Rob's House

This story's too big to cover up. Everything's going to come out in the wash. There's no way he's going to slip out of this, he's going to have to own it.

I read on Rotoworld that Troupe's back problems are fixed. I'm somewhat skeptical, but I also thought Manning would never play again. If it's true though he could be valuable as that big body to clog up the middle.

Aren't 3 of those from the Jauron era?

I'm not as sold on Jones as you, but I agree he is one of the few that regularly surveys the field and looks beyond his primary receiver. Glennon does this as well, and I give Barkley a pass b/c the poor guy barely has time to look to his primary before he's got a defender in his face. Another thing I like about Jones is that he knows when to take something off his fastball and float the ball in where it's easy for his receivers to catch. At the same time I don't really see a lot of fire in him; perhaps that's what people mean when they say he doesn't have "it". Of course, that's just my perception and could be dead wrong. He's not my first pick but I wouldn't be at all upset if we took him, especially if he fell all the way to the third (which he's available there in most of the mocks I've seen, but I'm not sure I'm buying it).

I'm really enjoying this whole thing. I always thought Lance Armstrong was a first class ass hole. And not in the Tom Brady way where you figure he might well be a decent guy but he's fun to hate b/c he's on the f'n Pats and runs up the scoreboard, but in the way that if he lived next door you'd probably hate him.

It's not a matter of whether you'll actually need to resort to armed revolt. The mere threat of such should be sufficient to substantially deter types of governmental overreach. You're painting a particular scenario and arguing that point, but there are many scenarios where the issue could be relevant. Take FOR EXAMPLE a German Holocaust scenario; the government would be hard pressed to pull off a maneuver like that against an armed populace. Not that I'm concerned that such a scenario is likely to happen if we were disarmed, just pointing out an obvious one where being armed would be crucial in protecting people from government. I get why the concern of the government kicking down the doors of people that have fallen out of favor to do ? with them seems crazy, but look around the world. Government's are doing things like this now. There's no guarantee that the stability we enjoy here and now is permanent and that things couldn't degrade to a point where fear of the government is less far-fetch. Or a scenario where society breaks down (like the power grid going out) where you need to protect yourself not from the government but from mobs of people (think LA riots but on a larger scale).

Not really. The virgin still has hope.

I agree with you here, which is part of why I'd take the deal. You pick up an extra first without giving away any picks, just moving down 20 slots, which is likely to still get you a top player like a Fluker (who I would be very happy with, add some sheer brute strength to the Oline). Then next year having 2 #1s could give us to ammo to catapult into a position to take Johnny Manzelli.

Based on what? How's that whole insurgency thing working in Afghanistan?

I picked Glennon but I'm leaning more towards Barkley. He seems to have the best chance of succeeding; or put another way, the least chance of busting. The biggest knock on him is arm strength & I've seen him complete a pass that traveled roughly 60 yds in the air, so I'm thinking the arm is good enough. He's the only one I'd be okay with at 8.

Because people, by & large, are willful idiots who seek an easy solution to everything that burdens their conscience so they can go about their lives & not have to worry about it.

I agree. I don't know that there's reason to believe Flynn is significantly better than Matt Moore, and Moore can probably be had for the same price without costing a pick, if they decide to go that route.

Along the same lines, if our government has this much trouble with insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan, imagine how difficult it would be to quash a nationwide domestic insurgency.

The game you linked is one against a far superior team that he beat on a late 4th quarter drive. He there's a lot of short stuff in that game, but I like how he surveys his options even when under pressure. I've seen other games where he airs it out quite a bit. What are your thoughts on Murray, Boyd, & Bridgewater?

I predicted in the midst of the Mario hate that he would get it together & be a cornerstone of our D for years to come. I predict (admittedly a little less confidently) that Dareus will do the same. Sophomore slumps are fairly common, he had some outside issues to help explain it, & even at that he showed flashes. He'll be who we expected next year. And enough w/ piling on UConn James. I don't share his sentiment, but he just said what he thought on a message board. To see this reaction you'd have thought he walked up to Dareus & told him to stop being a kitty.

I saw a post from him a few days back. Are you sure it isn't self-imposed exile?

I love this idea, with the exception of the EJ Manuel part. I think he's a poor man's McNabb. Wouldn't mind him in the 4th or 5th, but I'd hope we had a QB by then. Could pay dividends. We'd still have our pick of a highly talented guy & go into next year w/ 2 firsts. That's a lot of leverage.

I'd go with my sig line, except in my ideal Ogletree falls to us in the second instead of Minter. Edit: And in my perfect draft Werner falls to us at 8.

The same thing occurred to me, although I'm inclined to doubt it, but who knows. I must say, it was a little more interesting with old Tom around here.

Unless, of course, you read what he said rather than what you think he meant. Scalia's clearly stated that guns could be regulated. His answers were measured & rightly so. I love the way you guys interpret things. "We don't need more gun control" somehow means we need RPGs & automatic weapons. It would be like if you said "premarital sex should not be illegal" & I responded "why do you need to sleep with 8 year olds?"

I don't have a problem with politicizing it, but rather with exploiting it. The people who said Obama was coming after their guns, & were scoffed at for it, have now been vindicated because he waited for this opportunity & then jumped on it. This incident is not an objectively significant reason to change gun policy. There's nothing objectively different about the gun debate since Sandy Hook other than they now have an anecdotal incident to yank at heart strings. It's always horrible when children are killed but this case is poorly suited to base a gun control argument b/c there's little evidence any proposed gun laws would have made a difference, and in a country of 300,000,000 people national policy, especially that which raises constitutional questions, should not be undertaken on an incident like this. But make no mistake, this incident is the catalyst for all of this. Also, I don't advocate additional gun regulation, I just stated that some regulation is proper. Also, anyone who thinks this is about keeping toys really doesn't get it.

Designed for killing is irrelevant as there are legitimate reasons to weild that power. I agree w/ you on DUI. People who can't separate logic from emotion come up w/ all kinds of useless & bizarre punishments related to DUI.

Not outwardly, that would defeat the purpose. They act real sad, and probably even convince themselves that they're really devastated by the whole thing, but at the same time this growing happiness wells up in them at the realization that this will be great PR for their anti-gun movement. I just don't believe that someone could simultaneously be as moved by this situation as so many of these guys pretend to be, and at the same time so shamelessly exploit it to further their own ends.

It's a good list, but we only need to worry about things that kill when they fall in line with our preconceived notions.

I would exempt you personally from that analysis, but too many of your co-libs are too anxious to exploit these things, giddily as it were, that I have a hard time believing otherwise.