Rob's House

To some extent. It's sort of like if a guy tells a girl that's not ready to go all the way that he just wants to rub it against the outside. They both know where he's going with it. I guess you could call it a slippery slope, but I see it as just diagnosing the play before the RB gets in the flat with blockers in front of him. Check out my mad skills weaving together a sex metaphor with a sports one.

I'll drink to that.

Yes and no. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is I believe the true goal is to take away more than is being copped to right now. The whole "assault weapon" ban is bogus anyway. "Assault weapons" are already illegal. The guns they're trying to take now are not functionally different from hunting rifles, they just look scary.

It's both. First, I see no real benefits to any of the proposals coming down the pike. It's a bunch of symbolic crap that serves only 2 purposes: 1. to take that incremental step toward stricter gun control; 2. to hold up as a victory to the gun control crowd. I see little value in either of these.

A month ago there was nothing wrong with having a hand gun or a rifle. I don't trust this crowd when they tell me they ONLY want to take X or Y because they've proven that as soon as they think they can pull it off (next crisis they don't let to waste) I know they're coming for Z.

When he has time he goes through his progressions, does a lot of pre-snap adjustments, and I've seen him come through under pressure. In the games I've seen Smith has a good arm and is accurate, but he seems to lock in on his reciever and I haven't seen him pressured much so I can't say how he would respond to it. Nothing against Smith, I just think Barkley is a safer pick.

Supposing his shoulder checks out okay, how would that affect opinions? And if not, would you take a flyer on him in a later round? IIRC Sam Bradford had shoulder concerns coming out of college also.

I'm assuming this is because after the Sandy Hook incident we're supposed to pretend there's a national crisis on this issue that must be immediately addressed with legislation from congress? It's interesting to me because I so often hear the enlighened gun control crowd chortle at the idea that anyone needs a gun for home defense, becuase statistically speaking home invasion is relatively rare, however, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the number of children killed in home invasions dwarfs the number killed in Sandy Hook/Columbine style shootings. So why the selective concern?

It seems Matt Barkley has fallen out of favor, but I still think he's the closest thing to a blue chip QB in this draft. I realize there's a higher risk/reward possibility from a guy like Glennon or G Smith, but seeing as how we've got most of the pieces in place I'd prefer to take the safe route. I know he didn't have as good a year as in 2011, but given the coaching and protection issues he still had a pretty good stat line, completing over 60% of his passes with 36 TDs to 15 Ints mostly against pretty solid opposition. So other than being a pretty boy from USC with good but not great arm strength, are there any major knocks against him? How would yall feel about Matt Barkley in a Bills uniform? * yes, I know there are other Matt Barkley threads, but I thought it would be nice to have one predicated upon the prospect of him being an NFL QB rather than being from USC or having a hot sister.

I wanted the Steelers to beat the Pack.

I suddenly get the metaphor in your sig line.

Why do you feel the need to come up with solutions that take reality into account. The morally superior stance is that everyone should have unlimited access to the most advanced medical technology & services known to man. If someone says we can't realistically afford to do that just side step the substance of the argument and say (with righteous indignation) that "we can't afford NOT to do it". Get a clue.

Anyone who suggests Caldwell deserves a shot just destroyed any credibility he may have previously had. Jim Caldwell may be a decent OC but he's one of the worst HCs in recent memory.

If something really egregious came out I might change my tune, but this looks like another instance of trying to find someone to blame where assigning blame really isn't necessary. More so, it looks like someone else abusing the judicial system in a case that probably shouldn't even make it past the pleadings. Perhaps I'm just becoming jaded.

Can we cut through the mamby pamby theoretical bull **** and look at this for what it is. This wasn't a 19 year old kid out there, the guy played into his late 30s. And spare me the crap about how the NFL knew but these guys were clueless to the dangers. If you're a multi-millionaire playing football who doesn't assess the risk & have a pretty good idea what you're getting into, you probably don't have a brain worth preserving in the first place.

Why would you blow a second to have a guy for 1 year? How's that a no brainer?

I see logistical problems there, but ultimately it doesn't take much to get a job paying $10+/hr, but when you're single w/ 3 kids it's just not always an option. My solution would be to condition payments on something that makes it less convenient. Preferably something productive, but just something to throw the effort to return ratio such that it doesn't disincentivize production. I also don't think spreading around the existing wealth is as desireable as having them create new wealth by working. More importantly, it would break the multi-generational plague of dependence that turns these communities into the immense shitholes they are.

If Jesus saw me dying, would angles come flying down? I hope I have a little more time. I hope it's not the end of the line.

I still would

Washington's a possibility

I think we oversimplify when we just assume laziness. The problem is cultural. If it was just a matter of a few lazy people sucking off the system it wouldn't be that big a deal. It's the destructive cycle of behavior that grows out of these so-called charitable projects. I know in Richmond the last place you want to go, & the worst place to bring up a child, are in the housing projects. There are no easy fixes to this either, but if we're going to move the needle it should be towards being more, not less, restrictive about who is given charity, design the programs so their natural progression is toward self-sufficiency, and (except for the truly helpless) make it less convenient to be on the dole. Otherwise we're perpetuating the ugliest & most inhumane aspects of our country in the name of compassion.

The quote was just b/c it was the post where you mentioned it & made it clear who I was asking. I've got bulging cervical disks that gave me similar problems. It's not as bad as it was but will never be right. It used to be so bad I couldn't do much of anything - even watching a movie was tough b/c I couldn't sit up for that long & laying down didn't help much either; it was constant pain all the time, along with pain & numbness in all my extremities. I'm sure it's not as bad as yours but there was a period of time when paralysis was a very real and everpresent concern, so I kind of have an idea what you must go through. I was 25 when it got really bad & at first dealt with a lot of anguish, but I learned to get past that. You seem fairly positive; I hope you don't let this kill your spirit.

What is your disability?

It'd be nice to have him but I'd want any trade conditioned on the ability to get a long term deal done - and one that won't kill the cap.

You're missing the point. While you were serving up crow you forgot to grab yourself a plate. Plus I'd be willing to bet Vick doesn't prove to be a franchise savior next year, but I don't know if someone wants to pick him up as a gadget player or hope to resurrect his career.