HardyBoy

Anymore? Humans have been dehumanizing fellow humans so they have a clean conscience doing horrible things to them for their own gain for a really, really long time. That said, I agree things are getting crazier.

If you wake up saying and truly meaning you are not going to punch and old lady today, and then you go punch an old lady because you can't stop yourself no matter how hard you try and it causes you significant impacts in your life and happiness...then yes you would absolutely be dealing with a mental health issue. Have you ever had anyone in your life deal with addiction? Addiction is a brain chemistry thing anyway. I'm sure this isn't perfectly right, but close enough: addiction happens because your brain isn't getting enough dopamine because the addictive behavior has lead to a change in the way your brain gives out dopamine and starts to release only in the presence of certain factors (specific drug, sex, etc). If your brain starts requiring more of that thing to get the same amount of dopamine released then you have a person developing a tolerance and then you get into a spiral where things can get bad quick. You really think that something that is extremely pleasurable and leads to a lot of dopamine release isn't capable of leading to serious addiction? Shoot, having 70k fans cheering when you do something on a football field releases insane amounts of dopamine as well, which is a huge reason it's so hard for people to transition out of pro sport careers, and so many get into other behaviors that lead to large dopamine releases like drinking heavily.

It can, but compulsive and destructive behavior you can't stop if you tried while knowing the potential consequences is not being a dirtbag, it's addiction.

How much variance is there in successful jukes/attempted jukes? Gotta think that's a thing people look at. How much does this stat matter year to year? Moss is also a better zone runner, and inherent in zone runs are making a cut to avoid incoming contact, how is this accounted for in the metric (schemes may impact this)?

Wait, you think tiger woods hooking up with random waffle house waitresses he just met, while married (to a super model not that it matters) with two kids, and a crap ton to lose if any of them went public is rational behavior? That seems similar to the standard on the road behavior you hear about when it comes to cheating athletes? Tiger Woods was making extremely poor and destructive choices around sex. Dude clearly had a very significant issue with compulsive sex.

We excluding the second half of game 4, cause that's just a slog to get through. Love it, but a lot of football is the tension building between plays, and tough to get that in the last two quarters of the preseason. Plus the announcing can be the other teams homer announcers (or our own) who likely are just trying to make it to the end.

Guy wearing a Pats shirt walking in the grocery store, me coming out...dropped a perfectly timed Go Bills! He laughed, but he looked shook cause for the first time in a generation he had no comeback! Edit: love, love, love the stories of saying Go Bills! to fellow Bills fans. However, I'm especially interested in things where you basically lightly trolled someone, like how some dude was just waking in a parking lot with his Pats shirt having a perfectly bland day, and I just Go Bills'd him out of nowhere. Even though he smiled and laughed you could tell he was resigned to the overall McBeane experience and he knew the tables have turned with Josh Allen. Nobody get beat up or hurt though please.

I can't believe I'm saying this, and I don't think it's funny, but it's the correct use of the term so...that's an interesting twist on survivor bias

So the consistent look of surprise when my 18 month old sees something for the first time says please stop. Also, the converse being true (which i agree with you in a non-literal sense) does not make the original true. Gotta go contrapositive for that if I am remembering my 10th grade math. That specific saying needs to be in a certain order for it to be what he was saying. It's like if he said "When pigs fly, I'll believe pigs can fly" and you saying he said the same thing. He was trying to reference a common saying, he got it backwards...you know who wouldn't have gotten that backwards...Josh Allen...except I could totally see him start saying that now to mess with mahomes!

Watched it, well said! The thing that has me most excited is that JA might have overachieved last year and was a bit lucky in a way (assuming his size and arm strength don't contribute to his luck). His pff stable stats were lower than his final output. His stable stats also improved both from his floor in 2018, and from year two, in year three (like historically so). Compared to his ceiling there is a legit chance he has the same % improvement this year as last year, if not higher. As the guy said, JAs biggest asset is his brain, and he's far from his ceiling there and he's already crushing it with the mental game already. Imagine when he is viewed as Brady or Manning in terms of you can't blitz him because he can find the weak spot for a positive play every time. What is going to really set him in that level is not only will he be waiting on the blitz, but him and Diggs have been baiting your corner the last three quarters and the last three games of tape waiting for a specific moment to burn you with a double move. A more that they have been diabolically and lethally devising because, the thing that drives it all: cut throat competitive.

What's a tux and pucks? Was not expecting the story to be they had actual tuxes on. It's a good story, just sounded like it was setting up for them to have gotten into some debauchery the night before...not that that can't happen in a tux

Haven't watched yet, but I will die on the hill that JAs 2019 season was significantly better than people realize and the lack of deep ball accuracy in 2019 is a super flawed stat due to the number of games in 25+ mph winds they played in at the end of the season.

I pulled some initial stuff. Based on the distribution of running yards, the most likely place to get tackled on a run is not the line of scrimmage (did not qa my data or logic much at all tbf). What's more interesting is I did some super initial analysis to compare how many yards down field were solo tackles by down, specifically looking at Edmunds vs Wagner. I just did a box and whisker without looking at the specific quartile numbers, and these are small sample sizes for sure (just 2020 in my initial pass), but they look fairly similar, with Wagner getting more tackles for no gain or better, but it wasn't a huge diff (at the scale I was looking the differences appeared minimal, but would want to zoom in to get a better sense at some point). So what is my main takeaway? I just looked a solo tackles, and neither player looked great (I should get an Brian U season for a baseline I guess). Building in logic to get assisted tackles is a bit more work, but my initial thought is if you are having your middle linebacker making solo tackles, then you are already in trouble. That means the rb is able to dictate the run and the dline is not controlling the game.

Peace Karen

Haha, oh the projection. You're literally going to the manager asking that they stop someone from talking about something you claim is personal. "Excuse me manager, the cashiers were talking about their plans for after work for the first five seconds I walked up, and well yes I was staring at my phone the entire interaction, it's just that I would prefer they would not talk about personal stuff when they are working. "It wouldn't be so bad, but they're talking about a (whisper) gay friend inviting all of them over to his boyfriend's house later to hang out. "Well my wife and I, we're not sure why people just always have to bring sexuality into the conversation. I am not triggered by this, it's just upsetting enough for me to have to speak loudly about it to anyone that will listen over and over again. "Really my hope is that people stop saying things that make me feel like that when I am trying to buy condoms, cigarettes and beer from a cashier making like $9 an hour. My wife here who spends hours a day applying and removing makeup everyday to look more attractive, but not in a sexual way...she likes to point out that we aren't canceling others, we're canceling negative feelings inside ourselves, and yeah that requires others to only talk about a specific set of things, but those things are freedom and those other things are totally against freedom, so we good."

So I would argue it's all and only really about keeping teams behind the chains. A tackle for no gain on first and 10 is monumentally more valuable than 2nd and 3 because it limits an offenses options and allows the defense to get more exotic because they know the offense is likely to do a much smaller set of things that shrinks even more when you add in formations and personnel. One of the likely plays on 2nd and 3 is a run up the middle hoping for even just a yard or two to set up 3rd and possibly 4th and super short. Think of it this way, a stop for no gain on 2nd and 7 is the same as a tackle for a 4 yard loss on 2nd and 3. It's relative to what puts teams behind the chains. Your argument it sounds like is that Edmunds gets a bunch of no gain tackles on 2nd and 3 when maybe they bring Poyer up and free Edmunds up to sell out on the run a bit more. One of my biggest memories from the D last year were the lack of first down stuffs, and how often teams were in 2nd and 5 or less. Also, not many holding calls either getting teams into 1st and 20, which to me is a scheme issue as much as a player issue. 2nd half of the season was totally different (just as a feel, i haven't seen or pulled together any stats to support that). As for where the most likely place to get tackled is. I had a feeling you were maybe talking about yards in terms of hundreths place (1.00 yards) on an actual number line and thinking about it the way you did. Haha, I know how to do R Programming and could probably pull all runs from the last 20 years using a package in there that pulls play by play data and toss it into Tableau and get a nice visualization with a histogram and maybe some cool other more fun data visualizations to see if you're right. Doubt I'm motivated enough, but could do it Getting the down and distance and if Edmunds made the tackle and where is doable I would think, just would prob be a bit more involved...shoot part of me wants to jump on my computer right now and see if I can do it!...the other part of me wants to drink a beer and play video games a bit instead of folding my kids laundry (a 4 yr old and an 18 month old have so, so, so many clothes and they're so little so the pile of to fold goes down so slowly...like potentially 50 things to fold in a single hamper of kids clothes easy).

Ok, so please never post a picture of you and what I imagine is a wife or girlfriend on social media ever, and immediately delete any that currently exist. Make sure all of your posts on here never reference that person in anyway at all. Actually, you talking about what you individually did is personal too. Ok, so only pictures of landscapes with no context of you being there or taking the picture. You do that, then you can start talking about others keeping personal life personal. If you think that it is appropriate for you to share that personal information publicly, then what about this situation is different? And if by some slim chance you already don't do that, I would say the vast majority of people do, so swap in the avg "keep your personal life personal" person. Also, can we get a mod to please go through and delete every thread and post about Josh Allen's grandma please, and his gf too of course...sorry guys, we need to cancel the money we helped raise for the buffalo children's hospital because Buffalo619 wants us all to keep our personal lives private...that or there is just something about this specific topic that is driving him to want to cancel this topic...

Wait, I'm having a hard time with the statistically the most likely place for a rb to be tackled is the los?! Doesn't the avg nfl running back avg like 3 yards a carry? I mean it's possible that the median is los, and crazy long runs bump that avg up for rbs compared to their median, but that doesn't seem right either. Also, you're completely undervaluing a run for no gain...it seemed like just about every time the bills d got the other team behind the chains on first down they would have a significantly higher chance to get teams off the field...I mean no duh, that's true for all teams I'm sure...but the Bills strength is their nickle d...if they could get a team behind the chains, edmunds could sell out pass more on play action etc. Long way to say a tackle for no gain last year was super important to this defense and they felt really rare until the second half of the season when Edmunds started coming on strong and the entire d started clicking.

I think you would then need to see who is leading the bills in tfl, because that could very well be a scheme thing too ( no idea just something that would be fair to rule out). Also, I think I remember Edmunds has been seeing a lot of play action, which in the nfl is magnitudes of degrees more sneaky than in college. I'd almost argue that he is overly instinctual and is more easily tricked by PA as a result. This might be something similar to looking at burnt toast and saying well at least you know the toaster works, but...being able to get so many tackles at the line of scrimmage, when at least the prevailing sentiment is he can be wrong footed by play design, means he has elite recovery skills? Anyway, we're not talking about the third quarter of the season Edmunds from last year right? Just want to make sure because definitely looked like something clicked for him at the end of the season last year.

I think Welker honestly was a bit ahead of his time. By the end of his career he sadly had a bit of a 1000 yard stare going on sadly. I think the changes in the rules really helped Edelman just a few years later avoid the concussions. Was for the best tasker mostly played st.

The salary cap only applies to the top 50 on a roster (or something like that). I guess it's possible you would be bumping a rookie minimum deal out of the top 50 if you have a vet minimum guy on the practice squad, but only the top 50 or whatever players count toward the salary cap...the rest is just a cash flow thing only (no cap implications)

See the logic arguments only get you to the point of saying something is plausible. You're taking a huge leap here and any research is hugely biased by societal expectations. I mentioned this on like page 3, but saw some research that nearly a third of gen z report as not being completely 100% straight. That's massive. Not to stereotype, but to address the argument, there are not enough theater and ballet kids to make up 30% of boys. I would say those activities are already overly represented by gay boys (you say because those activities draw them because of their orientation, I say it draws them because it's a safe and accepting space compared to other activities. When you get into a number the size of 33%, you can't say it's actually 50% everywhere else except the football team where it's like 2%, and only the kicker. 33% to me is something that is likely equally dispersed across an entire population. Also, if I was going to do a sport that proved how masculine and not possibly gay I was, then it would definitely be football. Care to guess what the football players at my school called players on our state champ soccer team for playing a "gay" sport. Again, are people scared of showering with a gay guy because the gay guy will get turned on, or because they're afraid they will get turned on...33% is a really big number folks.

Ah gotcha. Don't forget they've been trying to figure out a way to "cure" homosexuality for a really long time, so funding might have been there to a degree. Also, there is a lot of opportunity for that type of research on college campuses where it is more acceptable to be openly gay, but you could be right on the lack of a large enough or diverse enough sample size. Now I'm talking about psychological research, if you're talking about neuropsych, like fMRI brain imaging stuff you might be right. Tough to show people gay porn when it's a felony to possess it I guess. You know what, you might have persuaded me to change my mind a bit. To be fair, you make a real solid point, and I honestly thought you were just saying that because it felt right because feelings...nope, you got a pretty solid logical argument there (seriously). For all we know, there could be a crap ton of money flowing into this research for a long time, but you really might be right. You'd think there was a ton of research into mmj, but somewhat similar reasons have lead there to be a huge gap of 60 or so years in that research until recently.

Oh, I was very much not joking, I just am not going to be super direct, but I'll turn it up just a little. You're assuming the women would become aroused though. They very much likely would not (there are coed showers all throughout europe...they don't devolve into orgies, because it's just nudity. You're assuming the gay man would get aroused as well, they very much likely would not (unless I missed the part where you just have a huddle of guys in art museums staring at nude sculptures unable to move without a binder in front of them like 7th grade. Anyway, look up projection in terms of defense mechanisms.

Right, playing the who's more oppressed game is awful, but I'd argue the need to justify your feelings of being oppressed when the nazis literally did human centipede type experiments on people in your demo group is worse. Agree, and I think the oppression of gay people is rooted more deeply as well...same thing probably. There is also a scape goat element to it too though, and with something like being gay, where it's not a physical thing, people could accuse you of it and find some birth mark arbitrarily and you're toast.