Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: Ed Vette on April 06, 2021, 11:08:55 AM
Why would it be DOA? I'm a former Republican too now Independent although I have never voted down a party line.

I do not believe they would trust a national registration system because in general today's Right simply does not trust the actions of a government.  They'll think the Government will use this information in some insidious way against them.  It's the same reason, they didn't trust a national databank for individual healthcare information so all the patients have their medical history/info stored in one vast place that can be accessed by doctors when needed to evaluate a patient.  Think about how much easier that would be if you go to one physicial specialist not affiliated with say the doctor's you normally go to so he has no ability to see past X rays, MRIs, histories of physicals, etc.  All he can do is ask you questions unless you brought all that info which 99% of patients don't personally have.

Racism whether overt or subtle is insidious.  If a white person

Quote from: Bob In PA on April 05, 2021, 02:52:39 PM
Phil: Most politicians are only smart about 1 of these 2 things: leaders know how to raise money... followers know how to keep their mouths shut and do what they're told by leaders (so you get unqualified people).

There is a "lunatic fringe" in both political parties.  Sadly, it seems they have a lot of time (and money) on their hands, so politicians will do almost anything to get their grubby paws on all that money. 

Politicians love rile people up about the lunatics in the other party because then they don't have to tell you what they stand FOR (vote for me, not because I'm good/smart, but because the other guy is bad/dumb). 

Bob

FYI - I am not a lifelong Dem and have voted more Repub than Dem in my life.  That said, I don't see the similarity in "lunatic fringe" across both parties.  On the Dems side, I disagree vociferously with AOC as I think she's a young millennial who has zero clue about what it takes to be effective in Congress and her only skill to date is saying what's wrong.  I disagree with her and Bernie Sanders but that is a disagreement on policy.  That's a far cry from Marjorie Taylor Greene and her crazy theories or Lauren Bobert and her nonsense.  I am not aware of anyone on the Dems side preaching lasers from space though I could be wrong.  One thing I do believe in which is wrong on both parties is that power corrupts and I think either side can have members who break laws or let their power go to their heads or want to be President. 

Quote from: Bob In PA on April 05, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Phil: You "pre-answered" essentially the same question that I just directed to Larry (Painter).

It's interesting to me that we have at least two people here who went in that direction as they got older.

In your case it seems mostly it was your stance on the issues that changed (but also a like or dislike for various candidates).

Bob

Bob - I'm a giant believer that national public policy is extremely complicated so we need first and foremost really smart people in Congress.  Second, we need people whose motivation is serving the public and caring about the best interests of the U.S. and for humanity as well and not looking first and foremost at building their personal brande or someone whose only skill is saying everything is wrong or having beliefs that border on crazy.  I simply don't understand how anyone thinks some of these candidates are qualified.

When a conservative Republican in 1982 said, "Communism is a global threat" I felt you could agree or disagree with it, but even if you disagreed with it, you didn't think the person was crazy for thinking it as it was only a difference of opinion.  Now, it's I believe this but the other side believes in global cabal of Satan worshipping pedophiles is nuts.

Quote from: Slugs Narrows on April 05, 2021, 02:05:17 PM
The other side has similar issues.  JFK wouldn

Quote from: Painter on April 05, 2021, 01:26:21 PM
I hear you, Bob. While not really comparable except for "... no longer serving its original purpose." it does cause me to reflect on the fact that I was once a strong supporter of the no longer recognizable and now disgusting Republican Party which began putrefying even before Pyschobaby.

Cheers!

The Republican Party I have occasionaly voted for in the past was easy to recognize.  Guys like Jack Kemp advocating small government but a large defense and a strong stance against the Soviet Union was easy to say yes or no to versus the alternative offered up by the Dems.  The party of folks like George Will, who will always be considered by me to be the "oracle" of what the Republican Party was has now been replaced by fringe candidates who dropped out of high school to have a kid, own a bar and think they are qualified to understand complicated U.S. public policy but in reality are only talented at tweeting conspiracy theories or others who have a lust for media attention in spite of an academic pedigree (Yes I'm talking about Ted Cruz) or dancing Sarah Palin, is just sad.   

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 05, 2021, 12:38:49 PM
Paul,

I am sure you feel that your right to own firearms is a sacred right and that any infringement on that right has to be justified X2

Why do you feel that people's sacred right to vote can be needlessly infringed upon by single political party for political gain?

The important question is who would be restricted by these new laws and how do those potentially affected people vote?  If it's spread relatively evenly across the socio-economic/racial/eithnic universe no harm no foul, but if it doesn't affect say upper middle class married couple with two cars and able to move around easily and to/from their one job, but it does overly affect say someone who has to take two buses to work and works maybe 2 minimum wage jobs (like many poor people have to do), then that is deplorable.  Providing access means making it relatively easy for everyone. 

Rick - she will always be your wing-wife Giants football fan.  Peace to you and her.

Quote from: 4 Aces on August 22, 2020, 09:38:22 AM
The starting D seems to be coming along nicely.

You can't help but see the parallels to a typical New England D. Always appear short on Edge Rushers but pressure the QB well. The Giants don't have a front-line ER but they do have 4 who can play. Belichick has said his perfect D is the same 11 on the field able to handle every situation. Allows disguise. In order to do that, everyone must be versatile.

The Pats D always seems to be no-names: big, physical team-first grunt guys who play assignment football. You don't need All Pros to have a suffocating defense. It's 11 guys playing as 1.

I'm by no means projecting a great D but don't expect the embarrassment of last year. An "eat it" year with bad coaching staff + breaking in rookies and new players. This year the roster is stronger and more experienced, with key holes plugged. McKinney was a tremendous add - his ability at FS frees up the CBs, Peppers & Love to attack short. Graham (like Bill B.) plays a lot of man coverage - you need a great FS to do that. The Pats paid McCourty a boatload for a reason. Last year, they had to protect Old Man Bethea deep. This year, the 3 S package can be the engine driving the D, a la 2011.

Gettleman has built this thing inside/out - the middle of the field should be tough-sledding, run or pass. Similar to how he built that Panthers D.

Having safeties who really are legit tweeners between LBs and CBs and who can hit like LBs but cover more like CBs will allow them to blanket the field.  I like a 3 safety D a lot especially since I see our LBs as no more than adequate.  I think our secondary will be fine.  Darnay Holmes and Julian Love will play multiple positions and the loss of Baker will not be as impactful as many here feel.

I have not read a single doctor who has said, "COVID-19 is not very serious."  I have heard a bunch of non-physicians say it is not as serious as the media has made it to be."  Hmmm, which group am I going to believe, the ones who actually went to medical school or the ones who didn't?

There are days I wake up and sometimes wish significant influencers of this view would catch the damn thing and experience the hardships to maybe change the view of these people. 

If a later drafted DT like Ryan Glasgow becomes very good, then yes, he made a mistake, but as of now, no

You're rolling Bama as you are right that he is probably a 4th or at best 3rd option.  Why trade up and lose a pick for that? 

Now that is really good insight.  Wonder if any team has spoken to Lane about it in their evaluation of Howard.

Mobody knows who the Giants will draft because nobody knows who will be there nor how the Giants board is set up.  Pure speculation

Keep in mind with Butt that he won the Mackey Award as the nation's best TE after one of those ACL injuries plus he was twice the Big 10 TE of the year.  His first ACL was in 2014.  His second was in the most recent bowl game which he chose to play in rather than sit out like Fournette did. 

I don't believe he is more susceptible to an ACL injury than another player.  You get hit a certain way and any player will tear it.  That said, I do agree with you that all things being equal, I prefer players who have not sustained major injuries.  Keep in mind that the rehab time for ACL injuries continues to get reduced as technology improves.