• 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

I luv Bernie but Im not really looking forward to him running in 2020. 2016 was his chance n he lost unfortunately.

 

80 is definitely pushing it. Thing is  Schumer, Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, Biden are all about the same age as Bernie. Seemingly not many spring chickens in key govt positions of power these days.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

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.

 

 

I think history has proven that pure capitalism doesn't work.  Otherwise, there would be no need for the cadre of laws and regulations regarding monopoly, minimum wage, occupational standards, environmental protection, etc.  Corporations already answer to stakeholders beyond shareholders as represented by numerous laws that hinder profit in the pursuit of some other societal goal.

 

Time and time again, corporate executives have proven adept at looking out for short term gain and profit, often at the expense of long term health of the company, which may only become an issue after they are long gone from the boardroom.  Vulture capitalists don't always circle outside the company, sometimes they are already on the officer rolls, padding their compensation and golden parachutes.  The "stakeholders" that Will casts down as the death knell of free market and US capitalism are people who work for the company, if I understand Warren correctly.  One could argue that rank and file workers could offer valuable view on long term health of the company as well.

 

If greater regulation or intrusive government bureaucracy was going to cause massive flight of capital, companies would have fled EU in light of GDPR and corporations wouldn't bend over backwards to do business in China.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sanders is a selfish POS now if he wasn't before. 

 

So selfish he campaigned tirelessly for a candidate he lost to in the primaries. Even going as far as to campaign in states this candidate willfully chose to ignore. 

Share this post


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

 

This is alarming. Any strong 3rd party candidate all but ensures a trump victory 

Not necessarily. A strong third party candidate from the left would hurt the Dem candidate and tip the election to Donald.  A strong third party candidate to the right of Donald; would actually take away votes from Donald and tip the election to the Dem.

 

I really dbout Schultz gets much support. He's a billionaire.  If he does, then the Dems really have botch things up.

 

It's just way to early to know how the 2020 race shapes.  You won't know until the primary season is over and if there's still disatisfaction with the presumptive Dem nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like the idea of Donald Trumps chances getting stronger but i do think this system would work much better with a strong 3rd party. The real problem is that the people running for that never really had a chance from what i understand and just diluted the vote. 

 

I don't want to vote for Democrats just because they arnt evil. Thats what i do right now. I dont ever have to think past that because right now thats the bottom line. The closer i get to having another choice the better this country will get, me thinks. 

 

I dunno. I want a 3rd party. A legit one. But the timing is about as bad as it can be. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

So selfish he campaigned tirelessly for a candidate he lost to in the primaries. Even going as far as to campaign in states this candidate willfully chose to ignore. 

 

and now I'll call Clinton selfish if she is letting voters think she'll be running again. Bernie and Hilary are exactly what Trump needs. Bernie will hurt other Dem candidates because of whatever weird following he has. Clinton.... let's just be done with this idea, please. If either of them care about getting rid of Trump assuming his health/weight/other secrets haven't made running in 2020 not an option for him. They'd step aside for the Harris', Bullock's, Castro's, etc.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I dont like the idea of Donald Trumps chances getting stronger but i do think this system would work much better with a strong 3rd party. The real problem is that the people running for that never really had a chance from what i understand and just diluted the vote. 

 

I don't want to vote for Democrats just because they arnt evil. Thats what i do right now. I dont ever have to think past that because right now thats the bottom line. The closer i get to having another choice the better this country will get, me thinks. 

 

I dunno. I want a 3rd party. A legit one. But the timing is about as bad as it can be. 

 

 

That’s one reason why we need rank choice voting. 

 

It would give 3rd parties and individual candidates a legitimate chance to grow support over years and election cycles without throwing a vote away that won’t count.

 

The reason more people don’t currently vote 3rd party is because they know it’s a wasted vote.  

 

If I knew I could take a shot at an independent candidate and if they lost, I’d have a #2 option behind them, I’d be more inclined to vote for them. Large showings of support for these parties and candidates would give their platform and campaigns credibility, exposure and opportunity going forward 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

harris' event in oakland was well done...solid speech...i said sometime back she's a strong "like" for me, and that has remained solid to date...there are several others i like, too, but she's been in the forefront for me so far

 

i think she scores well in substance, style, and electability so that's pretty good

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run as the Dem candidate (like Trump) or just run as an Independent for the Senate. You are not going to win the President and will hurt the chances of someone beating Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harris has to much baggage. No way she lasts. Way to many corporate and wall street ties. Plus a few right wing talking points I really have no interest in defending her on. Just feels like Hillary version 3.0.

 

Beto couldn't beat Cruz so I just can't picture him defeating Trump. Dems gonna have to find a spot for him tho so VP is definitely a possibility. 

 

My favorite candidate to declare so far is ol Mayor Pete. Dude shoulda been the DNC chair when he ran. Stands a snow balls chance in hell at getting the presidential nomination. 

Edited by clietas
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t think a Democrat can win a national election against a histotically unpoplular incumbent because they narrowly lost in Texas?

 

ooooooookay.......

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


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

You don’t think a Democrat can win a national election against a histotically unpoplular incumbent because they narrowly lost in Texas?

 

ooooooookay.......

 

Not that he lost in Texas. He lost to Ted Cruz specifically. 

 

I know I know it Texas. Uh but also its Ted Fn Cruz. Republicans even hate him.

 

As unpopular as Trump is as long as he remains in the picture he'll have at least a 50/50 chance of winning. Incumbent President with a good economy to run on ain't easy to beat.

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.