GaryPinC

Jones was going for a high hit against Allen, in the midst of being tackled, a semi-defenseless runner. His body posture, upwards drive, and lack of attempt to wrap Josh give it away. If Jones was one-on-one with Allen does he go for the high hit or tackle low? If Allen is not in the midst of being tackled he could have handled Jones' hit much differently. Jones decided to deliver a high shot in the midst of a tackle, make it targeting and a cheap shot. Did he mean to go helmet to helmet? Who cares, he chose to attempt the hit and executed a very dangerous helmet to helmet hit. If Josh wasn't concussed by that hit, the tackler took his feet out from under him and the resultant, uncontrolled head slam on the ground did it. Hopefully Allen isn't out long but I fully expect a month if not more. Those were two violent, successive blows to the head he took on that play. If the NFL truly cares about reducing concussions, they would come down hard on Jones for doing this. If you want to attempt a hit like that when an opponents ability to react is compromised, it better be strictly legal otherwise it's a stiff punishment.

Yep, and he did just that. Did he intend helmet to helmet? Don't know but that's what happened.

I'll happily tell you how. Jones is listed at 5'10" 183 lbs, Allen 6'5" 238. DB's hate tackling guys that much larger than them and go low. As in get in a low crouch, upper body lowered and take out his legs low. Jones clearly keeps his torso upright and is going high with his contact. His whole body position is high and that is targeting. Go ahead, rewatch the tape. WRT Allen, he is in the process of being tackled on his right, the fact that his body veers left is not surprising. The first tackler also wraps near the ball and part of Allen's head drop and lean is an effort to lock in and protect the ball. But you should be ashamed of yourself for believing Jones did nothing wrong. His entire body form says otherwise. If the other Pat's defender wasn't there initiating the tackle I believe Jones goes low otherwise Allen ends up trucking him.

Keep in mind there's two components, the immediate effects of the concussion and post concussion longer term effects (syndrome). Obviously the concussion itself caused some real problems, as he did appeared to be knocked out or have trouble getting up. Couldn't tell if that leg movement when he was lying on the field was voluntary or involuntary.

He's still got to learn, for sure. I was happy to see him go for it on the Josh Allen touchdown but he should have taken the points on 4th down in fourth quarter. First, we then just need a FG to tie and that takes a lot of stress off Barkley against a premier defense. Second, if NE had managed to kick a late FG we would have needed two scores (9 pts) to catch them. Aggressive, but situational coaching.

I had luck with a lemon or citrus based shampoo, but had to wash him about 4 times before he was tolerable. You could definitely smell the spray stink in the suds so I know it was cutting it. Never tried the peroxide mix or pet store product.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I simply believe the Washington Dems have completely lost touch with the American people. Between the Russia collusion, the "obstruction" charges and now this. They're going to hang their hat on a majority of people dislike Trump and claim they tried to stop him and blame partisan politics. WRT, dangerous precedent, well, throw it on the pile with the rest of them. Seriously, you know this better than anyone, what's one more in all this mess?

So, conspiracy/deep state aside, here's another angle. First off, the most obvious result would be Dem House drafts articles and Repub Senate acquits. This allows the Dems to claim the high ground for 2020 saying we tried to rid the country of bad orange man and right or wrong further paints him as corrupt. This also caters the the far left of the party. Dems have little going for 2020 election. Put a progressive for the candidate against this backdrop and see what happens. If Trump and Repubs hold, it allows old school Dems to regain control of party (I hope!). If progs win old school adapts and curried favor by trying to impeach. Haven't read the whistle blower report, but everything else is truly weak as hell about this. Truly. Definitely a setup as best I can see. 2024 Presidential election, my dream matchup:. Tulsi Gabbard vs Jim Jordan. Peace!

Right now the biggest problem with the Browns is that Monken's offense did not mesh well with Kitchen's offense. I heard they adopted Monken's terms/language but wasted a lot of time in training camp trying to create a hybrid offense. So Baker and those personnel are not comfortable with running it. That affects his decisions, time to make a decision and checks/protections for the O-line. Couple that with a rookie coach, a young team, and yes things are really a mess on offense right now. I also don't believe Kitchens makes all the play calls because the way the game is called is totally different from last year, save in certain situations. He takes all criticism though. I do believe it'll sort out and Baker will look more like last year, hopefully not before November 10th!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://hoax-alert.leadstories.com/amp-3470791-fake-news-john-roberts-not-fly-with-epstein-on-at-least-2-occasions.html&ved=2ahUKEwiXupal0drkAhV7ITQIHZaYB24QFjADegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2ixkRXV60f-mBoreXZbXEK&ampcf=1&cshid=1568819015076 Not sure what the truth is but this is out there also.

You're too quick DR! Meant to and moved to the investigations thread

How insane is this? I'm looking over the NYT coverage of Lewandowski and they say Trump asked him to ask Sessions to limit the investigation on the Trump campaign and focus on preventing foreign interference in the future. 1. If Trump knows there was no collusion, then how is he obstructing? 2. They want to impeach a President for this??. 3. I can't believe the NYT actually provided some critical context to Trump's request! The editor surely screwed up.

Even once is your own fault. No matter what the situation I'm not putting my face near the gun. And what guy hovers his face near another man's ass?

Come on. They traded him one year after drafting him 10th overall. There were no guarantees with Murray either. Actions speak the loudest.

Even though I live in Cleveland, I don't follow their offseason that closely but I know he had workouts with his receivers during the offseason like so many other QBs. Last year he came in and ran their offense well the entire year. Checks, progressions, spreading the ball around to the open man so I felt he prepared very well last year. Again, not sure the problem but I'm not ready to doubt him just yet. The entire offense has looked bad. Yesterday it seemed geared around getting Landry and OBJ the ball as their top 2 priorities. No balance.

I can't speak to Landry and OBJ but when Mayfield had his pro-day at OU what stood out was his preparation to detail. Dorsey talked about how all the receivers were there early and fully ready to go on the start time. Baker orchestrated and controlled the entire workout, which rightfully impressed Dorsey. Unless Mayfield has fallen off a cliff from last year, he knows the playbook. But he's looked mostly pedestrian to poor this year and it's difficult to understand right now. The guy spread the ball around and made great decisions last year.

Of course it's childish. But cripes, Prisk just takes it in the face. From a guy who he knows is a jerk, yet does nothing about it and decides to continue to work with him. That's funny as hell and I have zero sympathy for him. Should have turned AB away when he was 3 hours late. How could he seriously think things would improve? AB did his best and this guy accepted it.

I think the biggest problem is that Kitchens is not running the offense very closely. I know supposedly he is, so my opinion alone but there is very little intelligence to their playcalling, most of the time they are looking for the long ball, not complementing the run game with the pass game. Totally different than last year. The communication and adjustments on their O-line was clearly lacking game 1 and was a bit better last night so that helps, but I feel like they have a very different and less intelligent offensive game plan this year. Possibly they gave more autonomy to Baker and he's not ready? I don't know but offensive strategy noticeably different this year.

I hope we can smoke the Patriots but I'm not sure we're that good yet. McD has fostered a winning culture in the locker room and the team has responded. The scary thing is we have a lot of things to clean up still (primarily on offense) but you can see the makings of a dominant team coming together. That is why games are different for me. So much more fun this way!

Sure, and in some cases records are over 100 years though spotty at best. I don't care about conditions billions of years ago, I'm just trying to make sense of the data we have now. The standardized data we've collected over the last 60+ years shows that at the moment the cyclical number of hurricanes isn't overall changing much but that we're seeing a few more major hurricanes. It is entirely reasonable to argue hurricanes are increasing in intensity based on this data. I'm not saying what will happen in the future, only what's been happening. I'm not worried about attributing it to man's role in climate change, the planet has been in a warming trend, much like in the 1930's. The hurricane activity in the 1930's wasn't due to AGW, just overall warming. These days, regardless of the cause, we've been in a warming trend and the incidence of major hurricanes seems slightly upticked over the last 10-20 years while total number of hurricanes is not. Give it 10-20 more years to see if the trend holds but certainly I don't believe it's just going to keep going up,up,up like some who are uninformed. The balances of the planet will level things out. And while man's behavior and pollution affects the planet I still don't see enough convincing evidence that we will overwhelm the planet within a short time frame (100 to 200 years).

It would seem like both. Saffir-Simpson wind scale (category 1-5) is pretty standard wind speed measures. More major hurricanes is more destructive wind force. The rest is us and our stuff being in the way. Certainly coastal populations in the US have changed greatly in the last 100 years so I kind of put it on that.

??. Well, he did concede to me that number of major hurricanes is not increasing, only intensity. So I give him full credit for that. I'm not on here a ton but I don't think I've ever seen him concede a point. He actually elevated himself over Mr. Weo and Badol. ???

Well, the hurricane hunters (Air Force Reserve unit) came to officially be in 1946, measuring hurricane speeds. If you assume their measurement instrumentation was sound back then, and they investigated all hurricanes (which is not a given considering the lack of satellites), and they consistently checked hurricane speed as well as today then you have some facts: -the longest duration of a category 5 was back in 1932. Of course this was not official weather unit monitoring. -Only in six seasons—1932, 1933, 1961, 2005, 2007 and 2017—has more than one Category 5 hurricane formed. -Only in 2005 have more than two Category 5 hurricanes formed, and only in 2007 and 2017 did more than one make landfall at Category 5 strength. -The years 2016 through 2019 are the longest sequence of consecutive years which all featured at least one Category 5 hurricane each. -Officially, the decade with the most Category 5 hurricanes is 2000–2009, with eight Category 5 hurricanes having occurred. -The previous decades with the most Category 5 hurricanes were the 1930s and 1960s, with six occurring between 1930 and 1939. Of course this was not official weather unit monitoring during the 30s. So, a legitimate argument can be made that they are increasing in intensity (partial points for you), but given the relatively short sampling record(reliably also!) I would say it's trending but about 10-20 more years are needed to fully validate this assertion.

Where's the evidence of doubling per decade you claim? Hurricane activity is CYCLICAL. The early 1980's were a period of unusually low major hurricanes. Cherry picking. Can't say that if you compare 1945-55 with the last 20 years. But more cherry picking. You have the data from my previous post. The 1970's only suggest an increase but how does that compare to within the last 5 or 6 years? major hurricanes: 1970 : 5 2013: 0 1971: 6 2014: 6 1972: 0 2015: 6 1973: 4 2016: 4 1974: 4 2017: 6 1975: 6 2018: 2 1976: 6 1977: 5 1978: 5 1979: 6 It simply proves the bias present in science. We must all exercise curiosity and independent thought.

You claim you believe the scientists? These are actual data from NOAA and university of Arizona. You know, scientists, and not projecting with computer modeling. Kindly explain how the number of severe hurricanes has doubled over the last few decades? Number of hurricanes would be the blue bars in the first 2 graphs, severe hurricanes in red the last graph. Let me help you out, severe hurricanes in the last graph in red, since it ends with 2015 I chose my decades, 2015-2006, 2005-1996, etc. Number of severe hurricanes by decade: 2015-2006: 59 2005-1996: 82 1995-1986: 46 1985-1976: 55 1975-1966: 50 1965-1956: 53 1955-1946: 71 Let's keep it simple, explain 71 severe hurricanes from 1946-1955 compared to 59 from 2006-2015 and where it keeps doubling?