HardyBoy

How does west Virginia have anything to do with what we're talking about? Also, West Virginia hasn't been subjected to hundreds of years of systemic roadblocks. You could say things like company stores and lacking education to keep the population reliant on jobs working in dangerous coal mine conditions for sure, but those are very very different social and behavioral and opportunity constraints compared to what happened in black neighborhoods. Nixon literally had retaliatory laws passed against black people because they voted against him. Black people were lynched. When they fled places like Tulsa after there was basically a pogrom done on them when it was known as Black Wallstreet, they fled to places like Rochester and Boston and faced arguably even worse oppression through segregation and red lining and all that...Rochester, the home of Fredrick Douglass and a key stop on the Underground Railroad less than 100 years later treated essentially political refugees and asylum seekers, their own county's citizens absolutely terribly. When they finally had enough of the literal ghettos they were forced into and the absolute atrocious treatment by the police, they rioted (seriously, read about the rochester race riots, it's a very nuanced moral issue) white flight happened and they built highways through black neighborhoods on purpose to destroy those places so white people get out of the cities, because it was now illegal to segregate. Let's fast forward to 2008, when predatory loan practices and shredding of government oversight driven by the mortgage lobby, led to an insane amount of wealth being transfered out of the black community and to banks that got bailed out, and those neighborhoods that used to be largely black owned suddenly got foreclosed and gentrified. That West Virginia stat is interesting for sure, but it's on its face not analogous...like using it as an example here is a logical fallacy...I don't know them well enough to name the one it is off the top of my head, but I certainly know it is one. Also, I'm not here to debate the right way to handle generational poverty and lack of opportunity and generational hopelessness...the only culture I want to talk about is how we have a culture of forcing huge swaths of people in this country into never ending poverty... I'm not interested in condemning how people who are living in situations where they have literally no possible way of escaping the level of poverty they are stuck in, just because of the zip code they are in...I have no experience with that life, I have no idea how I would personally handle being in that situation and my guess is you have no idea about it either, yet you cast aspertions. Warren Buffet has said that his vision of society is that it's a random draw, and that people in charge should be governing in a way that they assume that they could be born into any position in life and to do public policy accordingly. How do you think your life would be if you were born into poverty in the inner city? If your school had lead in the water and moldy ceilings and burnt out teachers? If you didn't have access to a grocery store with fresh fruits and vegetables and had to eat processed food for every meal and didn't have access to dental care and your teeth had significant issues by the time you were 5 because of all the sugar drinks you had no choice but to drink because even if you had the money, you would be stuck with sugar drinks because again, no real grocery store and you can't even drink the water because it's contaminated...like empathy dude...even if you're right and I conceded your argument as to it being a "cultural" thing, which I don't, but let's pretend I did for a moment...why did that culture you say exists develop? What were the conditions economically, socially, and politically that fostered that culture to form? Also, maybe you can help define exactly what you mean by "cultural" and what basis you have and what experience you have to adequately and properly label a culture my guess is you have very little actual understanding of or familiarity with other than what is portrayed by the media. And again, the only culture I am really interested in discussing in terms of coming up with solutions here is the culture of building generational poverty through corporate and political and societal policy...corporations are people, cigarette lobbies pushed the government to make policy for years saying cigarettes were safe, highways destroying cities so they could sell cars, etc...you're taking your eye off the real problems because you're letting them trick you into debating cultural formation in systemically oppressed populations...stop doing that, how about instead we work together to see past their bs and work to actually bring about positive change.

Right! And that right there is where the conversation typically falls apart and it's really weird. Like I don't know if it's because people are conditioned to say there are systemic issues outside of just guns that are causing this (which I agree with and think there is a ton of sensible common ground). And then it's like ok, let's talk about some of the specific systemic things that are causing these issues and the response is no, none of that is true. "Father's aren't present!" Well yeah, we have a private prison system that has literal contracts guanteeing them a certain number of inmates annually, and non violent drug laws that are either applied to minorities more (whites and blacks smoke pot at the same rate, but are arrested for it at an insanely higher rate) or sentencing guidelines are just absolutely insane (cocaine and crack are the same drug, but you used to get 5x more jail time for the same weight of crack as coke and those laws were written that way intentionally to go after black people). Or how a lot of the prior convictions that people are talking about up thread are due to people plea bargening because they are not able to afford bail and have no choice, but to plea out either because of a completely broken and underfunded public defender system or because they will lose their job if they have to spend time in jail for pre-trail lockup. Now you're on parole, which costs money and if you get in trouble at that point they don't even have to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You want to talk about systemic issues? Years 0-3 are probably the most important years in terms of development. Yet you have food deserts, high risk of lead contaminated water, lack of adequate child care options and the thing I find the absolutely most crazy...diaper poverty...snap doesn't pay for diapers, so you have moms that aren't able to take their kids to daycare so they can work or go to school because the kid has no diapers, it's so screwed up. There's countless other systemic things impacting people in inner cities, which are predominantly minority. This narrative that it's cultural for black people and a choice is so dumb, especially when you look at poverty in rural places and suddenly you're seeing the same "culture" MLK wasn't killed because he was trying to end segregation, he was killed because he shifted his focus to bringing all poor people together to end institutional poverty. Unfortunately basically everytime I try and engage with people in good faith on the gun violence conversation, they say the right things about wanting to shift it away from guns and look at it systemically and holistically (which of course guns are a part of that whole)...but then it turns out that it's invariably an act to get the conversation to shift away from guns and then suddenly there aren't any systemic things impacting people, it's all "culture"

In isolation, of course we should let some time go by and mourn the people impacted. Problem is, this isn't an isolated thing...the way the news cycle works is this is going to be thoughts and prayers, anything else isn't respectful..then spend two days arguing it's too soon and a political ploy by the radical left to take away guns (all like literal nra/gun lobby talking points it has been proven and factually reported) and just the same play book over and over. The gun lobby is incredibly powerful, have driven an intentional media and marketing campaign to any reasonable gun legislation, which the vast majority of Americans agree with some level of oversight and regulation. I guess I'm also kind of confused, because we have other amendments that are being legislated and the judiciary sets precedent on all the time that changed and defines the constitution, like Miranda Warnings and such, but you only hear widespread outrage over the 2nd ammendment, when it literally says the words well regulated in the text of it. That's not a political statement either, that's a why is it that people get so worked up about perceived infringement of the 2nd ammendment that it's a literal non-starter, when people aren't trying to talk about infringement, but genuine good faith regulation, but then when you look at something like due process or the government having access to ring camera footage or other types of huge data privacy oversteps by the government, you really don't hear anything. Like the social conditioning aspect of this is insanely interesting to me. I think the secret is to really stop focusing on how people are saying it, and to focus on what they are actually saying...like yeah, that maybe sounded a bit insensitive, but this is a super nuanced topic and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that was a super nuanced answer, so what exactly do you mean and what exactly are you trying to say, instead of shutting down and just allowing oneself to react in the way we've been conditioned by our respective algorithms.

You completely missed my point. The current judiciary is an activist judiciary... they ignore precident, maybe you just don't notice because they're either doing what you like, or much more likely the, let me see if I can use these the right way, the right wing media cabal isn't shouting "activist justices, activist justices" so they're not activating their subjects with the queen of hearts (yes that is an original Manchurian Candidate reference). It's funny you say that the representatives are trying to divide us, but as soon as anyone mentioned anything that triggered you a tiny little bit, you melted and started dividing this thread and not allowing a natural discussion to flow...that wasn't a representative in power in far off Washington, that was you. And people use stories all the time to make points, the star wars prequels, as much as they got lambasted for it at the time, are an amazing insight into how a fascist government can come into power through legal means, it's extremely relevant and also extremely nuanced because the jedi order are not necessarily all good by any means either.

Here's the thing, I'm able to find some middle ground there and I think we can have a genuine good faith debate, because I do think there is some truth in the media not reporting on this, just like the media doesn't report on missing women of color a whole bunch, but if it's a pretty blonde white girl it's national news. Them having a pro gun ban agenda, I don't know...I mean I think if they had any agenda at all, and if I was going to think they were legit psychopaths, I'd say they make way more money with there being mass shootings...if the media actually had an agenda to get rid of guns, I'd argue they would do a much much much better job of actually getting rid of guns...they made people believe that diamonds are actually valuable and that you need to spend a crap ton of money to buy them as an engagement ring, which was a crazy marketing and media agenda. Problem is, I've had these types of conversations with people before (I was living in Ft Lauderdale when the Parkland shooting happened and thought things were really going to change after that one, and then they started getting called crisis actors...in the media and by politicians, so truly I think it might be worth re-evaluating where the agenda potentially might be, because I don't think you're trying to come at this from a bad faith argument) Anyway, I truly I understand it's a highly nuanced issue and am truly open to listening and getting past the talking points that would set each other off onto conditioned tracks of conversation that are built on purpose to prevent us from being able to collaborate and compromise and actually change stuff (I dunno, feel like I learned that from George Carlin), and really listen to what you are trying to say, and not how you're saying it. Here's the problem though, because this happens basically every time I try this...someone claims there are all these systemic issues leading to gun violence, but then when I mention yes, there are systemic issues like redlining and a bunch of things impacting, yes disproportionately people of color, but also people of all low socioeconomic levels, the invariable response back is that's made up, it's not true, I am not open to entertaining that line of thought for a moment, it's in the past and people need to work harder, basically...boot straps and all. There is also a huge increase in hopelessness and lack of connection, which sadly is being exacerbated by income inequality and it continues to get worse and instead of coming together to figure out a solution, there has been a consistent agenda to take any possible solution, break it in half and put those solutions on two sides of a fence and prevent people from being able to talk to one another and realize the only solution is to work together. I do think there is an agenda that led to that, I do think it's a media agenda, I could listen to it being a both sides thing and in many many ways it is in terms of not reporting on actual stuff and instead just focusing on if it bleeds it leads... but I also am looking around and suddenly out of nowhere people are terrified and angry at Taylor Swift, and they were suddenly out of nowhere terrified and angry at something else and next month it will be something else.

They also were visionaries that understood that as things changed the constitution would need to change, so they made it possible to make amendments to it. The originalist interpretation point of view is logically contradictory and is only leverage when convenient and you're literally proving it here. The activist judiciary turned out to be the very people warning against the "crazy activist judiciary" all these years...star wars prequel level stuff there is what that is

That's gonna be a pretty massive contract for what it's worth, not that Diggs' wasn't expensive and obviously Jefferson is on a rookie deal, I totally get all that. You really can't understate what Diggs did for Allen's development though. I know Jefferson started his career strong from the start, but having a true #1 receiver who is an amazing route runner and seems to be a true master of his craft in terms of nuanced body movement and hiding the true route...I think there is at a least a solid debate there because the single most important thing is Allen's development...and I'm someone who has been screaming for years that they are misusing Allen and them expecting to carry the entire offensive load is not ok long term both because he's taking too many hits and a lot because I'm worried he will eventually see that it is not a fair expectation to be placed on him and he could leave.

I'm sure 2020 still featured a lot of half field reads (I'm assuming that makes it easier for receivers, but probably if it was easier it was because Allen needed routes to be locked in more at that stage of his development), but I think an even bigger factor was the empty stadiums. Basically the first reasonably full away stadium they played in was Arrowhead in the divisional that year and it really looked like it impacted the offense a lot, which could explain the benefit gained from the lack of crowd noise for especially a rookie wr that was winning because of schemed up mismatches a lot. They play hurry up, Allen gets to the line with 20+ seconds on the play clock, Daboll reads the presnap and gives Allen the audibles through the helmet before it cuts off at 15 seconds, Allen is able to communicate it really easily to the receivers and there you have it. I think you're right on this is how Beane has learned and feels deeply is the best way to build a team, but it requires those one year wrs to be able to come in and perform immediately and Beane is too good a talent evaluator for the number of receivers to have come in to all look mediocre like they have the last few seasons. Really hoping that they let these wrs start just playing instead of having to think so damn much all the time. I feel like I am hoping that the offense starts empowering the receivers to beat their match up, instead focusing on having them beat the scheme...just go out there and win the match up and have Allen's eyes/progressions get to the receiver at the moment he'll be able to tell if they won in terms of getting the right leverage on the defense so he can throw with anticipation.

What are your thoughts on the team building strategy of finding value (not necessarily cheap) veteran wrs on one year deals instead of drafting if you are concerned you don't have the cap to sign them longterm? Thinking about production curves, you're probably going to be getting more production from the veteran during their rookie season and I would think equal production from the next season's veteran as the then 2nd year draft pick. Is the real problem (at least for that strategy) the over complicated offense, especially at the receiver position? Or maybe is that why beane isn't drafting a receiver? (My guess is he's not drafting one because of below, but the one's he's bringing in are not thriving because it's overly complex...Beasley is a football genius and John Brown succeeded when Allen was doing a lot of half field reads, though the offense might have gotten really complex by 2020, though guessing that was more in 2021 and onward) Is there more value in drafting an upside lb that you think you can turn into a top 10 lb and see Bernard level production from them over years 2-4 of their rookie deal vs drafting a wr and having them not really add significant value over a potential one year deal veteran until the third year of their rookie deal and then you need to make a decision on getting a value extension or a fifth year option on just that one year of performance growth? Since so many receivers seem to have more of an exponential growth curve that doesn't start to really spike until year three (per the general talk people who probably know nothing about what they're actually saying...like me...about wr development, which is why I'm asking you)

I was so excited for Hardy, just unfortunate all around

Lyrics from the first two verses and the chorus: Well all I know is everything I’ve learned And if I’m changing that's the reason that I’ll turn Into someone I can trust Before I turn back into dust There's an answer but I wouldn't be concerned Out of everything I’ve seen and all I’ve heard And everywhere I’ve been around the whole wide world There's still something I can't find I've been lost within my mind Since you fell out of my sight without a word Well I thought I knew it all Till I crashed into the wall Let me learn from my mistakes And try to pick up all the pieces

Is Hopkins available? Do you have any actual insight into why Bass had a down year? I know that 95%-99% of us have no idea what we're truly watching, because football is so damn complex, but I'd argue that number jumps to 99.9% when it comes to kickers and punters (I’ve read that most coaches and gms have no idea what they're watching when it comes to kickers and punters). Normally I don't point that out this directly, but you seem so confident that you actually know something about what you're talking about, but I'm probably 95% safe to say you have absolutely no idea and are just group thinking with the other 95% of people without trying to understand the situation and actually try and cobble some type of insight by listening to people who know what they're talking about on the subject and synergizing ideas together. And it's all good, I'm not really judging how you do sports, have at it and have fun...I don't do it that way, I don't agree with that approach and when it gets too noisy and group thinky I push back, but enjoy your hobby as you see fit as long as you're not like sending threats to Bass or anything...my one recommendation is to realize it's something that's happening (feeling very confident that you're right about something you don't really know anything about, with a huge group of other people), because sports is one thing, but be mindful of it in other areas of life because it can be a treacherous path in other areas of life.

This reminds me of the Pats Panthers super bowl in like 2004

I'm scared to ask what the final question was...so many to choose from... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Or _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Or _ _ _ _ _ _ I could go all night

More than that, they getting around laws, regulations and taxes that are in place for cable tv

It really feels like to me he pushed the coaches to explain the purpose of certain concepts and Losman basically realized that they were largely frauds...like yes they obviously understood football at an elite level, but as far as actually innovating and building something, I'm guessing he uncovered that they were frauds and were just doing the things that you're supposed to do, instead of having and understanding the actual purpose behind it and truly building something, or maybe it was that and a mix of being so terrified of failing and thinking it's better to deliver something mediocre than try to build excellence, without having the true nuanced conceptual understanding to realize that failing (at least quickly and in small ways that prove it will fail generally) is really good and important. It's allowing you to eliminate dead ends while getting rid of the clutter paths when trying to build connections and it's those connections that allow you to be flexible and dynamic. They just build silos that ultimately are a net negative because they prevent connections from happening, but all sit around patting themselves on the back congratulating one another on a great job well done and promoting themselves to higher level roles through a nepatonistic cluster of crap organizational politics, while shifting all the blame and basically all of the work and none of the credit to the people who see through it and still try and make things excellent, because they know those people care so much and will not let it fail (even though they should). Ahem, as I mentioned earlier up thread, this stuff happens in business too and perhaps I can relate a bit with JP in terms of what was written in that Athletic article. But in case you think I'm being crazy, think of coaches that are part of a coaching tree, get hired into head coaching and coordinator positions, but then fail. The Packers and Eagles DCs are great examples...they just run "the Fangio" defense all the time, without realizing there is a time and place for it and not understanding why it works or the purpose or whatever, so they fail (I watched a YouTube video on that yesterday actually)... I'm not crazy (at least about this...though I have no idea how to get out of that type of situation, cause at least in my case I keep thinking things will change or people will start to listen).

That's not at all what that Athletic article made it sound like. Sounds like the coaching staff felt threatened by a super smart, curious and passionate kid who wanted to truly understand things...he likely found contradictions in what people were saying, called them out and those people realized they got figured out as not actually really truly knowing what they're talking about, so they basically quiet fired him. Happens in business often as well...ask me how I know.

https://theathletic.com/2537042/2021/04/23/ex-bills-qb-j-p-losman-didnt-let-his-disappointing-nfl-career-define-him-instead-he-found-his-calling-at-clemson/ It's behind a paywall...that coaching staff and organization would have broken Josh Allen too, just how they broke JP. I think people minimize the importance of having humility and a growth mindset in a leadership position and let really smart and passionate people genuinely ask why things are a certain way, not because they are challenging authority, but because they want to deeply and truly understand ideas and how things connect.

JP should have been a franchise QB, that coaching staff and organization ruined him...please don't lump him in with EJ, he was significantly better physically and mentally at the position. Still bums me out how badly they wasted JP and if he came into the league now, in the right spot, I think he would be elite (not right spot in terms of having the right players or system around him, but a genuine support system that knew how to coach him...he reminds me of Josh Allen a lot honestly in a lot of ways

Word salad gibberish you heard from someone who makes money off clicks...it's a grift my man

I mean he had 20 interceptions in 65 games played, including leading the 85 Bears in picks at 6 then blew out his knee and had to retire...as an undrafted player...I'd say whatever instinct and drive he has inside him is pretty freaking killer and competitive, but I do agree he's not rah rah and he seems like he'd rather jump on an inevitable mistake than give up plays trying to force one.

It's more going to be because of the owner imo

I don't get it either...I was actually annoyed at first, but more so because of the commercials and the add placement... it's not something that's a big deal to me anymore personally, they show people's families in the stands all the time when something good happens, shoot they showed Giselle all the time and she was probably more popular than Taylor Swift and people didn't have this reaction. The answer to your question is you're probably on a different algorithm from the one that is causing people to have that type of visceral reaction. There are people who say they view her as a political threat, but really I think they are just trying to capitalize on her popularity as well and use her popularity to amplify their message to a broader audience by driving increased engagement numbers...it's all a grift and it's just grifting to the next thing that can be used to amplify that grift by getting people all amped up about something else that they didn't care about last week and didn't realize they cared about today until they started getting blasted with it on the social media dopamine phone crack dispenser.

The biggest takeaway for me is they are going to be trying to do short term solutions to try and save their jobs. I think Saleh is probably a good coach and hoping for his own sake he learns from this and does a better job blocking outside stuff out going forward (my guess is a bunch of us would get caught up in that stuff as well in his position the first time we face it). That said, I think they probably should have made a coaching switch only because the second most dangerous thing is a coach making short term moves to try and save their job, and the most dangerous is a gm doing that.

I'm worried about someone getting hurt in that flag football game... at least it's not on sand I guess, but flag football definitely can get physical and they're probably going to actually try