 |
 |
It's Called Insurance
2023-02-12 01:52:49
in•sur•ance - noun
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.
Back in September I put money down on the Eagles to win the Super Bowl (the premium). Obviously it's not because I'm a fan the team - but rather for purely insurance purposes.
Just like every January I pay a premium for homeowners insurance, every September I pay premium for sanity insurance.
Some 22 weeks later, my return (the compensation) has almost come to fruition. Make no doubt about it, I am rooting against the Eagles on Sunday. The team I despise is not worth of any monetary gain. But, if they are to win, I want to benefit from it. That will be my solace. The loss, damage and illness I will feel will be covered (somewhat) by the return if the worse is really to happen.
It's called insurance.
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.
Back in September I put money down on the Eagles to win the Super Bowl (the premium). Obviously it's not because I'm a fan the team - but rather for purely insurance purposes.
Just like every January I pay a premium for homeowners insurance, every September I pay premium for sanity insurance.
Some 22 weeks later, my return (the compensation) has almost come to fruition. Make no doubt about it, I am rooting against the Eagles on Sunday. The team I despise is not worth of any monetary gain. But, if they are to win, I want to benefit from it. That will be my solace. The loss, damage and illness I will feel will be covered (somewhat) by the return if the worse is really to happen.
It's called insurance.
add comment |
comments(0)
Ballsy - Having Balls
2022-09-11 22:55:10
NFL head coaches and head coaches to-be could learn a lot from what happened on Sunday in the Colts/Texans game and the Football Giants/Titans game.
Both decisions were polar opposites as one earned the admiration of the players instantly (regardless of the outcome) while the other is the classic, conservative (dare I say "old NFL") decision that ultimately dooms head coaches who want to play it close to the vest, and hope for a victory.
The Texans, a team not expected to do much in 2022 and certainly in rebuilding mode, played a terrific game for for about 50 minutes on Sunday against what clearly was the better team in the Colts. But as we have seen in the NFL, poor teams have a way of coughing up games and that's exactly what happened when Indy scored 14 points including the game tying touchdown in the two minutes. In overtime with 26 ticks remaining and faced with fourth and three just a hair short of midfield, Head Coach Lovie Smith decided to punt and essentially tell his team "we are settling for a tie", versus going for it and putting his team in a position to take back what they had mostly earned on this day. It was right there for the taking. I can only wonder what players are thinking about their head coach as they quietly punted away their chance.
Meanwhile, the Giants sleepwalked through the entire first half only to get themselves back into the game in the second stanza. And when they ultimately pulled to within one with a late touchdown, Head Coach Brian Daboll wasn't going to settle for getting beat on a time expiring FG or a loss in OT in his very first NFL game. He was going to try to force the issue - which they did by going for two and coverting. And when the Titans missed that last second field goal the rookie head coach had his first NFL win.
Daboll's decision made a ton of sense. Teams easily go 35 yards and get 55+ yard field goals today in about a minute, which is exactly what the Titans were facing. And even playing for OT, the clearly better Titans would have a distinct advantage. Where's the fun is losing 23-20? No medals for trying someone once said.
But by going up 21-20, you not only have the lead but put more pressure on the Titans. And what do you know, the Titans kicker missed the game-ending FG. I'm sure the pressure was a tad more trailing, rather than tied.
But make no mistake about Daboll's decision: it was a winner whether the two pointer worked or not. Mainly because the players would recognize not only their coach wants to win but more importantly trusts them. Daboll believed the Giants could covert and win. Now so do his players. You could see the energy.
And make no mistake about Smith's decision: the players privately hate it because they know they were that close to winning and their coach decided to ultimately settle. For a tie.
The most important part of all this: neither the Giants or Texans are going to the playoffs, but both are trying to change culture. While you're changing culture, put your team in those tough situations that they'll benefit from - successful or not - going forward.
The Giants began to change culture on Sunday. The Texans, not so much.
Both decisions were polar opposites as one earned the admiration of the players instantly (regardless of the outcome) while the other is the classic, conservative (dare I say "old NFL") decision that ultimately dooms head coaches who want to play it close to the vest, and hope for a victory.
The Texans, a team not expected to do much in 2022 and certainly in rebuilding mode, played a terrific game for for about 50 minutes on Sunday against what clearly was the better team in the Colts. But as we have seen in the NFL, poor teams have a way of coughing up games and that's exactly what happened when Indy scored 14 points including the game tying touchdown in the two minutes. In overtime with 26 ticks remaining and faced with fourth and three just a hair short of midfield, Head Coach Lovie Smith decided to punt and essentially tell his team "we are settling for a tie", versus going for it and putting his team in a position to take back what they had mostly earned on this day. It was right there for the taking. I can only wonder what players are thinking about their head coach as they quietly punted away their chance.
Meanwhile, the Giants sleepwalked through the entire first half only to get themselves back into the game in the second stanza. And when they ultimately pulled to within one with a late touchdown, Head Coach Brian Daboll wasn't going to settle for getting beat on a time expiring FG or a loss in OT in his very first NFL game. He was going to try to force the issue - which they did by going for two and coverting. And when the Titans missed that last second field goal the rookie head coach had his first NFL win.
Daboll's decision made a ton of sense. Teams easily go 35 yards and get 55+ yard field goals today in about a minute, which is exactly what the Titans were facing. And even playing for OT, the clearly better Titans would have a distinct advantage. Where's the fun is losing 23-20? No medals for trying someone once said.
But by going up 21-20, you not only have the lead but put more pressure on the Titans. And what do you know, the Titans kicker missed the game-ending FG. I'm sure the pressure was a tad more trailing, rather than tied.
But make no mistake about Daboll's decision: it was a winner whether the two pointer worked or not. Mainly because the players would recognize not only their coach wants to win but more importantly trusts them. Daboll believed the Giants could covert and win. Now so do his players. You could see the energy.
And make no mistake about Smith's decision: the players privately hate it because they know they were that close to winning and their coach decided to ultimately settle. For a tie.
The most important part of all this: neither the Giants or Texans are going to the playoffs, but both are trying to change culture. While you're changing culture, put your team in those tough situations that they'll benefit from - successful or not - going forward.
The Giants began to change culture on Sunday. The Texans, not so much.
Congratulations, Eli!!
2021-09-27 21:06:29
I said I would be there on this day, and I certainly was.
A great day for a great Giant.
A great day for a great Giant.
add comment |
comments(0)
Context and Nuance
2021-02-11 16:28:09
Much of any debate involving former President Donald in his support is usually black and white in nature. "A private citizen cannot be impeached", or "the President's speech is protected under the First Amendment" are two current examples. Rarely does it delve into any shades of gray. More specifically, context and nuance. Tom Brady just won his seventh Super Bowl on Sunday, and he is arguably the greatest quaterback in the history of the NFL. But by greatest do we mean winningest, or is the greatest related to pedigree, talent level, and statistical achievement? Again, context and nuance help provide answers.
The Articles of Impeachment (the second) brought forward against Trump can be argued with credible facts for and against his conviction. But before you decide to debate a friend, colleague, significant other, or even political rival, you should agree to answer two questions beforehand. Both require a binary 'yes' or 'no', with zero wiggle room.
1. Did Donald Trump win the 2021 election, per his claim?.
The answer is simply "no". If you answered yes you should skip to the next post in this blog (or even leave) but first click here. Donald Trump did not win the election, but many people believe he did. Bill Maher does this sketch on his HBO show called "I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true.... It goes something like this:
Now I think it's funny, but that's exactly the point. It's comedy. You know, satire. But here's the problem. A large percentage of the Republican Party have applied this gimmicky stance and applied it to the 2020 election. They don't know it for a fact, they just know it's true that Donald Trump won the election. By a landslide mind you. I wonder where they got that idea? When you show no proof in court, when your own appointed judges (at all levels) reject it, and your very own Attorney General announces there is no credible evidence, there comes a point in time for the realization this just isn't close to being factual.
But you answered "no", so let's move onto the next question.
2. Are you proud of what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021?.
I actually thought I was watching a scene from The Dark Knight Rises...
Admittedly, the questions are getting easier. Again, the answer is simply "no". You could even throw in appalled and aghast as alternative, acceptable answers. But if you happen to answer "yes", please click the 'x' in the top right hand corner of this page, place your device down gently, and seek professional help. Click here for good measure.
Most of what happend on that ill-fated day can be traced to the belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Let that sink in: this infamous event was actually perpetrated by a fairytale. That's pretty sad.
So now that you have answered both questions correctly, we have a baseline and can return to a debate on whether Trump should be implicated by the Senate. In my opinion, he should be.
Trump latched onto the election being stacked against him before it even began ("the only way I lose is if it's rigged") and afterwards ("I won in a landslide"). By not conceding and continuing to push false narratives on the biggest stage, I feel he steered believers ultimately to January 6. It just wasn't Trump stumping but making phone calls that could easily be portrayed as law breaking, and hiring lawyers to spew his nonsense, and even looking to opportunistic elected officials to help him. But even if he gets a pass for that, his actions during the riot were most egregious. He waited and watched, in a way that showed he liked it, choosing to do nothing other than Tweet in the first hour and a half which just piled onto his guilt. Trump posted his rally speech from earlier that day and tweeted that Mike Pence was essentially gutless for not reversing the election. That was Trump's reaction to what was a terroristic threat, with people pleading to him to act. People died. That's damning.
In a criminal court, Trump's actions might not stand up. But I consider impeachment to be rather a civil case, where there's less burden of proof. And that only seems fair since the jury - made up of Senators who some could be considered co-conspirators - is not by any means a typical jury. Trump might not deserve jail time, but he certainly deserves banishment from serving as President again. He clearly violated his Constitutional oath to serve and protect this country. He trampled on democracy. All in the name of not admitting his election defeat.
There are of course dissenting opinions to mine, and they are welcomed. Just like I would welcome that Joe Montana, not Tom Brady, is the greatest quarterback of all-time. Montana of course won four Super Bowls, and played in a more rugged and competitive landscape back then. Again, context and nuance matter.
But again, the one thing we should agree on is the answer to those two questions above. And if we agree on that, we can also agree despite any differences on impeachment that one Donald J. Trump is one despicable human being.
The Articles of Impeachment (the second) brought forward against Trump can be argued with credible facts for and against his conviction. But before you decide to debate a friend, colleague, significant other, or even political rival, you should agree to answer two questions beforehand. Both require a binary 'yes' or 'no', with zero wiggle room.
1. Did Donald Trump win the 2021 election, per his claim?.
The answer is simply "no". If you answered yes you should skip to the next post in this blog (or even leave) but first click here. Donald Trump did not win the election, but many people believe he did. Bill Maher does this sketch on his HBO show called "I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true.... It goes something like this:
I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true that Rudy Giuliani sleeps in a coffin during the day...
Now I think it's funny, but that's exactly the point. It's comedy. You know, satire. But here's the problem. A large percentage of the Republican Party have applied this gimmicky stance and applied it to the 2020 election. They don't know it for a fact, they just know it's true that Donald Trump won the election. By a landslide mind you. I wonder where they got that idea? When you show no proof in court, when your own appointed judges (at all levels) reject it, and your very own Attorney General announces there is no credible evidence, there comes a point in time for the realization this just isn't close to being factual.
But you answered "no", so let's move onto the next question.
2. Are you proud of what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021?.
I actually thought I was watching a scene from The Dark Knight Rises...
Admittedly, the questions are getting easier. Again, the answer is simply "no". You could even throw in appalled and aghast as alternative, acceptable answers. But if you happen to answer "yes", please click the 'x' in the top right hand corner of this page, place your device down gently, and seek professional help. Click here for good measure.
Most of what happend on that ill-fated day can be traced to the belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Let that sink in: this infamous event was actually perpetrated by a fairytale. That's pretty sad.
So now that you have answered both questions correctly, we have a baseline and can return to a debate on whether Trump should be implicated by the Senate. In my opinion, he should be.
Trump latched onto the election being stacked against him before it even began ("the only way I lose is if it's rigged") and afterwards ("I won in a landslide"). By not conceding and continuing to push false narratives on the biggest stage, I feel he steered believers ultimately to January 6. It just wasn't Trump stumping but making phone calls that could easily be portrayed as law breaking, and hiring lawyers to spew his nonsense, and even looking to opportunistic elected officials to help him. But even if he gets a pass for that, his actions during the riot were most egregious. He waited and watched, in a way that showed he liked it, choosing to do nothing other than Tweet in the first hour and a half which just piled onto his guilt. Trump posted his rally speech from earlier that day and tweeted that Mike Pence was essentially gutless for not reversing the election. That was Trump's reaction to what was a terroristic threat, with people pleading to him to act. People died. That's damning.
In a criminal court, Trump's actions might not stand up. But I consider impeachment to be rather a civil case, where there's less burden of proof. And that only seems fair since the jury - made up of Senators who some could be considered co-conspirators - is not by any means a typical jury. Trump might not deserve jail time, but he certainly deserves banishment from serving as President again. He clearly violated his Constitutional oath to serve and protect this country. He trampled on democracy. All in the name of not admitting his election defeat.
There are of course dissenting opinions to mine, and they are welcomed. Just like I would welcome that Joe Montana, not Tom Brady, is the greatest quarterback of all-time. Montana of course won four Super Bowls, and played in a more rugged and competitive landscape back then. Again, context and nuance matter.
But again, the one thing we should agree on is the answer to those two questions above. And if we agree on that, we can also agree despite any differences on impeachment that one Donald J. Trump is one despicable human being.
add comment |
comments(0)
About Packing That Court
2020-10-07 23:50:04
Supreme Court Justices are a big deal in politics. When you have one in your grasp you sorta hold onto it like one of those golden tickets that gets you into the chocolate factory. It's intoxicating, reallly. And some voters especially value them, as a majority of justices can set up decades of policy with the highest court in the land having the final say.
So I will admit I was a bit dissapointed when Kamala Harris side-stepped the question during her Vice-Presidential Debate on Wednesday concering whether Joe Biden would "pack" the courts. You know, extending the number of Justices beyond nine with liberal appointments and giving the left an advantage. This has been a hot question as Republicans fear retaliation on their hasty attempt to approve Amy Cony Barrett before the November 3 election. In fact, some Democrats have even admitted being keen to the idea.
Harris, and Biden for that matter, should simply answer a "resounding no" to end the discussion. Why give their opponents any ammunition going into the election? And if the Democratic ticket does in fact win, they can simply change their mind if so desired. Sound unsavory? Well that's because it is, and that's exactly what Republicans did in 2016. It's called tic for tac. Or even an eye-for-an-eye.
In 2016, 10 months before the Clinton-Trump election, a seat opened on the court when conservative Justice Scalia passed away suddenly. Obama appointed not an obvious one-sided party pick (see Barrett), but instead one who could appeal to both sides. A moderate. A centrist. Merrick Garland. It seemed like a suitable compromise given the situation. And I've always considered Barack Obama to be a reasonable man.
But the Mitch McConnell led Senate said no to any hearing, any vote, any action. And that's their absolute right, with Republican control of the Senate. And while that doesn't follow standard government procedure, it's not law nor required. But that's not how they presented it to the American people.
Instead, they painted a picture, in an election year, that the winner of the Presidency should appoint the justice and have that person sit before the Senate. In essence...the voters have the say. That Justice chair remained open for 293 days before Brett Cavanaugh was elected to the Supreme Court. Trump won, his pick. The people had indeed spoken.
And that broad stroke of their brush made it easier to fool the American people, because saying they simply didn't want to have a hearing because, well, they just didn't feel like it wasn't going to pass muster. The majority of Americans believed Garland should have had a hearing. If the hearing actually went off, the moderate judge may have rode a wave of strong support for being approved. That becomes messy in an election year.
Easier to lie.
And we know it's a lie because when Amy Cony Barrett is presumably voted onto the court this month, it will be the exact same situation. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died in an election year (this time just 46 days before, not 10 months). But the electorate is not getting the choice this time.
You want to talk about packing the court? That's exactly what Republicans are doing. They did in consciously in 2016 by delaying for Cavanaugh to maintain their majority. And in 2020 are blatantly packing it with Barrett, going against their own word and giving them a overwhelming 6-3 majority. That's the essence of packing.
Republicans didn't steal the seat in a literal sense during 2016. That would require proof they broke the law. What they did do is reach into their bag of dirty tricks and made up a convenient reason. Then afterwards even doubled down. See our friend Lindsey Graham, who will be front and center in the Barrett confirmation.
So let me fix it for Conservatives. Republicans should have said "If a President appoints a Justice in an election year, that Justice should not be heard, it should be the people's choice. Unless of course it benefits us and we hold the power."
Biden and Harris should answer the question, and give Conservatives and Constitutionalists what they want to hear for now. We will not pack the courts. And in the end let's face it, adding Justices is no easy task considering you need two-thirds of both the House and Senate to get her done, just for starters. Republicans can still worry about it obsessively nonetheless giving them a new boogey man and the Biden ticket will be on record. Win-win for everyone.
And in the end, Democrats can of course always change their mind, if it were to benefit them and they hold the power.
You know, like Republicans did.
So I will admit I was a bit dissapointed when Kamala Harris side-stepped the question during her Vice-Presidential Debate on Wednesday concering whether Joe Biden would "pack" the courts. You know, extending the number of Justices beyond nine with liberal appointments and giving the left an advantage. This has been a hot question as Republicans fear retaliation on their hasty attempt to approve Amy Cony Barrett before the November 3 election. In fact, some Democrats have even admitted being keen to the idea.
Harris, and Biden for that matter, should simply answer a "resounding no" to end the discussion. Why give their opponents any ammunition going into the election? And if the Democratic ticket does in fact win, they can simply change their mind if so desired. Sound unsavory? Well that's because it is, and that's exactly what Republicans did in 2016. It's called tic for tac. Or even an eye-for-an-eye.
In 2016, 10 months before the Clinton-Trump election, a seat opened on the court when conservative Justice Scalia passed away suddenly. Obama appointed not an obvious one-sided party pick (see Barrett), but instead one who could appeal to both sides. A moderate. A centrist. Merrick Garland. It seemed like a suitable compromise given the situation. And I've always considered Barack Obama to be a reasonable man.
But the Mitch McConnell led Senate said no to any hearing, any vote, any action. And that's their absolute right, with Republican control of the Senate. And while that doesn't follow standard government procedure, it's not law nor required. But that's not how they presented it to the American people.
Instead, they painted a picture, in an election year, that the winner of the Presidency should appoint the justice and have that person sit before the Senate. In essence...the voters have the say. That Justice chair remained open for 293 days before Brett Cavanaugh was elected to the Supreme Court. Trump won, his pick. The people had indeed spoken.
And that broad stroke of their brush made it easier to fool the American people, because saying they simply didn't want to have a hearing because, well, they just didn't feel like it wasn't going to pass muster. The majority of Americans believed Garland should have had a hearing. If the hearing actually went off, the moderate judge may have rode a wave of strong support for being approved. That becomes messy in an election year.
Easier to lie.
And we know it's a lie because when Amy Cony Barrett is presumably voted onto the court this month, it will be the exact same situation. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died in an election year (this time just 46 days before, not 10 months). But the electorate is not getting the choice this time.
You want to talk about packing the court? That's exactly what Republicans are doing. They did in consciously in 2016 by delaying for Cavanaugh to maintain their majority. And in 2020 are blatantly packing it with Barrett, going against their own word and giving them a overwhelming 6-3 majority. That's the essence of packing.
Republicans didn't steal the seat in a literal sense during 2016. That would require proof they broke the law. What they did do is reach into their bag of dirty tricks and made up a convenient reason. Then afterwards even doubled down. See our friend Lindsey Graham, who will be front and center in the Barrett confirmation.
So let me fix it for Conservatives. Republicans should have said "If a President appoints a Justice in an election year, that Justice should not be heard, it should be the people's choice. Unless of course it benefits us and we hold the power."
Biden and Harris should answer the question, and give Conservatives and Constitutionalists what they want to hear for now. We will not pack the courts. And in the end let's face it, adding Justices is no easy task considering you need two-thirds of both the House and Senate to get her done, just for starters. Republicans can still worry about it obsessively nonetheless giving them a new boogey man and the Biden ticket will be on record. Win-win for everyone.
And in the end, Democrats can of course always change their mind, if it were to benefit them and they hold the power.
You know, like Republicans did.
add comment |
comments(0)
2018 Draft Redux
2020-09-28 10:17:49
The New York Giants select.....quarterback Josh Allen, Wyoming.
Hindsight is no doubt 20/20, but it really appears the Giants made a mistake in the 2018 draft (Dave Gettleman's first) by selecting Saquon Barkley second overall and not quarterback Josh Allen.
Don't get me wrong. I am a big Daniel Jones supporter. In fact, he's one of three players (along with Barkley and Eli Manning) that dons the banner on this website. If you take a peek above, you might even see #8. But that might not be for long.
When the 2020 season ends, Barkley will have played in 65% of the available games (31 out of 48) over three years. His injury this season is not only crushing in terms of losing the team's most explosive weapon on a team challenged for depth, but leaves everyone wondering about the running back's future. Barkley suffered a torn ACL, and while the fixing of such has improved dramatically over the years, there are zero guarantees.
Meanwhile, Allen appears to be a star in the making for Buffalo at quarterback.
But back to Daniel Jones for a bit. I really like his game. He's got that perfect demeanor for New York, is mobile/athletic, and very accurate with the ball. When Jones was drafted number six overall, I was admittedly suprised. What I saw was a good QB with potentially a suspect arm (I literally saw him crow-hopping to make long throws at the combine) that was more a mid-to-late first round pick. While his arm seems good enough (and arm strength can be improved), I see Jones' comparable to a former Jet, Chad Pennington (minus the injuries and with more athleticism) with a greater upside. And that's a QB you can win with. As always there are a ton more variables involved, but I like the potential Jones brings to the QB position for the New York Giants. The pick, a bit gutsy and a roll of the dice, was the right one at that place in time.
But he's a poor-man's version of Allen. Allen is better, stronger, and faster. All kidding aside and with props to The Six Million Dollar Man, Allen certainly appears to be a cut above Jones. And that's why Allen should have been the pick over Barkley in 2018. The Giants desperately needed to find Eli Manning's successor, but opted to go with the running back and wait. And waiting is fine if you don't like the avaialble QBs. But the Giants should have liked Josh Allen. While Jones was the right pick in 2019, it shouldn't have happened. The Giants shouldn't have been looking quarterback having already picked the right one in 2018.
With Allen in place, Giants would have been looking for defensive and OL help thereafter in successive drafts. And Barkley who again is going to miss about 35% of the available games could have been reasonably replaced by a second-to-fourth round pick. Barkley is an unbelievable talent, but he wasn't the pick for this team at that time.
The domino effect of picking Barkely is adding up. And I really feel for Daniel Jones because if the Giants somehow get the #1 pick and Trevor Lawrence is available, I don't think the Giants can pass. And that means Jones' time here would be marked.
And if they do get the #1 pick, then Dave Gettleman isn't allowed to make that pick, meaning his time is also on the clock. In fact, if this team's arrow is pointing in the wrong direction come December, a change at GM is also in order.
The domino effect is closing in on Daniel Jones and Dave Gettleman unless things change dramatically around here in the next 13 weeks. In some instances it's not the necessarily the individiuals fault (like Jones), and in some instances it certainly is (like Gettleman).
Hindsight is no doubt 20/20, but it really appears the Giants made a mistake in the 2018 draft (Dave Gettleman's first) by selecting Saquon Barkley second overall and not quarterback Josh Allen.
Don't get me wrong. I am a big Daniel Jones supporter. In fact, he's one of three players (along with Barkley and Eli Manning) that dons the banner on this website. If you take a peek above, you might even see #8. But that might not be for long.
When the 2020 season ends, Barkley will have played in 65% of the available games (31 out of 48) over three years. His injury this season is not only crushing in terms of losing the team's most explosive weapon on a team challenged for depth, but leaves everyone wondering about the running back's future. Barkley suffered a torn ACL, and while the fixing of such has improved dramatically over the years, there are zero guarantees.
Meanwhile, Allen appears to be a star in the making for Buffalo at quarterback.
But back to Daniel Jones for a bit. I really like his game. He's got that perfect demeanor for New York, is mobile/athletic, and very accurate with the ball. When Jones was drafted number six overall, I was admittedly suprised. What I saw was a good QB with potentially a suspect arm (I literally saw him crow-hopping to make long throws at the combine) that was more a mid-to-late first round pick. While his arm seems good enough (and arm strength can be improved), I see Jones' comparable to a former Jet, Chad Pennington (minus the injuries and with more athleticism) with a greater upside. And that's a QB you can win with. As always there are a ton more variables involved, but I like the potential Jones brings to the QB position for the New York Giants. The pick, a bit gutsy and a roll of the dice, was the right one at that place in time.
But he's a poor-man's version of Allen. Allen is better, stronger, and faster. All kidding aside and with props to The Six Million Dollar Man, Allen certainly appears to be a cut above Jones. And that's why Allen should have been the pick over Barkley in 2018. The Giants desperately needed to find Eli Manning's successor, but opted to go with the running back and wait. And waiting is fine if you don't like the avaialble QBs. But the Giants should have liked Josh Allen. While Jones was the right pick in 2019, it shouldn't have happened. The Giants shouldn't have been looking quarterback having already picked the right one in 2018.
With Allen in place, Giants would have been looking for defensive and OL help thereafter in successive drafts. And Barkley who again is going to miss about 35% of the available games could have been reasonably replaced by a second-to-fourth round pick. Barkley is an unbelievable talent, but he wasn't the pick for this team at that time.
The domino effect of picking Barkely is adding up. And I really feel for Daniel Jones because if the Giants somehow get the #1 pick and Trevor Lawrence is available, I don't think the Giants can pass. And that means Jones' time here would be marked.
And if they do get the #1 pick, then Dave Gettleman isn't allowed to make that pick, meaning his time is also on the clock. In fact, if this team's arrow is pointing in the wrong direction come December, a change at GM is also in order.
The domino effect is closing in on Daniel Jones and Dave Gettleman unless things change dramatically around here in the next 13 weeks. In some instances it's not the necessarily the individiuals fault (like Jones), and in some instances it certainly is (like Gettleman).
add comment |
comments(0)
Words Do Matter . . .
2020-09-24 09:56:55
. . . and I'm starting to take Donald Trump very seriously.
Now look, usually the President's blabbering is enough comedic relief to get me through the day. There's nothing better than finishing up my work-from-home day during COVID19, walking downstairs from my office, and seeing this shit show/dumpster fire of a leader conduct one of his 5pm press conferences. I do look forward to it!! Such a good way to unwind.
But the last few days have admittedly made me, for the first time, uneasy.
First, back in August, Trump noted (in my best Trump impression) "If I lose the election, it's only because it's rigged." Yeah, I chuckled. But it definitely was a cue to rile up his base in support of rampant voter fraud. I must say it's pretty sad when the President says stuff, and you must preface it with "Without evidence......".
Anyway, Trump's basically saying if I don't win, the fix is in. I mean even Rex Ryan, former head coach of the Jets who is the closest thing I can compare to Trump in terms of pure bullshit exiting the mouth, wouldn't say the the officials or even the Commissioner was behind some grand scheme if he were to lose. He'd simply guarantee a win. C'mon Donny, just say you're going to go out there and kick Biden's ass. We'd have more respect of ya.
But on the subject of mail-in-voting, shouldn't a true leader want all people to be able to vote, and be able to vote safely during a pandemic, and provide a mechanism to process such votes? Doesn't he really have the resources to enable the USPS to handle an increased volume by election time? Hell, we built more ventalators than we needed which I learned repeatedly from him is no easy feat...but processing the mail can't be figured out? In reality, the President has done everything to sabatoge mail-in-voting.
Strike One.
Press Secretary Kaleigh McEnany then said in September: "What we want election night to look like is a system that's fair, a situation where we know who the President of the United States is on election night. That's how the system is supposed to work. And that's ultimately what we're looking for and what we're hoping for."
Are you starting to see a pattern? Declaring a winner before the votes are counted? Strike Two.
Then just today, Trump was asked if there would be a peaceful transfer of power if he lost. Trump all but admitted that if there was no mail-in-voting, he'd win and there wouldn't have to be a transfer. But if he did lose, well, he's taking it to the courts. Ninth Supreme Court Justice anyone? And combined with The Atlantic article that made headlines - which reads that the Trump campaign is already making plans to dispute the legtimacy of mail-in-voting after the election by possibly discarding the popular vote within states - makes for a chilling situation for democracy. Trump is literally telegraphing how it's going to play out. If he wins outright, Hail to the Chief! If he loses, he's been cheated and Trump will use a familiar vehicle when he's been wronged. Or has his feelings hurt. He sues.
Strike Three.
I really do owe Bill Maher an apology. On his Real Time With Bill Maher show seen on HBO, he has for the last year asked every guest "How would you handle it when Donald Trump refuses to leave?" and every week I'd be like "Oh c'mon, Bill, not this again?" But Maher was never joking. He was serious. And he looks right.
And here's the thing I never can understand about Trump supporters. He's literally telling you what his con is, proceeds to employ it, and people follow like sheep.
Cases in point:
Trump told Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes in an interview, on televsion, that he uses the term "fake news" to discredit news organizations who give him negative media coverage. It's true, just negative. He's literally telling you "fake news" is a fake term! But then he uses it, and people buy into it...that it's actually fake. Now I understand not everything said about Trump is indeed true, but the guy throws "fake news" versus anything he doesn't approve of.
Trump again, on tape to Bob Woodward, says he "downplayed" the COVID-19 pandemic on purpose. Then he goes out and continues to literally downplay it after people have heard this. And they continue to believe and support him on his rhetoric.
Trump, in what he hopes is not his final act, is again telling you exactly the way it's going to play out. What's that legal expression, "possession is nine-tenths of the law?"
Trump is currently in possession of the White House, and it appears to be a commodity he's not willing to give up.
Now look, usually the President's blabbering is enough comedic relief to get me through the day. There's nothing better than finishing up my work-from-home day during COVID19, walking downstairs from my office, and seeing this shit show/dumpster fire of a leader conduct one of his 5pm press conferences. I do look forward to it!! Such a good way to unwind.
But the last few days have admittedly made me, for the first time, uneasy.
First, back in August, Trump noted (in my best Trump impression) "If I lose the election, it's only because it's rigged." Yeah, I chuckled. But it definitely was a cue to rile up his base in support of rampant voter fraud. I must say it's pretty sad when the President says stuff, and you must preface it with "Without evidence......".
Anyway, Trump's basically saying if I don't win, the fix is in. I mean even Rex Ryan, former head coach of the Jets who is the closest thing I can compare to Trump in terms of pure bullshit exiting the mouth, wouldn't say the the officials or even the Commissioner was behind some grand scheme if he were to lose. He'd simply guarantee a win. C'mon Donny, just say you're going to go out there and kick Biden's ass. We'd have more respect of ya.
But on the subject of mail-in-voting, shouldn't a true leader want all people to be able to vote, and be able to vote safely during a pandemic, and provide a mechanism to process such votes? Doesn't he really have the resources to enable the USPS to handle an increased volume by election time? Hell, we built more ventalators than we needed which I learned repeatedly from him is no easy feat...but processing the mail can't be figured out? In reality, the President has done everything to sabatoge mail-in-voting.
Strike One.
Press Secretary Kaleigh McEnany then said in September: "What we want election night to look like is a system that's fair, a situation where we know who the President of the United States is on election night. That's how the system is supposed to work. And that's ultimately what we're looking for and what we're hoping for."
Are you starting to see a pattern? Declaring a winner before the votes are counted? Strike Two.
Then just today, Trump was asked if there would be a peaceful transfer of power if he lost. Trump all but admitted that if there was no mail-in-voting, he'd win and there wouldn't have to be a transfer. But if he did lose, well, he's taking it to the courts. Ninth Supreme Court Justice anyone? And combined with The Atlantic article that made headlines - which reads that the Trump campaign is already making plans to dispute the legtimacy of mail-in-voting after the election by possibly discarding the popular vote within states - makes for a chilling situation for democracy. Trump is literally telegraphing how it's going to play out. If he wins outright, Hail to the Chief! If he loses, he's been cheated and Trump will use a familiar vehicle when he's been wronged. Or has his feelings hurt. He sues.
Strike Three.
I really do owe Bill Maher an apology. On his Real Time With Bill Maher show seen on HBO, he has for the last year asked every guest "How would you handle it when Donald Trump refuses to leave?" and every week I'd be like "Oh c'mon, Bill, not this again?" But Maher was never joking. He was serious. And he looks right.
And here's the thing I never can understand about Trump supporters. He's literally telling you what his con is, proceeds to employ it, and people follow like sheep.
Cases in point:
Trump told Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes in an interview, on televsion, that he uses the term "fake news" to discredit news organizations who give him negative media coverage. It's true, just negative. He's literally telling you "fake news" is a fake term! But then he uses it, and people buy into it...that it's actually fake. Now I understand not everything said about Trump is indeed true, but the guy throws "fake news" versus anything he doesn't approve of.
Trump again, on tape to Bob Woodward, says he "downplayed" the COVID-19 pandemic on purpose. Then he goes out and continues to literally downplay it after people have heard this. And they continue to believe and support him on his rhetoric.
Trump, in what he hopes is not his final act, is again telling you exactly the way it's going to play out. What's that legal expression, "possession is nine-tenths of the law?"
Trump is currently in possession of the White House, and it appears to be a commodity he's not willing to give up.
add comment |
comments(0)
Thank you, Republicans
2020-02-13 10:25:27
The Houston Astros' press conference today, concerning their cheating during the entire 2017 season and parts of 2018, was an utter embarrassment. It was fiasco of denials, contradictions, and falsehoods. It reminded me of the Trump administration stumbling through a week long controversy.
Given that, I figured a GOP/Republican defense of what the Astros did is exactly what the team needs to save face. It goes something like this:
Sign stealing in baseball is as old as the game itself. This is something done all the time. So the real question isn’t if the Astros stole signs, it’s if the team gained any competitive advantage. If the answer is no, that it didn’t help them hit, then you must acquit.
Any astute observer of the game will tell you hitting a baseball is the most difficult task in sport, bar none. So even if the Astros’ hitters knew what was coming, they still had to do the toughest thing in sports. Hit the baseball. And contact isn’t enough, mind you. You actually still have to hit it in a spot that benefits you. You know, an actual base hit to reach safely. I’d ask anyone reading this article to grab a bat, let Jason Verlander tell you a fastball is coming, and go hit it. Successfully. You have my sympathies.
Many hitters, and this is common knowledge, don’t even want to be tipped about what pitches are coming. This serves as factual evidence that there is no real advantage of knowing the pitch. Otherwise, why decline such?
But let’s digress for a moment, and give some credence that this sign stealing did give the Astros some imaginary advantage. By the numbers, hitting can only be considered half the game. You hit for half the game, but you also play something called defense the other half. Was the sign stealing giving the defense an advantage? And weren’t the Astros considered more of a defensive-minded team? Breaking it down even further, we can define three integral parts of the game: hitting, defense, AND pitching. So, looking at it strictly by percentages, hitting only amounts to about a third of the game. That means two thirds of the game was done with no so-called chancery or duplicity. Sixty six percent of the game was played by the Astros the right way. Let that sink in. Sixty-six-and-two-thirds percent. Nearly three quarters.
In the end, a major league baseball team is in competition for the World Series. There are 30 teams and just one trophy. Simply said, if a team does something which they believe will help them win a championship, in their fans' interest, that cannot be the kind of cheating that results in penalty.
Thank you, Republicans.
Given that, I figured a GOP/Republican defense of what the Astros did is exactly what the team needs to save face. It goes something like this:
Sign stealing in baseball is as old as the game itself. This is something done all the time. So the real question isn’t if the Astros stole signs, it’s if the team gained any competitive advantage. If the answer is no, that it didn’t help them hit, then you must acquit.
Any astute observer of the game will tell you hitting a baseball is the most difficult task in sport, bar none. So even if the Astros’ hitters knew what was coming, they still had to do the toughest thing in sports. Hit the baseball. And contact isn’t enough, mind you. You actually still have to hit it in a spot that benefits you. You know, an actual base hit to reach safely. I’d ask anyone reading this article to grab a bat, let Jason Verlander tell you a fastball is coming, and go hit it. Successfully. You have my sympathies.
Many hitters, and this is common knowledge, don’t even want to be tipped about what pitches are coming. This serves as factual evidence that there is no real advantage of knowing the pitch. Otherwise, why decline such?
But let’s digress for a moment, and give some credence that this sign stealing did give the Astros some imaginary advantage. By the numbers, hitting can only be considered half the game. You hit for half the game, but you also play something called defense the other half. Was the sign stealing giving the defense an advantage? And weren’t the Astros considered more of a defensive-minded team? Breaking it down even further, we can define three integral parts of the game: hitting, defense, AND pitching. So, looking at it strictly by percentages, hitting only amounts to about a third of the game. That means two thirds of the game was done with no so-called chancery or duplicity. Sixty six percent of the game was played by the Astros the right way. Let that sink in. Sixty-six-and-two-thirds percent. Nearly three quarters.
In the end, a major league baseball team is in competition for the World Series. There are 30 teams and just one trophy. Simply said, if a team does something which they believe will help them win a championship, in their fans' interest, that cannot be the kind of cheating that results in penalty.
Thank you, Republicans.
add comment |
comments(0)
End Of An Era (Eli)
2020-01-03 16:53:38
Simply put, Eli Manning played the toughest position in sports in the toughest city for sports. That included two Super Bowl victories and two Super Bowl MVPs.
Manning was brought to New York to be a franchise quarterback. He's certainly been a lightning rod in debates over his legacy, but franchise quarterback just might be the best title for #10.
And over a 16-year career and an amazing 210 consecutive starts, he did it with style and class.
Thank you, Eli Manning. Next stop, the Hall of Fame.
Manning was brought to New York to be a franchise quarterback. He's certainly been a lightning rod in debates over his legacy, but franchise quarterback just might be the best title for #10.
And over a 16-year career and an amazing 210 consecutive starts, he did it with style and class.
Thank you, Eli Manning. Next stop, the Hall of Fame.
add comment |
comments(0)
A Big FU Kudos To The Giants
2017-12-06 22:27:14
All hell broke loose last week when Ben McAdoo named Geno Smith (Geno Smith, really?) the starter over Eli Manning, which essentially snaps the Giants' QB iron man streak at 210 games. I could write a small novel on why this move was both idiotic and disastrous in nature, but will instead provide the letter I wrote to John Mara, which included my remaining tickets to Dallas, Philadelphia, and Washington:
After the Raiders game, I received a voice mail from Allison Stangeby, Vice President of Community & Corporate Relations with the Giants. She relayed to me that Mara had received my letter, and he dropped off the tickets to her to be donated. That however, was before the firing of McAdoo, and she wanted to touch base with me about the rest of the season. Her offer was to FedEx my tickets back to me so I could attend the games, and include pre-game sideline passes to the Cowboys game.
I thought the effort put forth by the Giants - and in particular Ally - was a very nice gesture which I appreciated greatly. We engaged in about a 10 minute phone conversation and it, at a minimum, re-instilled my belief that the Giants organization does clearly care about their fans. I never expected any response, but was hoping my letter and tickets would at least have some sort of impact, however small, on what the fans as a whole were feeling. In the end, I think Giant fans everywhere made that quite evident.
Mr. Mara,
As a Giants’ fan of 37 years, there have been both highs and lows associated with the many seasons. That’s how football goes. While I am extremely disappointed about the 2017 season, I can accept 2-9 at this point.
What I can’t accept is the treatment given to one of your iconic players this past week. It’s clear to me the decision wasn’t thought out. If the Giants invested so little effort in this choice, I choose not invest my time into the rest of the 2017 season.
Here’s hoping choices are made in the best interest of the franchise going forward.
As a Giants’ fan of 37 years, there have been both highs and lows associated with the many seasons. That’s how football goes. While I am extremely disappointed about the 2017 season, I can accept 2-9 at this point.
What I can’t accept is the treatment given to one of your iconic players this past week. It’s clear to me the decision wasn’t thought out. If the Giants invested so little effort in this choice, I choose not invest my time into the rest of the 2017 season.
Here’s hoping choices are made in the best interest of the franchise going forward.
After the Raiders game, I received a voice mail from Allison Stangeby, Vice President of Community & Corporate Relations with the Giants. She relayed to me that Mara had received my letter, and he dropped off the tickets to her to be donated. That however, was before the firing of McAdoo, and she wanted to touch base with me about the rest of the season. Her offer was to FedEx my tickets back to me so I could attend the games, and include pre-game sideline passes to the Cowboys game.
I thought the effort put forth by the Giants - and in particular Ally - was a very nice gesture which I appreciated greatly. We engaged in about a 10 minute phone conversation and it, at a minimum, re-instilled my belief that the Giants organization does clearly care about their fans. I never expected any response, but was hoping my letter and tickets would at least have some sort of impact, however small, on what the fans as a whole were feeling. In the end, I think Giant fans everywhere made that quite evident.
add comment |
comments(0)