Juror#8

I supplied some examples to the contrary. You don't agree. I can respect that. We can agree to disagree. Back in 2005-2006, I was watching a Colts, Patriots game early in the season (if I remember correctly). The Colts had scored two touchdowns consecutively and weren't showing any signs of letting up offensively. The Colts' defense was characteristically opportunistic but poor overall - especially in the run game where their DLine was a sieve. I saw something in that game that I had never seen before. Bill Belichick was scared. He was going for it on 4th down early in the game on his own side of the field and trying on-side kicks in the first half because he was afraid of giving the ball to the Colts. His defense - one of the most intelligently *schemed* defenses in a generation - didn't know how to stop the shear volume of playmakers that the Colts had. The defenses on both sides were obsolete. The Colts didn't care, and the Patriots couldn't adjust. The Colts said "damn the torpedoes, try and keep up." That was the best defensive performance that I've ever seen - making the other team so FEAR an unstoppable offense that they have to contrive a new game that throws field position, caution, and fundamentals to the wind. The Patriots did the same thing within a couple of years. They wanted to keep pace with the Colts so that got Moss and Welker. They almost pulled off the greatest season in modern history. If they would have had a manageable OLine, they would have. The Rams in 2000 would run up and down the field, scoring at will. I remember Issac Bruce and Azahir Hakim track sprinting and talking **** to one another as one would escort the other into the endzone cause there wasn't a single defender within 20 yards because they couldn't keep up. People remember the Patriots' loss to the Giants in the '07 Superbowl. How about the 40 that the Patriots hung on them a couple of weeks before. Or the almost 30 they hung on the Ravens top ranked D. Or the almost double nickel that they hung on the Redskins 5th ranked D at the time. Being able to score, in bunches and at will, is the best D in the NFL. If I'm wrong, tell me why.

Agreed. And you're right, I shouldn't have used "republican," and "conservative" interchangeably. My point to Tom still stands though. Sorry for hijacking your post OC. I know that this was for fun and that you probably didn't intend to take this in a more historical direction. Just had that one issue with your OP.

Yep...cause of the sexy title. You're taking every opportunity to nip at me personally. Do you want to add anything on the merits while you're at it?

With all due respect, that is two decade old thinking. The Colts went to two Superbowls in 3 years with a crappy defense. No one EVER says "out defense us." Because it becomes a zero sum game.

I didn't say that the two were one in the same. There are always gonna be differences - especially when ideology meets real world application. However, it's not really refutable that Roosevelt: was socially progressive, HATED big corporations, appointed justices to the Supreme Court and to the Appelate Circuit who were similarly ideologically situated, and was somewhat of a stalwart for the working class. Name me a conservative in the field today with that on their resume. Now, name me a democrat.

You got it. I cross-referenced every word that I intended to use, and exchanged it for a word that was poly-syballic (there I go again, I was just gonna use 'big word') just for THIS forum. My time is not otherwise valuably used.

Awesome post. Thanks for your contribution.

Oh the title was just for attention. You're a reporter. You, better than anyone, should understand the need for a bit of hyperbole, prurience, and melo-drama; especially considering that this is tantamount to an editorial piece. And the fact that you wouldn't have even touched the substance of my post...demonstrates that either you feel that it's meritless, poorly articulated, OR you're in complete agreement on the merits. Because, there is nothing about me that believes that you would oblige my post with your presence, just to say that you'e not obliging my post with a cogent thought.

The problem is that we were figured out on offense SO easily. We had no playmakers to add to our one-dimension. If we could have made a stop, there is nothing to say that we could have scored on the other side of the ball make a game of it. And with respect to the playmaker that we drafted in 2010 - the problem wasn't with the concept, it was the execution that was bad (at least to date). What if that playmaker was Marshall Faulk?

Try to hold back your instinctive need to respond in some vitriolic way JUST based on the title. 1. Why do some folks here want this team to be the Washington Redskins of the last decade - aka GREAT defense; Pathetic offense; Little success. 2. The 2000 Ravens team was the last time that a team with a great defense but without offensive playmakers won a Superbowl. The Ravens then bounced around through up-and-down seasons wishing that they had a competent offense - changing coordinators because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing QBs because they couldn't manufacture offensive performance, changing coaches because he couldn't manufacture offensive performance. 3. There have been multiple times over the last decade that teams with a great offense, but with marginal or pathetic defenses won a Superbowl. 4. Build the OLine through the draft. Draft RG3 or Barkley. Draft a Calvin Johnson/Dez Bryant. But just DRAFT A PLAYMAKER and an OLine to allow the plays to develop. We're gonna get left behind otherwise. Losing games 9-3 is gonna get old quick.

This **** is laugh-out-loud funny. You folks would HATE Teddy Roosevelt. Seriously, like "Cleveland Steamer" hate.... William F. Buckley he was not. In fact, he'd likely be some weird hybrid Democrat these days...in the Joe Lieberman mold. Does anyone know why he was called the "TRUST BUSTER"? This is the guy who loathed large corporations! Read his first address to Congress. How about the federal bureaucracies that he established for regulatory control over matters of health and safety? He put Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Supreme Court folks!?!?!?! Holmes is one of the Justices that lended a voice and a certain legal bona fides to (and is still widely referenced amongst) the Progressive Movement (though Holmes probably wouldn't be happy with the identification). People are so caught up in D vs. R. That **** doesn't matter. And it mattered significantly less a century ago. Teddy Roosevelt, just based on his ideological platform, would be a Jon Huntsman/Jim Webb/Joe Lieberman today. Obama was not "claiming another Republican role model." He and Roosevelt have more ideological similarities then does Roosevelt and any Conservative in the Republican field right now outside of maybe Jon Huntsman. He is only articulating an ideological sound comparison. /End Rant Sorry I took this little exercise off-topic.

You're not kidding. I live in D.C. All the talk here is RG3. If we don't pick ahead of the Skins, we won't be getting him - simple as that. Check out the 80 pages devoted to RG3, only since mid-November, on the Skins site: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?358289-Godawful-for-Griffin-(III)

Ok. There we went.

Republicans:

Ummm...no. Both Democrats and Republicans have articulated plenty of great ideas - especially in the last 20 years. Examples? (pay particular attention at about 1:30): BTW, you have to be Grade A dolt to roll your eyes as conspicuously as Gore did at 1:33 into the video. Unbelieveable.

Sheriffs refused LEGAL orders to evict on behalf of the Court and a legally justified (and PAYING) entity. Do you think that they were right or wrong? What would you do? For the Atlanta Sheriffs it's *technically* dereliction of duty and a terminable offense. Story: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/movers-sheriffs-deputies-refuse-evict-103-year-old/nFp4Q/

Yes you can, when what you're comapring is their respective values, at their respective positions, in a 12 game span. And you may have missed the point that I was making...that being that people gave up on CJ and characterized him as a "bust" halfway into the season last year. If it's not fair for one, then it's not fair for the other. I'm not arguing your point in this respect. I'm confused as to why you think that CJ deserved different treatment. Is it because he is a RB and that is *theoretically* an easier position in the NFL to transition into? So we don't look at each person individually and their [respective] amount of NFL experience? Hmmmm. Ok. Either way you wanna slice it, Dareus was *probably* the best pick (long term) but he hasn't improved the defense appreciably and we're still losing games. With Green, we would have won more games immediately (with competent offensive output) and the defense would have remained bad. So there ya go.

Agreed. I just get FRUSTRATED with hearing people talking about segregation ending 40-50 years ago (I understand that that wasn't your point btw). It's been just over a generation and the generational impact won't change until the folks who were deleteriously affected by segregation socially and economically, and their children (who experienced a proximate economic impact)have cycled through the job economy. Every generation after that, theoretically, should be able to fend for themselves. Sandy Day said as much in the Michigan (Grutter v. Bollinger) ruling when the CONSERVATIVE court ruled on behalf of affirmative action/racial preference in graduate school matriculation: "It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 43. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." To this day, I have never heard a counter-argument to the generational consideration. Some folks still don't agree in principle, but I haven't yet heard an argument against it. It has to be because that argument is not advocating affirmative action based on some emotional appeal. It's just common sense. Incidentally, the anti-affirmative action folks here haven't offered a rebuttal.

People had made the same judgment about CJ at this point into the season last year. Not saying it is right - but 10-12 games is NOT an insignificant sample. Agree with the bolded. Not prepared to say that Green would have been the better choice overall, but we would have DEFINITELY won more games with AJ Green this year. All the myopic "build-the-lines-is-the-only-way-to win" folks won't concur. But then again, they're stranded in 199_. You can't reason with them (or at least one here). I've tried. All that said, I still think we made the right choice with Dareus. It's just not as black-and-white with me as it apparently is with some.

Knew this was coming. Just surprised that noone added an animal into the mix. There is always an animal.

Who?

I'm on record as advocating for Newt back when he was at 5-8% in the polls. His intellectual conservatism is the most appealing. I hope that he is the nominee. I wonder how much of the above is omnibus legislation or legilative riders on more influential legislation? I remember that he had some gaffes and questions about credit lines at Tiffany's and other high end fashion boutiques. For a while it appeared as if he, himself, had given up because he was almost exclusively promoting his book during campaign stops (I've heard him speak twice at fundraising events). I think that is when his staffers began retreating. He has fought back valiantly against the doubters though.

It's about education. We're ONLY one generation removed from unequal access to education. My parents went to segregated schools. It's not about YEARS; it's about generational impact. Basically, black folks weren't allowed to attend the same schools as white folks - they went to inferior/dilapidated/abject elementary, middle, high, and colleges/universities. There were still schools that were integrating into the 70s (Brown's "all deliberate speed" language was construed VERY liberally by those who didn't want to integrate). You don't think that profoundly unequal educational opportunities just over ONE GENERATION AGO doesn't have a disparate impact NOW? It does. How do people qualify for jobs? Largely through educational qualifications. Affirmative action seeks to extenuate the affects of unequal access to educational opportunities from ONE GENERATION AGO. That unequal access to education ONE GENERATION AGO is still affecting the job dynamic NOW because the people who were most impacted AND most benefitted by segregation THEN are the ones most entrenched (from a decision-making standpoint) in the job marketplace TODAY. The goal is that affirmative action becomes obsolete as we enter into the second generation post segregation. If in 2050 we're still having this conversation, there is a problem.

It begins with the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected classification. Though you're probably not being literal, the amount of "wrong" contained in this statement can only be understood by using positive integers augmented exponentially.

I don't think that they will draft a QB because of Fitz' new deal; I think that they should draft a QB though. Either Griffin or Barkley would catapult this team light years in the right direction and provide ancillary benefits that almost no other NFL position could (would be another gem to dangle for attracting FAs). I agree that we have TONS of holes to fill so a stud, ANY stud, will be an improvement.