• 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

The thing about taxing the wealthy from my POV is that I have always been more interested in giving them incentive to re-invest the money back into their workers and companies and infrastructure and all that kind of stuff.  We often hear from the GOP, "think of how great it will be for workers if their CEO's get tax cuts" so if it was me on the (D) ticket, instead of just proposing a "tax the hell out of the rich" bill, I would say by all means keep your tax cuts if you can provide proof that a certain percentage is going back to workers and into the economy overall.   A big issue when they started dropping the tax rates of old on the wealthy is it began (and continues) to encourage wealth hoarding, just dumping endless funds into bank accounts where money just sits and grows for no particular reason other than amassing greater and greater wealth, and this often comes at the expense of the working class.

 

So I'd be all for giving these billionaire execs an "out" from tax hikes but it would be their choice to either re-invest or pay the higher rates.

 

Oh and lets be honest, it doesn't matter who is on the (D) ticket in 2020. It could be Biden, Harris, Warren etc etc....they will all be called socialists, communists, anti-american etc etc.....the same nonsense gets recycled every time.  You are either a Reaganite/Trumper or a Socialist.

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


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

The more I think about it, a Harris/O'Rourke,ticket makes sense to me. Harris is more centrist, has that prosecutor's demeanor. O'Rourke has the youth, wide appeal, and energy to propel the Democrats forward.

 

Harris is a fighter and O'Rourke does the footwork. And eight years of that ticket positions O'Rourke for the presidency 2028.

 

It's going to take that long to fix the country after Trump and the Republican cabal.

Im voting for Kamala Harris..... Glad she officially jumped in...... Looks grounded.. Cant be said to be soft in crime..... Giid for me compared to the ornage turd scumbag currently occupying the white house

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Beto want second seat when he is the FUTURE  and the future is Now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The thing about taxing the wealthy from my POV is that I have always been more interested in giving them incentive to re-invest the money back into their workers and companies and infrastructure and all that kind of stuff. 

 

High tax rates do that. 

 

Money paid to the owner/CEO is income, and used to be taxed heavily. 

 

Money left in the company's bank account is profit, and used to be taxed heavily. 

 

Money spent expanding the company is called a business expense and is not taxed at all. 

 

LOW tax rates (for corporations and owners) encourage the company to hand out money to the folks at the top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see businesses who pay low wages so that their employees have government assistance taxed to recover that assistance. People have to supply their SS # to both their employer and the assistance programs, so it should be easy to track and tax.  The companies can't get out of paying that tax.

 

It might encourage companies to start paying living wages.

Share this post


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

I want to see businesses who pay low wages so that their employees have government assistance taxed to recover that assistance. People have to supply their SS # to both their employer and the assistance programs, so it should be easy to track and tax.  The companies can't get out of paying that tax.

 

It might encourage companies to start paying living wages.

 

or they will reduce those positions

 

Or they might work to reduce govt assistance.

 

I'm paying one $10 an hr that is worth about $2 hr.....I ain't paying him AND the govt for helping him.

add

although I ALREADY am paying for his govt assistance ain't I?

you just think I should pay either or both more :pint:

Edited by twa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bernie is going to join the Democratic party again, to **** things up? No way I want that old ****er as our candidate.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, twa said:

 

 

But does it matter whether it's called taxes, premiums, deductibles, or coinsurance?  What I care about is money going out of my pocket to cover medical expenses.  If I have to pay 10k more per year on taxes but can get rid of more in health insurance premiums, fine by me.  

 

There is a finite amount of money being spent on health care per year.  Component of that is the profit of the insurance companies.  By simple logic, if you remove private profit from the equation, overall dollars spent on health care by the population has to come down unless some other cost goes up.  Medicare reimbursement rates are cheaper than private insurance.  Overhead is cheaper.  There is no reason to think that medicare for all would increase overall spending.

 

The simple reason single payer bogeyman doesn't work is that there are oodles of developed nations running government health care and function just fine with cheaper care and cheaper drugs.

 

But fine.  If the systematic change is so scary to the conservatives, let's simply allow the public option.  Goverment insurance for pool with individuals below 65 who can buy into the insurance with reimbursement rates no higher than medicare rates.  Any doctor accepting medicare must also accept the patients in the public option and charge no higher than medicare rates.  See whether that's more expensive than private insurance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So Bernie is going to join the Democratic party again, to **** things up? No way I want that old ****er as our candidate.

 

He is highly suspicious to me at this point

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

he simple reason single payer bogeyman doesn't work is that there are oodles of developed nations running government health care and function just fine with cheaper care and cheaper drugs

 

And guess what happens if the longer wait times become a problem? More hospitals, doctors etc to combat that equaling more jobs 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, visionary said:

He's 77 years old now.

 

Only one year older than the supposed front runner Biden. Also only one year younger than the current speaker of the house.

 

70 seems to be the new 50. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-could-be-the-democrats-margaret-thatcher/2019/01/25/436ad144-2018-11e9-8b59-0a28f2191131_story.html?utm_term=.bec59839f4a0&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

 

What law professor Richard Epstein calls Warren’s “surreptitious socialism” would, he says, “likely lead to the largest flight of capital from the United States in history.” Foreign investors — domestic ones, too — would not want to put wealth in corporations subservient to the political agendas of government. And to the agendas of various “stakeholders” deemed to have rights comparable to those of shareholders who actually own corporations, and to whom corporate directors have the fiduciary duty to maximize their shares’ value.

Warren exemplifies progressivism’s sentimental belief in disinterested government that, unlike human beings (except government employees), has motives as pure as the driven snow. She should read the 2003 essay “What Is Public Choice Theory?,” wherein economist James M. Buchanan, a Nobel laureate, used economic reasoning — determining how incentives influence behavior — to demystify politics. He argued that politicians and bureaucrats seek to maximize power the way many people in the private sector maximize monetary profits.

 

Brilliant as always George Will article at link.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, clietas said:

 

Only one year older than the supposed front runner Biden. Also only one year younger than the current speaker of the house.

 

70 seems to be the new 50. 

 

 

True, but he looks his age and maybe then some.   But I don't think anyone 80 or older should be president for a full term.  It's a very strenuous job if done right.  Maybe once we've dealt with some health issues for the elderly, but we aren't there yet.  

Edited by visionary
  • 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.