kasich was the only sane candidate the Reps put up in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread's in no danger.  But every participant is, and always will be.

 

Life is hard in the mean streets.

471.jpg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Trump is going to be that hard to beat.  People have seen his performance in the job, they don't like it. 

 

Here is a good summary of my POV by Charlie Cook, one of the most astute pundits out there.  https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/sizing-trumps-base

 

Quote

Start with the 2016 vote, when Trump won 46 percent of the national vote and Hillary Clinton 48 percent. Trump won 30 states with 306 Electoral College votes while Clinton prevailed in 20 states (plus the District of Columbia) with 232 electoral votes. It would be logical to suggest that Democrats might need to do better than a 2.1-point national margin to be reasonably sure of a win, so maybe a 3-point popular vote win would most likely translate into the 270 electoral votes necessary to prevail.

 

Dems had a 9 point popular vote win in the midterms.

 

Quote

So how large are Trump’s core base of backers and hard-core opposition? In terms of support, a reasonable facsimile would be the people who tell pollsters that they strongly approve of the job he is doing. In this year’s network exit polls, 45 percent approved the job Trump is doing, while 54 percent disapproved. The "strongly approve" number was 31 percent. In the last Fox News poll before the midterm election, 31 percent of registered voters and 33 percent of likely voters strongly approved. The last preelection NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll pegged his "strongly approve" numbers at 32 percent of registered and 35 percent of likely voters, while the ABC News/Washington Post poll had it a bit lower with 28 percent. So between 28 and 35 percent can be said to be his solid base.

 

What about Trump’s hard-core opposition? The exit poll showed 46 percent strongly disapproving, while in the Fox News poll it was 43 and 45 percent respectively among registered and likely voters. The NBC/WSJ poll had the numbers a bit larger, with 45 percent of registered voters and 47 percent of likely voters strongly disapproving.

 

This from a different article by Charlie Cook. https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/republicans-must-do-some-soul-searching

 

Quote

n the three states that effectively determined the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, Republicans had real problems this year. In Wisconsin, GOP Gov. Scott Walker lost, albeit by just over a point, and Republicans lost the Senate race by just over 10 points. The GOP fell short in the governor race in Michigan by almost 10 points and the Senate race by 6 points, and lost the Senate and gubernatorial races in Pennsylvania by 13 and 17 points, respectively. In Ohio, normally a key swing state but where Trump won by 8 points in 2016, Democrats won the Senate contest by 6 points but lost the governorship by 5 points. Whatever problems Democrats had two years ago in these states appear to have dissipated, suggesting it might be more related to Hillary Clinton and less to the Democratic Party more systemically, or that Trump has at the very least not expanded the GOP coalition since 2016.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

What part of “I don't think there is a Republican worth a damn that will run” did you not understand?

There area couple that might but I'm torn if I want a Republican to run against Trump  - If he somehow won the Maga's would sit ensuring a loss and he and his supporters will get the blame (This is the least likely scenario), if he ran and lost (most likely) and Trump loses - ditto. If he runs loses and Trump wins he and those he supports will be even further in the wilderness.  As for the positive effect it would give me someone to vote for. 

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


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

I don't think Trump is going to be that hard to beat.  People have seen his performance in the job, they don't like it. 

 

 

Trump looks like a candidate that should lose and lose badly.  The man is mentally unfit for the job and in reality is just a puppet to the various interests.  The things that actually passed are things others wanted done.  The things Trump really cares about - ie border wall haven't been passed and probably won't be.

 

The pefect storn is brewing.  The various investigations, the economy probably heading towards a recession and Trump engaging all 20-30 Democratic candidates.  

 

I don't trust the Democrats to nominate the right candidate. Either the nominate someone who can't win a national election or after a brusing primary, they just can't unite.

 

I don't trust the American voters not to fall again for the lies, cheating that Trump, the GOP and Russia will bring to 2020.  We know the GOP will do everything in their power to  surpress the vote, rig the election in favor of Trump, etc...   Russia will be involved somehow, this time with an invitation from the GOP.  If the economy is still doing good on election day, will enough voters in the key states really vote Dem? Too early to tell but after 2016, you just can't really trust anything.

 

======================================================================================================================================================

 

 

Terry McAuliffe had an interesting take on the 2020 race, which he maybe a part of.

 

McAuliffe: To beat Trump, Democrats must counter his lies with realistic solutions

 

I actually agree with him.  Medicare for all sounds nice, but how do you pay for that?  For those who want to propose that, you will have to show exactly how much it's going to cost and how it's going to be paid for.  You can't say fantasy, the right will be taxed and that will pay for it.  Everyone will have to pay for it and how much of one's income must be taxed to pay for it. Or Some other taxing method- ie sales tax.  

 

You need to realistic solutions.    Medicare for all may eventually happen but it can't happen all at once.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rdskns2000 said:

 

 

I don't trust the Democrats to nominate the right candidate. Either the nominate someone who can't win a national election or after a brusing primary, they just can't unite.

 

I don't trust the American voters not to fall again for the lies, cheating that Trump, the GOP and Russia will bring to 2020.  We know the GOP will do everything in their power to  surpress the vote, rig the election in favor of Trump, etc...   Russia will be involved somehow, this time with an invitation from the GOP.  If the economy is still doing good on election day, will enough voters in the key states really vote Dem? Too early to tell but after 2016, you just can't really trust anything.

 

 

 

 

I agree with nearly everything you said.  The first sentence above, about not trusting Dems to nominate the right candidate, is what keeps me up at night too.  I think there are roughly 20 people that will run and would beat Trump.  It won't surprise me if we nominate someone else.  There is a decent chance that 5 or 6 really good candidates split the smart vote, and one person gets all of the stupid vote, and wins.

 

I do trust voters to be smarter than they were in 2016, that's already happened.  I also worry about Russian interference being much much worse and for the GOP to pull out every dirty trick in the book.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

And then suggested Kasich? 

 

I don’t understand idea of the cross party ticket in general being something you’d like to see

It won't happen anytime soon if ever, but if it did it would indicate the general rage/hate and hostility between the two political camps was/had receded. So yes that is something one might want to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

I don't know, because I think the country would benefit from the massive divide between the parties being bridged? Showing that putting the country first and not just beating the other "side" is more important?  There are people on this board who have declared anyone that votes Republican as enemies of the state. You think that's healthy?

 

And Kasich was the only sane candidate the Reps put up in 2016.

No he wasn't almost all of them were sane and would have made a good viable winning candidates and certainly been more effective and better Presidents.

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was having discussion on Warren and I think she had a strong record. Going up against banks, standing up CFPB and her initial platform look decent enough to me. Attacking her Native American-ness seems like a cheap political attack.

I would like to see Dems run on healthcare, education and in general cost of living in America and income inequality. I support destroying monopolies, especially in the healthcare sector.

Everyone is getting crushed under the medical monopolies yet very few politicians talk about it, and it is a seperate but parallel point to Medicare for all.

Stylistically -- because thats really what it is about -- I would prefer a Warren, Beto, Kamala or Booker -- at this point I know Sanders is weak nationally and in debates he doesnt come off with huge likeability. Biden would not be bad as a veep, again.

I want to same level hand and Presidential competency that Obama provided.... heck didnt even vote for him in '08.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

No rush, but at some point someone will need to explain to my why Bernie is still a thing.  

 

Russia

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Trump looks like a candidate that should lose and lose badly 

 

This statement was true three years ago, too. 

  • Like 1

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.