Alphadawg7
-
Posts
21,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Alphadawg7
-
-
That same Bill Walsh 'west coast offense" that revolutionized an NFL offense into the greatest offensive scheme still played today.
Steve Young went 2-14 for 2 years in TB, went to SF and won a SB and countless playoff games.
Brett Farve, a bench warming loser in Atlanta goes to GB and under Mike Holmgren and the WCO wins a SB and becomes one of the greatest QB's ever.
John Elway went to 3 SB's and lost them all and didn't win one until Mike Shanahan came to Denver and taught him the WCO, Elway went on to win 2x SB with Shanahan and the WCO.
GB still utilizes the WCO and Aaron Rodgers studied under Brett Farve for 4 years and is now emerging as a top QB. Philly and Minnesota and now Washington uses the WCO. Jon Gruden won a SB with it and they still use it in TB as Greg Olsen is teaching Josh Freeman the WCO. The Browns will now utilize the WCO in Cleveland with Holmgren as Pres. Seattle went to the SB with Holgen as HC and used the WCO.
Look who Joe Montana's coaches were in SF, Bill Walsh HC-Mike Holmgren OC-Andy Reid QC coach. Then look at the coaches who are in that Bill Walsh coaching tree.
Mike Holmgren-Steve Mariucci-Andy Reid- Mike Sherman-Ray Rhodes-Brad Childress-Marty Mornhinweg-John harbaugh.
Jim Fassel-John Fox
Paul Hackett-Mike McCarthy- Jon Gruden-Bill Callahan
Sam Wyche-Bruce Coslett-Mike Mularkey
George Seifert- Mike Shanahan-Gary Kubiak-Jeff Fisher
Dennis Green-Brian Billick-Mike Tice-Scott Linehan-Jack Del Rio-Mike Smith-Tony Gungy-Lovie Smith-Mike Tomlin-Rod Marinelli.
--------------------------------------
Not for nothing but Trent Edwards played in a WCO while at Stanford AFAIK, so he should know that offense.
--------------------------------------
The Theory behind the WCO is to pass first with short timed passes to set up the deeper passes and running game, rather then run to setup the pass. The key to Walsh's attack was the 3 step drop and precise timing routes run by the receivers.
Precise timed routes run by the receivers...in Buffalo?...
Look at who has been running the Buffalo Bills offense for the last 10 years, the OC's, the QB coaches the HC, and then tell me the Bills have been darn near dead last in offense for a decade solely because of lack of QB talent.
The Bills haven't had a decent offensive mind in Buffalo since Ted Marchibroda, who taught Jim Kelly to call his own plays.
I want to give you an award for one of the worst posts, both for its pathetic historical inaccuracies and total gibberish, that this board has seen this offseason...congratulations, for your suckitude is unmatched...
Where to begin...lets see, Steve Young went from the least talented (and one of the least talented teams ever in the NFL) in football where he played as a rookie and 2nd year QB to the most talented team in the NFL...hmmmm
Favre was a 2nd round draft pick and traded for a first round draft pick prior to his 2nd season...so where do you get he was a bench warming loser? I dont even know why I ask you because history shows you are incapable of a rational thought or post...I mean you are the same guy that said if Montana was drafted by a lousy team (which he was) then he would have been nothing...
John Elway won SB's because Shannahan brought zone blocking and created the best rushing scheme the league had seen and paired that with a HOF QB...Terell Davis was the difference maker in getting Elway over the hump...
The rest of your post is so full of gibberish that I am not even going to bother responding to it all...I mean you are actually calling GB a WCO...geezus, your posts get more worthless every time I see you. GB has one of the biggest deep passing games in the NFL and constantly attacks in the mid range and long passing zones and is not a WCO
-
Laughable.
Hey brilliance, there is a finite period of time between today and opening day against the dolphins. Can you take that time and equally divide it by four and hope that you find the guy you are looking for while at the same time allowing the rest of the offense that is, by the way learning a new offense, time to gel. There is no choice to pick a qb prior to training camp so that that particular qb can get the reps with the first team that has a makeshift offensive line, and questions at receiver.
If you don't like Edwards than fine, but he may be the lesser of all the evils and this captain checkdown stuff, which announced the thread but is not the main theme of it, is a bunch of crap. Also, if there is anything that he has it is accuracy. Hate to beat a dead horse but the pass to Reed between the Wash defenders to get in field goal range was not bad. It is my opinion that he should start and the sooner that decision is made the better off the team is.
Dude, give it up...I literally started laughing hysterically when I read your ONE PASS theory as to why Trent is accurate and in the very sentence just called the pass not bad. The number of bad passes dwarfs the good passes like Donald Trumps checking account dwarfs your piggy bank. Hell, the number of passes he DIDNT throw to wide open WR's dwarfs the number of good passes he has actually thrown for this team.
Honest truth is that I would fully support Trent if he could ever develop into a decent QB...I also just dont believe that will ever happen...if it does, great, but at this point its a long shot. But I love how you completely disregard all the football related points I put in that post by the way (probably because you cant really dispute them) and come back with this one pass in the Washington game was not that bad...
And dog14787, not going to get into a debate with you on this topic again as we know how that worked out in the past
But come on bro, don't you think you are over playing the supporting cast theory here? I mean I can name dozens of QB's who have done more with half the talent we have had on offense...Trent has had enough weapons to produce more than he has by far.To everyone delusionally talking about how the supporting cast made Montana so great...Do you fools even realize he won his first SB in 1984 BEFORE they had ever drafted Jerry Rice and other key 49ers that led them to more SB wins later in the 80's? He took over a TERRIBLE losing team and had them winning the SB in his 3rd year in the league, just his 2nd year actually playing before they had any of those other famous 49ers like Jerry Rice. Thats right people, he DID NOT have that supporting cast when he got to the 49ers, turned the team around, and won the SB in 1984.
Montana was a phenomenal QB and you are either a complete fool to doubt it, too young to have seen him play, werent born yet, dont know football at all, a total Trent fan boy making excuses, or some combination of these things to actually question how good this guy really was...
-
For the record...so many people on here just dont have a clue to what the West Coast Offense is. This thread is laughable as they refer to that offense as a "check down" offense and that couldnt be further from the truth.
The west coast offense was designed for quick striking precise routes, not an offense where you just sit back and dump it off to some short route as the pressure comes. Each route is vastly important to free up the actual route of who the pass is primarliy inteded for. It is not an offense reliant on dumping off short passes when other things are not open. Because of the nature of the offense there are opportunities to dump off, but that is not heart of that offense. Just because Trentative checks down a lot does not make him a good fit for a west coast offense, in fact, its just the opposite.
To excel as a west coast offense, your QB needs to be able to do the following:
1. Make quick reads
2. Have great timing
3. Understand where the reciever will be when he is OPEN in the defense and throw to those spots, not wait for the WR to get open. This means being able to read defenses and sense the pressure.
4. Needs to be able to progress through his reads quickly if the hot route is taken away
5. Needs to be a threat in the medium and long ball game to keep the defense honest and free up the quick strikes.
All of these things above are things that Trent vastly struggles with and has been incredible poor at. Just because he tends to throw short does not make him a ideal candidate for the West Coast Offense. It makes him a candidate for the bench until he can greatly improve in those areas above.
-
Didn't Joe Montana win a superbowl by being a "captain checkdown".
Some reasons to name Edwards the starter now:
My responses to this non sense are below in bold...
1. He has more experience than the other quarterbacks: So what, that doesnt make him the better QB...just makes him older. He has actually regressed with his experience, not grown from it.
2. A new offensive system requires more reps and allows timing with the receivers: Something that Trent is TERRIBLE at...seriously, his timing is very poor and he doesnt have the arm strength to make up for it.
3. He is more accurate than the other three: He is not an accurate QB...he looks like it to stat checkers because he checks down and makes so many meaningless short throws. But on throws longer than 10 yards he is not very accurate, doesnt hit the recievers in stride, and throws a terrible deep ball.
4. Takes away the tension surrounding the team regarding this question of who will start. (supplement) Huh? How does this even make sense as any QB named the starter does the same thing...
5. He can scramble, has some quickness and appears stronger. He has terrible pocket presence, can't feel the pressure, takes too many sacks, and doesn't slide to buy more time...and he is fragile...
6. There aren't enough preseason games to give valid assessments. Thats what the whole off season is for
7. Being a checkdown qb was a large piece of the west coast offense. No its not...throwing precise quick stirke passes is part of the west coast offense, not checking down to a 1 yard throw on 3rd and 10 because you are afraid to throw down field. You have no idea what the west coast offense is...its not "checking down" its quick pre planned strike passes on the run.
8. If its Fitz or Edwards, I go with Edwards and neither Brown nor Brohm are ready. How can you make that call? Brown I get, but you have no idea if Brohm is ready, especially given how he has looked good thus far. Fitz doesnt have enough talent, and Edwards lacks vastly in all mental aspects of the game.
-
This is actually a very good point.
I read Bill Walsh's book Building a Champion many moons ago. In it, he talks about how the 49ers gradually scripted a large bulk of the plays to start the game, before identifying key areas of weakness to attack and build on later on.
Those plays scripted would be in the 25-30 range, therefore what Montana did to start most games was follow the plan. Which would have less to do with Montana and more to do with Walsh.
Great point, Philster!
Just so you know, many coaches do this, hell my high school coach and college coaches both did this. This is very common at every level of play and it isnt why the 49ers were so succesful. It cracks me up how so many people down play Montana, who quite frankly is one of the 3 best QB's ever and is in every discussion of who is #1 all time. Most people who do this never really watched him play either because they were young, were not born yet, or didnt live on the West Coast and see him regularly.
He was the real deal, not some product of a gameplan or a great coach. He was highly intelligent out there, had incredible field vision, and had incredible timing and accuracy...that is NOT because of some game plan...the guy was just that good...
-
But it's a flawed stat. I'm not even comparing Edwards to Montana because that's insane. But the reason Montana was great was he was perfect for a West Coast offense. He got rid of the play quick (slants, quick out type plays that were for 7 yards or less) and let his playmakers do the rest. Rice and Taylor are 2 of the greatest run after the catch receivers in history.
Brady also completes a ton of short passes. But the major difference between the Brady and Montanas of the world and Trent Edwards is the willingness to take shots down field. That's why Trent will struggle because teams don't have the threat of him beating them over the top. But I think most posters would be amazed at the numbers of passes Montana completed under 10 yards.
Just chiming in here...I know you are not comparing the two QB's...
Lets not over look one of the primary reasons Rice and Taylor were great after the catch...it had a lot to with Montana who made that possible with incredibly accurate pin point passes right in the numbers. Rice ran precise routes and Montana made precise throws.
-
Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. I'm not a Michael Moore fan at all, but I must admit that he nailed that one right in Fahrenheit 911--the recruiters talking on the record about how they "don't go to the fancy mall in the rich part of town, because....well....we don't too well over there" or the incredulous looks on the Congressmen's faces when he asked them if they had kids serving or if they were going to talk to their kids about serving in the military. About 20% of the guys in my high school class were in the service within one year of graduation. I read in my local paper a year or two ago here in my Westchester town that they had 3 kids join the service out of a class of 350. Before I get jumped on about being anti-military, there's obviously nothing wrong about being in the service, but once again, the working class is asked/pushed to serve, while the upper middle class and wealthy generally are not. BTW, my wife is a fairly astute woman--I think it's much more likely that she didn't see them because they weren't there for the same reason that the two recruitersin F911 talked about not going to the "good mall". Want to get really depressed? Do some reading on the number of men killed in Vietnam who were Ivy League graduates versus the general population, or better yet, urban, inner city high schools much smaller in size......
I'd like to thank Timmo above for the polite nature of his response--we can disagree on some things, but that doesn't mean people have to get nasty and personal in their attacks. Something that seems to be forgotten all too often on these boards and in society.
Alphadawg, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm not sure you read all of my posts based on your responses. I find it a little tough to say "it's their fault for not growing up "winners"" when you're applying it to many people who never had a chance to start with--compare the case of a kid with poor, uneducated parents who don't know any better for their kids living in a place that doesn't exactly inspire hope or a sense that they can better themselves, with no role models to point the way towards sucess with your typical upper middle class kid living in a stable home, with educated, connected parents, who can teach the kid the right way to succeed and who can provide a successful role model. I'm not saying it's impossible to succeed in the former case, but it's a heckuva lot harder to do so than it is in the latter case, but I often find latter case folks blaming the poor for their own ills, when they've never experienced those situations themselves. Who are they to judge is usually what I think in those cases, but oddly enough that doesn't stop them from judging.
I could go on, but I suspect I'm barking up the wrong tree looking for empathy for others from someone who's self-chosen the name "Alphadawg"......
My reply to you was respectful in every way, so not sure if you were referring to my reply with this specific point I put in bold above, but nothing I wrote was intended to be disrespectful to you or your opinnion. Although, I did find it interesting that you found it necessary to take end that very same post with a dig on my screen name.
As far as the recruiter story, you didnt really answer the queston, you just pointed out that recruiters dont pitch rich kids. How does the lack of a recruiter in your school provied that student with a specific "advantage" in life and make their path to success easier? Honestly, think about that...if a recruiter showed up at a rich kids school those kids in the school are not going to suddenly have a tougher path to success, so I don't follow the logic that the lack of one somehow translates into an advantage and easier path.
And this is my point with the whole recruiter thing...sometimes things are just different, doesnt always have to translate as advantage or disadvantage...just because one has different experiences does not always mean they actually had a "easier" path or advantage to finding their own success. This county has become a soceity of excuse makers and everyone always wants to find fault elsewhere rather than look at themselves. This is a major problem in this country.
If you go back and read what I wrote, I am not denying that there are people on both ends of the spectrum that have a harder path or an easier path. My issue is not within that statement and I am not arguing that. What I have an issue with is the massive over use of this excuse to validate the lack of achievement in what ever it is people feel they are lacking.
Again, I know there are many examples on both ends of this spectrum where some unfortunate kid never had a chance from the start (aka the movie Precious) and some rich pompous kid had his daddy's help to achieve what they want (see the Bush Administration)...but that doesnt mean that every rich kid has things handed to them and that every poor kid didnt have opportunity for success.
As far as your dig on my screen name...its not what you think it is. It literally was a term used in a leadership program I did as a reminder to stand as a leader in your own life and the community...to make things happen rather than watch things happen. Thats where it came from and why I use it...
PS: Again, I point out that this continued conversation about rich kids is mostly irrelevant in the context of this discussion as the vast majority of the heirs in estates are people 50 and above who are already who they are in life...
-
A few thoughts:
1. You and RF seem to be tilting at different windmills--you don't like the fact that relatively small businessmen may have their inheritance taxed. He's talking about the multigenerational whale wealth. A fix would be to set the exclusion level at a point where most small to mid-sized businesses don't get hit or don't get hit hard. One can argue as to where that point is.
Its not just multigenerational whale wealth...anyone over $3 million is affected. If I leave my family $3 million dollars and the govt takes 55% of it, then what is left (and more than likely being divided amongst multiple people) is not very much money and an amount that can be lost very very easily. Its not going to be their ticket to easy street. They will need to work hard to make that money last or make that money grow. If I leave $10,000,000 to 5 people, then they will each get less than $1,000,000. To people who have never had a million dollars that sounds like easy street...well let me tell you that is not very much money and won't just allow someone to be on easy street for the rest of their lives as the money would be gone before they knew it.
More importantly, that money was more than like taxed already (and in some cases double taxed if you own a business and get self employment tax). To sit here argue what to do with very few instances where generational wealth is being passed on is silly becuase the VAST majority of the people affected by this are not passing on multi generational wealth, but an amount of money where a 55% tax dramatically impacts it.
2. I won't bother with the double taxation argument, as it's been discussed many times before, but you don't seem to get it (maybe because it undercuts your point). Again, it applies much more to the whale level wealth, but also to any business. Wealth and businesses get taxed upon transfers to third parties--the difference here is that family transfers get an exemption from this and are treated somewhat differently (they get a large initial exemption, but are taxed at higher rates than normal capital gains at the higher end). Again, one can argue about the relative fairness of the relative rates.Already addressed this above...but basically, when you are dealing with the majority of people affected by this topic, you are talking about people who more often than not have been taxed, and in some cases taxed twice.
3. I'll explain where I'm coming at this from--I grew up a blue collar kid in a blue collar town (as a Roch guy, Mr. WEO might be familiar with my hometown of East Rochester). I then spent four years at Columbia and three at Harvard Law School. I didn't see many people of my kind at either institution. I've lived and worked in corporate law/finance in NYC ever since and live in a nice suburb of NYC. Again, don't run into too many of "my kind" here either. To further the point, my wife grew up in an upper middle class suburb of DC and attended Yale and Wharton. As couples do, we periodically reminisce about our childhoods and pasts--the differences in certain experiences is very stark (her middle school never got the "the best thing you can do for your country is die for it" speech that the American Legion or some such gave my middle school, complete with a local CMH winner, for ex., that I got in 4th grade, and her HS never had perma-recruiters from the military in their lunch room cafeteria like mine did, among many other differences). I don't say this to pat myself on the back, but to point out that unlike I suspect a lot of the posters on this topic, I've lived in both worlds and seen how the world works. I believe that if working class people understood the advantages that rich and upper middle folks have in our society and how those folks view them, they'd be a heckuva lot less likely to be voting Republican (if there wasn't an outright class revolution). It's laughable to think that those folks don't have a massive leg up in the world upon birth. I think many of them don't like to acknowledge this since their worldview is based on the fact that they got where they are at the top of the heap because we are a fair society--evidence to the contrary doesn't register to them--and is some kind of justification for letting the world work just the way it is without any attempt to change things that are unfair.Too often in this thread, mostly by RF, I have seen "advantages" being talked about as if unfair or undeserved. Truth is, some people will have a tougher path and will have to work harder than others, thats a given and I am not disputing that. But by no means does that mean someone having a more financially succesful family isnt going to still have to work their ass off to carver their own way in life. There will always be exceptions to everything, like when some powerful rich dad flexes his wallet to help their kid skate through school, but that does not make it the norm.
And here is an even uglier truth...the quality of school is just and excuse...I have been in both...you can get good grades in both schools, you can earn scholarships from both schools, etc etc. People who come from lower end schools have the same opportunity if they choose to accept it to go to college and make something of themselves. The problem is with those schools is the dynamic of the people in them, many of them choose rougher and tougher paths...but MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT...that was THEIR CHOICE.
They choose to neglect school...they choose to struggle...they choose not to go to college. Their teachers didnt make that choice...the average test score of the school didnt make that choice...they did. Its always EASIER to sit back and just accept where you are then to go out and do something about it. People are afraid to admit this or even say this...of course, there will always be extreme examples on both sides of the coin, but people like RF make too many excuses for those of less fortune, and that is a big problem in our country.
Nothing was handed to me...I didnt have a financially easy life, but I also didnt accept that for myself. I paid my way through college, I worked hard to get into to college, I worked my ass of since college to the point I can retire in a few years and I am only 33 years old. One of richest kids during my time in high school is now an assistant manager at a Jiffy Lube for $14 an hour...
So while you can argue that not having to worry about the power bill being paid or food being on the table can make life more comfortable, but it does not mean those kids of poverty didnt have he same opportunity to apply themselves to the best of their ability at school and make a better life for themselves and their future kids.
And I don't get your story about recruiters at your school and not hers as some kind of indication of advantages she had at her school that your school didnt or as some kind of indication of the quality of the schools. I will bet good money her school was visited by recruiters and she either doesnt remember or just didnt know they were there.
Too often cultural differences are viewed as disadvantages or advantages when sometimes they are just merely different. There will always be extremes that come into play where you can say this person really had an advantage over this person...but its also way over used and often used to justify lack of effort, dedication, and hard work to get the things in life one wants for themselves. Too often they point the finger at others and say "If I only had what they had, I would have made it too" and that is more often than not a convenient excuse to validate the decisions in life they made.
4. As you might guess, the estate tax may in fact affect me via my wife's family her father, who was interned as an "enemy combatant" as a child, worked hard and did well for himself and his family. That said, I don't mind paying it, as my wife and I have made our own way in the world. I don't think he minds paying it either, but I could be wrong about that. Similarly, depending on where the level is set, it will probably be an issue for my kids, too, but, again, if they can't make it in the world with all the advantages they're likely to have, then that's on them. I don't have a problem paying the tax, again, depending on where it's set. So be careful before calling other people hypocrites. I don't mind paying my share (or even more) of the taxes, since I remember the 4-year old me growing up in public housing in Roch before our move to ER and the ways I've been helped myself over the years. When paying my taxes I think about people like my mom and dad, who worked hard their whole lives and the benefits they get from things like SS and Medicare, for ex., or things like HeadStart that help kids who need it. Not all govt spending is good, but it's not all bad, either.I can respect that above, but I also feel like you are coming from a different place than RF who clearly has an attitude of screw the rich.
5. I'm not a "soak the rich" guy as you try to paint your opponents here, nor am I a NIMBY on this issue. In my view the rich should pay their fair share of taxes (to my mind the rollback of the Bush tax breaks is about the right level), but not the entire burden. I think what NYS did was ridiculous in raising the top rate and think their idea of a "millionaire's tax" on incomes over $1m is counterproductive and unfair. I also think Obama's pledge to not tax people over $250k was not wise--if there's pain to be felt, all should feel it, if in different degrees. (As you might imagine, one will affect, but the other may not--even so, I don't think it's fair.)Time to get back to work.
As I originally stated, its not so much the inheritance tax, its the 55%. It should be capped at 15% like capital gains tax, especially given that a lot of what they are taxing has been taxed before (and yes, I get there are exceptions to the rule at the multi generational wealth levels, but the vast majority of who this affects are not at those levels).
Most important thing I want to convey as well...most of what we are discussing isnt that relevant to the topic on hand. You, and RF as well as others frequently reference kids in this topic of iheritance when the vast majority of the heirs to this kind of money are 50 and above, not kids...people who already carved they place in life.
-
By your definition the government isn't entitled to any money from people and I believe they are. I want them to protect me with a strong military and local police force. I want the FBI to have the best crime busting technology available to man. I like smooth roads to drive on, I want to make sure that there is an institution that sets guidelines and safety requirements for airplanes, I want my streets cleaned, I want smooth traffic flow, I want good schools, I want to be sure that the food I eat is safe and there are a lot of other things I pay the government to do for me. I want those things so they are entitled to some of my money to pay for them. If you like those things too then realize somebody pays for them.
Also, why do you want this country to become an aristocracy and not a meritocracy?
I love how easy it is for people to deny the huge advantages the wealthy have over everybody in society.
First off...that what they got TAXED for when they EARNED the money in the first place...double taxation is total BS...the government needs to stop spending money like its going to go stales on bull **** like make believe wars and they wouldnt have to steal money they dont deserve from when people pass on.
Secondly, I am just being honest here, it sure sounds like you want to make excuses for not being wealthy or something. You act like because people dont come from financially succesful families cant make it in life and that people who come from financially succesful families get an unfair advantage because their families found financial success. People who sit their and point fingers at people with money saying they only have it because they had it easier are usually people just trying to justify where they are in their own lives saying we had it too hard...we didnt have the same advantages and crap...well bullsh*t...a person makes their own advantages.
One of the wealthiest friends I have came straight from South Central LA and a broken home with a dead beat dad who left him and a mom who was a junkie. He didnt let that stop him...he decided thats not the life he wanted, worked his ass off and now runs a very succesful company in Los Angeles and he is only 32 years old. He is in negotiation to sell it for 8 figures...so what should do once he has all that money? Give it away so self righteous people like you dont judge his kids because their dad did well for himself? I mean WTF...
So spare us the pity the poor crap and screw the rich as if providing for your family is some kind bad thing. You and I both know dam well that if you were one of the people inheriting money like this and had to give 55% of it to the government that you would be in an uproar.
I also love how you carefully select which posts to reply to and complete ignore the ones that destroy this theory of yours, like the one I put up pointing out that its NOT YOUNG ADULTS or KIDS getting the inheritance in most cases as most of the people passing on this kind of wealth are pretty old and are leaving to people in their 50's and 60's who already have carved out their own lives in the first place.
-
If somebodies parents are millionaires they are being handed a huge leg up on life by that alone. If somebody has worked hard and made it themselves why do they want that money? There are so many trust fund babies in this country it's sickening. Even the children of the rich who work get a a much easier lot in life. So yes it is being handed something on a silver platter. It's incredibly ignorant to think it isn't. JMO
If you still don't think it is then get rid of all of your money and start from scratch. That will let you know how fortunate you or those people are. If you come from privilege you have no idea what it's like to choose between food or electricity. There are a lot of problems in this society that way too many people don't give a **** about because it doesn't affect them. If it does eventually affect them then the arms fly up and the whining begins. I'm just waiting for the first conservative here that gets stuck with a $20,000 medical bill that won't be paid by insurance due to pre-existing conditions. I doubt anyone here would have the balls to post about it.
Seems to me like you had some rich kids in your school who used to flaunt things or something, because you have a very narrow minded thought process on this. First of all, has it even occured to you that the vast majority of heirs are people in their 40's, 50's and 60's when you are dealing with estates this big and not kids? People of wealth who have had access to great medical care don't routinely die young and often live long fruitful lives (which is how they often build their wealth in the first place).
So, the PRIMARY benefactors are adults well on into their own lives, not a bunch of kids. More importantly, you keep knocking people for working hard and providing opporunitites to their children. What is wrong if I work my ass off and make a lot of money so my children (when I have them) have things that I didnt growing up and have the best opportunities in life? That is NOT handing them life on a silver platter.
I wasnt a rich kid, but I went out and worked my ass off and now I am going to be in position to retire in a few years and I am only 33 years old. But just because my kids won't have to worry about the electricity bill being paid DOES NOT MEAN they are being handed everything in life. It DOES NOT MEAN they wont have to work hard still and make their own lives. But for you to have an attitude about people who havent had to go through certain hardships because their parents found financial success is mind blowingly stupid...no offense, but it is.
You seem to think that the right way to do things is to be poor first then go out and make something of yourself. You talk like if a kid of a wealthy family go outs and makes something of himself then it was because he was "just handed everything on a silver platter", and that is either incredibly ignorant or just straight jealousy.
So what happens when that poor kid goes out and makes $20,000,000 by the time he is 35...is he supposed to just give it all away to charity and keep just enough to survive in life so his kids dont get some undeserved breaks in life? I mean WTF...
-
I agree with some of what you said, but have also run into many, many upper middle class and wealthy people who were basically "born on third base and thought they hit a triple" to quote Ann Richards many moons ago. Policy arguments for an inheitance tax include that large inheritances lessen the impetus to be productive and work in offspring of the wealthy and that we want to avoid having a rigid/static class structure, where status and wealth are simply passed down from one generation to the next.
That said, I, too, have seen rich kids work their butts off to make something on their own (I recall finding out after graduation that a law school friend of mine was the daughter of folks who are probably billionaires and you would never have guessed that for a second knowing her), but I've also seen more than my share of rich kids acting more like a James Spader character in a John Hughes movie--unfortunately, in real life, folks like that don't often get their comeuppances, but instead get coveted internships and jobs and other connections that help insure success care of mommy and daddy, whether they work hard for them or not.....
The one thing about this equation above is you often reference rich kids...however, the primary heirs are generally middle aged and older people wtih the "kids" of the equation usually getting small amounts of money in comparison to the main beneficiaries, and often that money is released later in life, in portions, or both. So, how someone (like the poster I replied to) can basically imply that heirs are just being handed everything on a silver platter is rediculous when you consider the vast majority of the major benefactors are older adults already settled into their lives.
As far as the government taxing to control productivity of offspring of the wealthy...well, the government literally should have NO right whatsoever to control society on a level like that. That is not their place to come in and "control" their lives in a way that they see fit. There is no logical argument that can justify the governments attempts to control the lives of the heirs of wealthy families...it goes againt everything this county is supposed to stand for.
-
If he was a whiny little biotch who didn't realize how uber lucky he was to be born into the family he was he might, if he felt that the world owed him something for being born rich he might, if he knew how hard it is to succeed when you have little to start with he might, if he was a lazy son of a B word he might. So I guess he'd have to be a complete ahole first. He doesn't seem like a complete ahole to me. JMO
Do you believe people should work hard for the things they have or have them handed to them on a silver platter?
Most of this post doesnt even make sense to what you replied to...so I will just disregard it. However, the last sentence is soooooo incredibly ass backwards that I just have to respond to it.
It takes an incredible amount of either ignorance or jealousy (or both) to make that statement. For you to assume that because someone inherits something that it translates to them just being handed life on a silver platter and not working hard is pathetic. Not to mention, in many cases the heirs are later on in life themselves and had to make their way through most of their life before they inherited something in the first place. Just because your family did well for itself does NOT mean you as a benefactor are just some slob mooching off the good fortunes of the family.
I can name many personal examples of this very thing where the was wealth in the family and individuals went out and built their own wealth before they ever saw a single dime from the family nest egg. And let me tell you something else, I know some people who did come into a sizeable amount money in their younger ages, and guess what, they were broke before they hit 30 because it takes hard work, discipline, and responsibility to take that financial good fortune and not only maintain it but grow it.
-
Not to mention that it's not a "death tax". It's an "Inheritance Tax" or "Estate Tax". "Death Tax" is a term cooked up by a right-wing pollster/marketer to create anger over inheritance taxes among the middle class in order to assure passage in Congress. Inheritance taxes are normally - well, no, almost exclusively - a concern among the super-wealthy.
I am not super-wealthy, I'm not even close. I have no problem taxing the living daylights out of some very rich dude who, frankly, can't take it with him (or her).
You are only saying that because it doesnt affect you...you would be singing a completely different tune if it did.
Not to mention, this is double taxation and is complete BS, especially at a rate that high. The money has already been taxed when it was earned and at death they tax it again as it is being passed to their heirs. The government has no right to this money, it was earned by these people to be left to their heirs and they already payed their taxes.
And death tax and inheritance tax mean the same thing...a persons estate gets taxed when they die and pass everything on to the heirs...so arguing what to call it is pointless.
-
Paying a premium price for Dockery and Walker was a classic example how inept the Bills front office was under Levy. John Guy was the pro scout who was responsible for assessing pro acquisitions. Levy was "in theory" the boss who presided over the football operations. This very nice man set this franchise back for years with his grotesque miscalculations.
I have very serious questions about Gaither. I don't see him as a long term solution because of his lack of work ethic. But putting that aside I agree with you that our present LT candidates as a group are very questionable. What is very worrisome is that Nix/Gailey seem to be satisfied with the prospects currently on the roster.
Looking at it now its easy to say what a blunder Dockery and Walker were, however, the only one that was really a bad move at the time was Walker. Dockery was the 2nd best OL on the market and the other one (Hutchinson if I am not mistaken) signed a massive deal setting the market. So, Dockery, who was a stud, was going to get that money anywhere he signed and he was a highly regarded young OL who was really up and coming and thought to have pro bowl type skills by just about everyone based on his play in Was.
Walker was not very good in Oak and got over paid because of the absurd price tags for OL in that years FA class. So, we definitely over paid for him and it was seen as a questionable move right from the start. Dockery though was us being aggressive and doing what ever it took to get premium help on the OL.
This is what Bills fans scream for every single year...to go out and spend what ever we have to get our guy. Of course, those same fans then turn on the FO and say how stupid the FO is for doing just that once the guy gets here and they realize he isnt going to be a savior...its kind of funny actually.
-
Why do people have an issue with this statement? Every team is 0-0 right now...people would have laughed their ass off if the Rams ownder declared a SB berth the year they actually went (and WON) as they were the worst team in the NFL the year before, but not only did they make it but they were dominant all year and in the playoffs for the most part.
What do people want him to say? "Well, we might be good and we migh suck...but hopefully some things will go our way and we can win a few games?
Do you people realize this is the same team that went from winning 1 game to winning the division the very next year just a couple of years ago? And that team had way less talent than this years Dolphins team.
So, while I hate the Dolphins, I really don't see whats wrong with an owner believing his team is good enough to get to the SB. Personally, I dont think they will and that Balt will represent the AFC this year, but thats just my opinnion. I am not sold on Henne and I am not ready to appoint the Fins a great team...but, if Henne does make a big leap, then it would not shock me to see the Dolphins do well this year and they could be very dangerous if so.
-
I was having a discussion the other day at work about the Bills problems with developing a QB going all the way back to Todd Collins... We both reached the conclusion that the Bills have been rushing their QB's development ever since Kelly's arm went Noodle in '95... we then rush Todd Collins into a role at least a year earlier than most scouts predicted it would take for him to develop, and he quickly failed. Then we traded for RJ and signed Flutie and utterly failed to develop RJ, or use Flutie properly.... but THEN we trade for Bledsoe and draft JP a 2-3 year project with the idea of JP taking over once Drew's contract ran out after 3 years, but he was forced to start after 2 years (with one cut short) and failed, then we draft TE and bring in Fitz only to realize that Fitz has all the intangibles and only few of the tangibles for an NFL QB, while another long-term development project awaits in BB and is seemingly being rushed into the limelight to withstand the pressure.
None of this is news to any of us... but the kicker is that within that span we have had seven offensive coordinators and six head coaching changes! Is it even possible to develop a QB with that much change in leadership and philosophy?
Our solution was that we need to have and offensive coordinator and QB that will fit together well and STAY together for 3-4 four years with out philosophical change to truly be able to develop ANY future QB for the organization. I truly don't know if I could stand another 3-4 years of ugly football before seeing success, but I do know that if we are not patient with the offense and allow it to find players to fit it and grow, then we will never return to the Superbowl. Defenses are much more dependent upon athleticism and less on cohesion of specific personnel groupings, thus easier to install quickly.
Part of the reason we have had so many HC's and OC's over the years is becaue of the atrocious QB's we have had under center. No staff, good or bad, is going to last more than a couple seasons without some kind of stability and consistency from our QB's. So while its true, we have had a lot of rushed QB's and poor development, none of them have ever really proven to be any good even after they left here and got good coaching. Some of these bumbs were inherited by the regime, some were drafted in their tenure. All were rushed to try and save their job...none could handle it.
So, yes, its easy to point the finger at the turnover, but the side of the coin no one ever considers is that many of those coaches failed because of the lack of talent we had at QB...I mean even DJ would have had this team a playoff of team if we didnt have a crop of losers under center because he still found a way to get 7 wins every year despite some of the worst QB play in the league most of his tenure here.
So while I totally agree with your points, I also think its important to look at the collective group of QB's in that span and you can see a clear gap of talent and a lack of ability to stay on the field. Many of those QB's sealed the coffins of several coaches and OC's, some of which have gone on to have a lot of success elsewhere.
-
I am just happy to see Trent get involved. He seems to be stepping up, and making the effort to be the guy. He must have gotten his balls back from his sister.
Then again, this is just practice. Let's see what happens when they put the pads on and start hitting at full speed.
Every year thats all we hear from the offseason, camp and practice...how Trent is ready, how this offense is going to make a big leap, how Trent is taking command of the offense...then game time comes and he becomes a deer in headlights and checks down the second he sees a pass rush rather than step up and deliver a strike somewhere on the field.
I hope Trent, or some other QB on this roster can step up and be the guy this year, but him having confidence in the OTA's trying to win the teams support back doesnt erase the dozens of things he does wrong every Sunday...I mean one could genuinely make a case for him being in the bottom 3 of all NFL starters in terms of field vision and pocket presence. Until he fixes that, he could be the most confident on the planet and he will still blow come game time...
In fact, the very next section of the article starts off saying that no one QB has seperated himself from the others...that means his play has been on par with a journeyman backup in Fitz, a guy who has barely played in Brohm, and a 7th round draft pick rookie...hmmm
So, before we all get too excited. lets at least wait until he can show it on the field...
-
Yep... Lynch is one errant fart away from another league suspension. Hard to think that SEA is looking at him. But we never know...
Yup...with Lynch on thin ice already and the fact they acquired Leon Washington to a RB corp of Forsett and Jones, I just dont see them forking out a 2nd rounder for Lynch and apparently we already said no to their 3rd...not to mention they already gave up a 4th for Lendale who they just cut...
-
...and we won 6 games with these guys. I refuse to believe we are any worse now.
PTR
+1
-
Read any pre-season NFL guide and it's all a rehash of the previous season, right down to the predicted finish. Whoever this tard is writing for Rotoworld is making some hugs assumptions. D-Bell being injured is a disaster? Someone should clue him in that training camp is still 3 months away. But you know what? No one gets graded for this crap. No one gets called out for being dead wrong. That's because everything is forgotten as soon as it is written.
PTR
Yeah, the only information I found interesting was who got the first looks with the first units. There are clear battles at key positions, but its always interesting to see who gets first crack. The only exception is at QB since Chailey said Trent and Fitz will get the bulk of the reps the next 2 weeks since Brohm and Brown already got 100 reps each in his system at rookie camp...No shock really that Trent got first team reps first ahead of Fitz
-
Here are some updates on individuals from the OTA's that I got from rotoworld. Still to early to read much into this, but at least it gives some indication of who they wanted to look at first.
James Hardy saw the bulk of the reps as the starter opposite Lee Evans when the Bills opened OTAs on Tuesday.
Coach Chan Gailey cautioned not to read too much into the practice. "We’re waiting to see who is going to step up," explained Gailey. Steve Johnson and Chad Jackson were just behind Hardy in the receiver rotation.
___________________
Dwan Edwards opened Bills OTAs Tuesday as a starting defensive end ahead of Spencer Johnson.
Marcus Stroud manned the other end spot, with Kyle Williams at nose tackle. Edwards failed physicals for other teams before signing, but he insists he's perfectly healthy. Johnson will stay in a rotational lineman role this year, fighting promising third-round pick Alex Carrington for snaps.
___________________
Trent Edwards took the first-team reps in all sessions at the opening of OTAs on Tuesday.
Ryan Fitzpatrick was second, Brian Brohm third, and rookie Levi Brown fourth. The competition at quarterback is open, so don't be surprised if coach Chan Gailey mixes up the order at some point. For now, it's safe to assume that Edwards is the early favorite to start in Week 1. He currently ranks last among all starting quarterbacks in our projections.
___________________
Bills OT Demetrius Bell (torn ACL) and OG Eric Wood (broken leg) are both being held out of voluntary OTAs this week.
Wood is targeting training camp for a return, so it's no surprise that he's not ready to practice. Bell's absence is just another reminder that the Bills' left tackle situation is a disaster.
___________________
Donte Whitner is entering OTAs as the starting strong safety, according to the Bills' official site.
The Chan Gailey regime is apparently shaking things up, and it's a surprise that Whitner is considered a starter. Look for him to be pushed hard by George Wilson for the right to line up next to FS Jairus Byrd in Week 1. Safety is one of the few positions at which the Bills actually have quality.
___________________
Cornell Green is penciled in as the Bills' starting right tackle.
Demetrius Bell, Jamon Meredith and Ed Wang are focusing on the left side. That leaves Green, a free agent pickup that figures to be a liability, with little competition on the right side. The Bills are setting themselves up for disaster.
-
I guess that says it all. Majority rules - 58.33%
Not really accurate considering more than 80% of the votes were cast before Brohm was an option on the list. Original list was Trent, Fitz, and Freddy...so this poll is actually completely pointless at this point...
-
I guarantee when Joey Harrington got released from the Lions, there were the same comments from the Dolphins. As for the bad coaching, Sam Wyche (former SB coach), Steve Fairchild (led CSU to more wins in his 1st season there thean they had in the 2 previous seasons), Tom Clements (he really sucks with Aaron Rodgers huh?), and Mike Mularkey (funny how Tommy Maddox, Kordell Stewart, and Ryan all had career seasons under him) laugh at you.
But it's always the coaches' fault. It's never the overmatched, overdrafted player's fault.
I agree with you for the most part about how players who don't succeed are often given the benefit of the doubt too many times because of percieved bad coaching. In fact, you never hear a coach getting the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't his coaching but the players lack of ability to succeed at this level.
However, I do think the JP may have a legitimate case here. JP literally was grossly mismanaged in the key development stages of his career, played in terrible offensive schemes, and didn't exactly have a lot of talent as a whole around him on the offense.
The thing that I think seperates him is that he has a lot of physical gifts to work with. Where he failed consistently at was his decision making on the field, and in actuality that is an area where good coaching can really make a difference. I am not saying he will for sure be this or that, but I do think he has legitimate case in regards to how coaching and his gross mismanagement greatly impacted his failures in Buffalo.
Remember, he was regarded as a very raw talent that needed to be properly groomed, which he clearly was not. So, I do think that in JP's case he legitmately has a chance to blossom into a starter in this league with right coach, and Carrol may just be that guy. Fassel thought pretty highly of his progress in the year he spent with him. So, maybe with more good coaching, he can continue to progress.
I would not be surprised if he did develop into a starter under Carrol, at the same time I wouldnt be surprised if he didnt either.
-
I saw that but I didn't edit because I thought it would be easy to figure it out. "I would be fine if you made a poll with Brohm and Brown being the starting QB.
Fred Jackson was also a joke for the people that obviously don't want Edwards or Fitz.
And dude I am not hating on Brohm... how could I I have only seen him throw the ball 20some times... All I am saying is that everyone of us just watched Edwards throw the ball 183 times in the last year and 826 times total and we all watched Ryan throw the ball 127 times last year... and maybe more if you watched him on the other teams. Based on that is the reason I compared those two. Most of us don't go to every OTA and watch how Brohm is playing in practice and prob don't know as much as we know about the other two.
I would be fine if Brohm started... I was just comparing highlights from the QB we have actually suffered through watching play.
I will add Brohm to the poll ok lol
PS. if I can.
Huh? I didnt say you were hating on Brohm...I just didnt get the point in putting Fred Jackson on there and leaving Brohm off.
Didn't Joe Montana win a superbowl
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Your replies to the points I posted again are comical and you totally grasping at air. My favorite thing though is how you claim I am crediting it all to Joe and disregarding the system...while you literally comepletly disregard Joe (see your famous quote in my signature) over and over again in multiple threads and make it ONLY about the system...same with Steve Young. It was a great offensive system, but that doesnt change that Joe Montana is literally one of the 3 best QB's to ever play the game who won a SB after taking over a worthless losing franchise in just his 3rd year before he had all the other famed 49ers like Jerry Rice even on the team.
You make yourself out to be a fool with the gibberish you post like that, so don't get mad when it gets pointed out.