Rob's House

I agree completely with your overall point. I'm just saying that even a good QB will struggle if the line is bad enough. I hesitate to attribute sack numbers to the OL, especially with mobile QBs who run a lot b/c every time they're stopped for a loss it's recorded as a sack, but that's kind of tangential to the conversation.

Disagree on Reagan. He'd built up a respectable resume by the time he ran for the Presidency. He also had substance. Obama was a nobody who gave a speech in 2004 and won a gimme Senate election just prior to declaring, who ran on a platform of fluff.

I don't agree that their line was garbage at all. Mediocre maybe, but not garbage. Plus, Russell Wilson's a bit of a one off as far as being able to compensate for pass protection. WRT Brady, outside of the Bills game he's gotten at least borderline adequate protection despite having no-names, and he's still doing just enough to get by, but his production's dropped too. Without a couple of missed tackles he gets shut down against the Bills. And we're talking about a guy in the running for GOAT.

If your O-line is garbage then you're going to have a bad time regardless, but I'd rather have a good QB behind a mediocre line than a mediocre QB behind a great line.

Exactly. It seems like a lot of people are forgetting that last time up we elected a quasi-celebrity speech reader because he had a darkish complexion and was the cool and popular guy. Now we're suddenly all about substance.

We got to this point 7 years ago.

I'd want to know what gun laws you were proposing and what evidence there was to suggest they would deliver the desired results and I'd want to consider the likelihood of unintended consequences.

You should make that your sig.

90% of the posts are about OP's unwillingness to engage in a meaningful discussion. It certainly didn't spark much discussion about the stated topic. If it was even inteded to (which I doubt) it was very poorly designed to achieve that end. And your "wrong forum" bit comes off as a cop out. I find most of the time the people complaining about insults are the ones who lead with them. Like I said, go into one of your brainstorming sessions and lead with "any of you who don't support <insert vague undefined policy> are the scum of the earth and want to watch babies and puppies burn," and see how open, cordial, and free flowing your "brainstorming" session is. I think if you were honest with yourself you'd realize that OP is objectively an obnoxious ass hole and the only reason you feel compelled to defend him is because you share his anti-gun point of view. If you engage in a thoughtful discussion you'll usually find one. Try it sometime. You might be surprised.

What good points did he make? And what discussion did he provoke?

Is this a joke? Go back and read the OP and tell me how that approach would go over in one of your brainstorming sessions.

If it makes you feel better, the murder rate where I live has dropped by about half in the last 15 years without any new gun control measures.

I'm torn between saying it's a terrible choice or saying I don't care. They're both true. Because you're gay and you can tell who the other gay people are?

If your son shoots himself I think it will be addition by subtraction for the gene pool. I support your decision.

This is the first time in this thread you've attempted to define what you're advocating for. And the question illustrates the problem: How is one to argue the merits or detriments of a policy when you haven't stated what the policy is? In this instance you've finally set forth a policy that one could at least take a position on. It's still vague and begs many questions, like what constitutes being "trained" and how would you logistically implement it, but at least you've got a starting point for an actual discussion.

That was his point, dipshit.

You didn't say "hey, maybe we should consider and discuss the efficacy of various forms of gun control," and lead into an interactive discussion of ideas and their merits. You said "the NRA has blood on their hands," and launched into some semi-coherent rant about the moral depravity of those who don't subscribe to a philosophy you've scarcely defined. And then you whine about being called on your whining. It's funny that you use the term "lazy attitude" because I can think of few things more intellectually lazy than railing against an abstract idea without even a vague idea of what the alternative should be.

Take gang-related violence out of the equation and see what those numbers look like.

When your job is prospecting the ONLY way to assess job performance is looking back once the results are in and seeing who got it right. Also, message board posters are not experts. We're judging highly paid talent scouts with unfettered access to game film and player data. Their whole job is to do this. Unless the poster is suggesting that he himself should be the GM it's wholly irrelevant what he thought because he's not the professional talent evaluator. Your argument is not much different from suggesting that if I had a professional financial advisor invest my money and he built a portfolio that underperformed the market that I can't criticize his performance because I'm using hindsight and I didn't tell him what stocks to pick. Do you see the problem with that argument?

I don't expect you to fix the problem. I do expect someone who takes to a public forum to rant about an issue to have at least a vague outline for the action they'd like to see taken. Saying you want more gun control isn't saying much of anything because no one really has any idea what that means. But apparently you're not even calling for that; you're ostensibly calling for people to form an attitude in favor of some undefined movement as long as it falls under the heading of "gun control." To take it a step further, even if one were to accept what you're proposing (to the extent you're proposing anything) you've offered little if anything to support your theory. I don't just mean you're lacking empirical evidence; you haven't even outlined a theoretical framework explaining why you think your solution would be effective. Instead you've presumed its effectiveness out of hand, jumped over rationale altogether, and have gone straight to moralizing and ad hominem attacks. Put differently, you've substituted moral superiority for logic and reason.

Sure you can. Of no one in the draft class is worth a Damn why take one early? If you "have" to take one, take one later in the draft. I can certainly fault them for reaching up that high for (and more importantly, committing to) a mediocre prospect. And if they genuinely thought EJ Manuel was a good enough prospect to warrant legitimate first round consideration then that calls a lot into question about their ability to scout the position.

That's a pretty lazy position, IMO. The same logic can (and often is) used to rationalize the "war on drugs."

I still don't see the point. People often absolve our GMs (Lord Whaley more than Nix) by saying we haven't had any opportunities to snag a good QB despite the fact that several have been available. If Osweiler turns out to be good it will be yet another example of a missed opportunity. How does the use of hindsight, or whether a message board poster personally declared Osweiler a top prospect, invalidate that point?

Do you have a solution or are you just here to piss and moan?

I wouldn't trade a warm cup of piss for Colin Kaepernick.