Juror#8

Just an update on the RG3 push (or Matt Barkley if he is not there): http://msn.foxsports...ck-Draft-111411 http://www.cbssports...cout-ChadReuter http://walterfootbal...m/draft2012.php http://www.newerasco...com/mock-draft/ http://aol.sportingn...ack-in-top-five We should take him or Matt Barkley in the first and not look back.

What are you talking about? Huh?!?! Did you even look first? You must be thinking about Astrobot's unrealistic mock that has RG3 in the second round. Most mocks that I've seen have RG3 in the TOP 5-15. Some have him in the top 3. Here ya go: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Peter-Schrager-Midseason-NFL-Mock-Draft-111411 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/nfldraftscout-ChadReuter http://walterfootball.com/draft2012.php http://www.newerascouting.com/mock-draft/ http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2011-10/nfl-mock-draft/story/nfl-mock-draft-andrew-luck-has-company-at-quarterback-in-top-five YES! YES!

I get this image of all you !@#$ers laughing at me as you read my posts - you sick !@#$s probably got kicks out of envisioning me feverishly typing, sweating profusely, researching for accuracy, and making sure my logic was sound. All the while, you're probably devoting 10 minutes to a response...half laughing as you're formulating it...fully knowing that I'm gonna take the **** seriously and launch back into another internet tirade that lasts damn near an hour! I wish you just coulda and called it a day. I could have won the lottery, or done something constructive with that time instead of spending time haranguing. !@#$! A couple of serious points/questions though: 1. I'm not an elected official. I work for a Republican Congressman - though my politics are decidedly more moderate than his. 2. I don't like being grouped into the beltway crowd. I probably deserve to be because of my political background though. I try to think about things outside of this echo-chamber though. 3. I really think that vox populi, in general, are a bunch of dolts. Sad but true. There are too many constituent letters where people reference some radio program, or their conservative uncle, or what they heard at the local pub, as evidence of the political forecast. Not hundreds, thousands of these letter. I've spoken with too many people who thought Bush sabotaged the financial system, or that the current WH wants to abolish SUVs, to think that the majority of people have any clue about anything of real import. 4. How long is this fu(kkkking hazing process?

I'm surprised that no one has called you out on your evasion. I would have thought that someone else would have interjected with "OCinBuffalo didn't answer a single substantive point, or make a single substantive rebuttal argument." Folks here have to be thinking it. They had to have read my very comprehensive post, replete with two layers of analysis in response to your question. They had to have read your response to my post...and noticed that your's was so insufficiently detailed, so evasive, so obviously intimidated by my command of the subject matter as to be figuratively hiding behind generic commentary, and punchless remarks. Maybe comparative tenures will keep the peer criticism that should be directed at you, at bay. But just know friend, they're thinking it. They have to be. I read your post and you scream "ignominious retreat." You lost this battle. You're the candidate who doesn't call the victor after being defeated in a landslide. I'm Reagan; you're Carter. I'm Clinton; you're Dole. I'm Jordan; you're Sam Bowie. I'm E. Murrow; you're Joey M. You're May, 2009 LeBron, Pistons circa '91. Anyone who reads my post #64, followed by your post #65 will know it. You. Literally. Said. Nothing. For. The. First. 8. Paragraphs. Well, maybe not "nothing." You offered your opinion on some things which addressed the contours of my post - just enough for someone reading it to feel a semblance of continuity in the conversation, and for you to hope that they get lost in the diversion enough not to notice the subterfuge. Oh. Disco. To be sure, you asked a question a few posts ago [paraphrasing]: "Why should [you] listen to folks who have been wrong about so many things?" I distinguished your question. I even ANSWERED your question DIRECTLY (undistinguished). I analyzed the problems with your presumption(s). I then deconstructed your presumption(s). Finally, I deconstructed your comparison(s). You responded to none of it. Not a jot. The first 60% of your post #65 consisted of three unmemorable points (paraphrasing): 1. Juror#8 thinks that the electorate is stupid. 2. Juror#8's "nuanced" and "eloquent" post doesn't take in to account what people are really going through since DC is so disconnected. 3. You and everyone else on the board could have done a better job than the Administration with respect to policy creation, messaging, and implementation. The above is what you felt was an appropriate response to my exegesis? That is pathetic. The only reason that I'm dignifying your post with a response is in hopes that people will go back in read post# 64 and 65 in succession and in their entirety and make an unbiased decision about the comparative weights of the posts - based on content, substance, proof, support, et cetera. I'll let the people decide for themselves. Just for kicks though, let's address your three points in turn: 1. I do think that a good amount of the electorate are dolts. They accept what is given to them and they choose to look at politics superficially. What does that have to do with you? What does that have to do with anyone else on this board? I never said you were a dolt. In fact, I credited your intelligence. So what's it to ya? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? And why couldn't you address my points in any substantive way? 2. This is a head-scratcher. It's a declarative statement, and classical ad hominem, used to discount the merit of someone's claim not based on the substance of the claim, but rather, based on the individual personally. 3. I'm not doubting that you could have. There are some intelligent folks here, including yourself. I've learned a lot from you folks. And none of my criticisms of you should detract from that. What is your obsession with Keynesian philosophy? Is this more subterfuge? I don't care about it. The only reason that it was relevant in this discussion is because you said that Obama hired a bunch of anti-Keynesian folks. Then you doubled back and said "all but one...but he is a token." You doubled back only after I called you hyperbolic. INCIDENTALLY, part of your hyperbole was originally suggesting "all" (with respect to Obama's economic appointments) when in fact it wasn't "all" - a point that you acknowledged in a subsequent post - though tacitly. I called you out for being hyperbolic because of the way that you characterized WH appointments in YOUR ORIGINAL POST on the subject. You have done everything to conflate this into some discussion about the propriety of Keynesian economic philosophy. If it wasn't clear before: You've missed the point. This discussion wasn't, nor has it ever been, about Keynesian economic philosophy. Stop conflating points. You're better than that. And when I gave you credit, it was for the fact that some of the WH appointments don't abide by Keynesian economic philosophy. But as I said before, WHO CARES? That was never a point of contention. That you try to turn that into a small victory is silly. THAT WAS NEVER A CONTESTED POINT. That's like someone claiming some sense of satisfaction because they say that the sky is blue and others agree. NO ONE EVER CHALLENGED IT. There is no associated adversarial context. Oh. Disco. And the David Plouffe mention had NOTHING to do with economic philosophy. It was a two word, proper name, answer to your original question ("Why should [you] listen to folks who have been so "wrong' about ____."). My answer to your question, was "David Plouffe." It was the third answer in a comprehensive and segmented analysis. What are you talking about? What you say above about Plouffe and knowing more about economics them him is so out of left field that it didn't dignify a response. "Plouffe" and "economics" weren't even mentioned in the same context. This is "the blue sky" thing again. You're just throwing things at the wall to see if it sticks. Is anyone else seeing this? 1. We'll let the community here judge. 2. ? 3. We'll let the community here judge. 4. We'll let the community here judge. Please, please, please answer my rebuttal to your question. Otherwise, why would you bother posting?

If by "socialized medicine" you mean health insurance for every United States citizen that is subsidized by the Government, nee Taxpayer - then there are plenty of people who want that. There are also plenty of people who don't.

Hmmmm....I'll ignore for a second that you've taken this conversation off course and didn't answer any of my questions, or that you've ignored my requests for clarification with respect to the things that you say that I've refused to answer - which, when looked at cumulatively, has conflated the entire discussion. I'll oblige your request and, in doing so, try to distill this discussion a bit (but for purposes of record preservation I'll note my continuing objection to your use of logical fallacies). Your question is: "Why should [you] listen to people who have performed so poorly - politically?" Objection: 1. This presumes that they've performed poorly politically. Many will take issue with that. How are we judging their performance? A. Obama's approval rating - is averaging 49% for the year (though at 44% in the most recent poll). In 2008, his percentage of the popular vote was 52.7%. From a purely political percentage standpoint, the difference between 49% and 52% is not that significant (though one can make the argument that in raw numbers, it is). This could suggest that his support, amongst the base and even amongst some independents, hasn't faltered. If there isn't an appreciable difference between the number that he was elected at, and his current average approval percentage, what does that say about his performance (vis-a-vis "support"). And, using the metrics as your guide, is the WH *really* doing that bad of a job? Of course, comparing these numbers is somewhat misleading if you look at it prima facie, because in one instance you are given the choice between another individual for whom you can vote and the other concerns rating one individual's job performance. If you analyze it non-cursorily though, you'll see that someone's view of job performance will likely be inextricably linked to their political and ideological persuasion. So maybe the comparison is not so misleading. Now this is not always the case. Traditionally, during "honey-moon" periods, and after significant emotional moments in a country's history, job approval ratings reach a net positive plateau - ideology notwithstanding. B. Approval for different legislative iniatives - is a more interesting one. I try to look at this in a nuanced way. There are policies which haven't received the support that the Administration may have wanted. There are some that are seen as failures (with respect to public response). But to look at those items and say that they've performed poorly as a result is superficial analysis...at best. Why? a. Because the Administration's programs never made it out Congress the way it went in. The policies came out contorted, truncated, and a shell of the policy as it was intially envisioned. This is a function of Congressional posturing, process, and gridlock. If you really, really want to be superficial and demonstrate a wholesale lack of understanding as to how the legislative process works, you'll mention something like "Well, the Dems had the majority, in both houses, and when the Repubs had it, they did...." b. Congressional Dems lost control of the message. That's not entirely their fault. It was a better job by the Republicans of conflating the message and making something that the Dems were trying to do become so tied up in gridlock that it became per se confounding. Since the attention span of the electorate is guaged in 60 second intervals, that tactic of confound, conflate, and confuse, destroyed any chance of the message being communicated in the artful, bite-sized way that would be received well by vox populi. c. When those huge legislative initiatives have been distilled to their constituent parts, and those constituent parts have been subjected to scrutiny and approval ratings, they've faired VERY well. Look it up. Look up the numbers and note the discrepancy between the legislation in it's entirety and the specific constituent parts. To be fair, please note the approval numbers on all individual aspects of the legislation. Some are amazingly good, some are still poor. Either way, that further analysis lends credibility to my thesis that it wasn't the legislation that was flawed, as much as the communication of the message. Does that mean that they didn't fail, no. But it should be looked at categorically and not as cursorily as many have. d. I'll devote an entire subset to the body politic. They're largely dolts who prefer things spoon fed to them in the easiest most non-intensive way possible. They hate research. The loathe analysis. They despise paradigms that are inconsistent with their traditional way of thinking. e. While there have been initiatives that have fallen flat (for reasons discussed above), there have been others that have been well received generally: CHIP; Cars for Clunkers program; Student Loan Reduction Program; DADT, et cetera. Are those considered into your political estimation? Have you considered any of these factors into your political estimation? I have. Still supporting Gingrich though and I supported Paul on the first go around. But ideological differences shouldn't belie facts, nor should they be a substitute for solid analysis. C. General atmospherics - or more plainly put, how do you feel post 2009 vis-a-vis 2008? The economy was in a free fall in 2008. The stock market was sub-10,000. Confidence was pathetic. Unemployment was in a tail-spin. The Bush Administration (either affirmatively or through impact of unbridled negligence) did things to the economy that I didn't know were possible. The current Administration tried to fix it and some things seem better atmospherically. All-in-all though, there is a long way to go. Answer: Now despite the analysis above, if I were to just accept your question prima facie, it would be answered thusly: A. And I've answered in this way before: You don't have to just accept it. Analyze it (like I did above). Debate it (like I've tried to do with you). But you're being cyclical and self-containing by asking "Why should I accept the answer since they've done a bad job." B. Secondly (and more pointedly) what does one thing have to do with the other (opinion on Mitt Romney's potential and Policy "failures)? Let's just say that the Administration has done a crappy job (despite the considerations above). What would their legislative policy "failures" have to do with their ability to judge Mitt Romney - his capacities, proficiencies, weaknessess, and vulnerabilities - during a political campaign season? Wouldn't a more reasonable and logical analysis be of the Administration's electoral success in 2008 - against John McCain (and how they dismantled him in the electoral college in red states that were seen as decidedly conservative) - to determine their aptitude for making decisive and correct political campaign calculi? Isn't that parallel more exact? Instead you're juxtaposing your estimation of the Administration's policy errors WITH the Administration opining as to Mitt Romney's campaign/political bona fides? Incongruent, Asymmetrical, Perpindicular, Logic. Your reasoning is asymmetrical for myriad reasons: If we just look at it superficially, the Administration's legislative policies/iniatives, some political appointments, et cetera, mandate non-Executive branch (Congressional) protocol, process, procedure, to be fully realized. That process substantially affects the initiative, as intended, and ultimately manipulates the final product, whether for bad or good. Why would you use that as a way to judge the merits of a campaign decision, which is the result of a much more familiar and homogeneous process? There are 2-5 people involved with the truly impactful decisions during the political campaign season. There are thousands involved in the decision-making with respect to legislative process. I'm not sure why you've trumpeted that juxtaposition...it doesn't reflect well on you intellectually (and I'm sure that you're an intelligent person). It's a really bad comparison. It doesn't prove your point. In fact, you've highlighted a conclusion opposite of the one that you intended to convey. And that is why Economists shouldn't EVER debate anything with an Attorney. C. David Plouffe - Little to do with policy; EVERYTHING to do with campaign strategy. The guy just schitted more about campaign strategy/logistics than we collectively know. Wrong. Please see my entire response above. Please read my original post on the subject. You missed the point and you're now arguing with yourself. I acknowledged that things that some things that you mentioned had merit (I try to be fair and consider all sides). However, some of your statements were hyperbolic. You're debating as if I mentioned that everything that you referenced was hyperbolic. Therefore, you're debating yourself. Your bolded claims above are, by nature, hyperbolic. Because you believe them to be true, or because their economic philosophy may be liberal, or because they may have once befriended Chopra or whomever, doesn't make your points any less hyperbolic. The fact that you originally suggested that all of Obama's appointments were ____. Then backed up to mention (paraphrasing) "all but one, and he's a token," corroborates the point that I'm making about you. You're massaging facts to fit your criticism. You were (and still are) being hyperbolic and misleading. As stated above, I never mentioned that the actors in this melo-drama weren't anti-Keynesian. You just created your own point, then argued against something that wasn't said, so that when the substance of your post is reviewed, it is technically correct. It takes someone to ask "What is the point that he is arguing against?" until it becomes evident that your inclusion of this is just to be right about something. Even if that "right" resulted from a debate with your own ideation. You must be used to kicking ass when arguing with 19 year old college students. The tactics there, won't work here. Incidentally, they won't work next time you try either. It doesn't really matter if you try to diffuse my mention of your "straw men," "red herrings," etc by pre-emptively mentioning them in your post - as if the mention of them, by you, conclusively demonstrates that you don't employ those tactics. 1. The "rookie" thing is silly. 2. YOU feel that they haven't been wrong about only 1 thing. You haven't "clearly" demonstrated anything besides your sentiment. I've rebutted, comprehensively, both your presumption, and your sentiment. 3. I know very well how the "real world" works. I'm of the opinion that the cursory analysis that you bring to topics with political and social import suggests that your understanding of the "real world" is somewhat lacking. That's just my opinion though, admittedly based on a limited sample. Have a good Wednesday. And since I know that you're likely reading and responding to this at 11:30 p.m. (per usual), have a good evening as well. I've enjoyed the conversation...even despite the insults. Here's hoping for more focused conversation in the future.

Agreed. I just can't believe that Block had absolutely no knowledge of this. I don't know any big time campaign managers. A friend of the family, though, manages campaigns for local/county delegates. He has declined opportunities based on prospective candidate's moral turptitude. And this is unvolunteered info that he ascertains about people with no where near the name recognition or public presence of Cain. Block's career is gonna take hit for this. You don't mean that little club up 15 North a ways, just outside of Thurmont, where they like to.... well schit, nevermind; you said PA. I'm a douche.

Usually the candidate's campaign manager vigorously vets their candidate (paid for by the candidate's campaign) before accepting a job. Really good campaign managers will tell the candidate that because of their penchant for wearing diapers, golden showers, and circulating pictures of the whole debaucherous affair, they're probably not a viable candidate. Chris Kofinas got jobbed because the idiot Edwards began his little trist post-campaign. Sheesh!

1. Not suprisingly, you missed the point of my questions. But you've formulated your own question. That doesn't come as a surprise either. Either way, classy response. 2. Another classy response. I don't think that you should accept the judgment of those whom I know. I never once said that you should accept it. I mentioned it to add to the intellectual discourse. The reason for referencing them was to indicate that my commentary/opinion wasn't coming from a place of personal political experience. It may be based on someone else's political experience...just not my own. Do I have an opinion on their poilitical opinion. Yes. However, for a variety of reasons, I don't expect for you to have the same opinion. 3. Usually people only say this when they actually do devote considerable time and energy into something, but they want it to be seen as a non-intensive endeavor by everyone else. For what it's worth, based on the content of your response, the poor analysis, the bastardization of facts, it's obvious that you don't put a lot of time and energy into responding. If you did, it would suggest something about you that I don't want to believe is true. 1. You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The problem is you characterizing it the way you do (e.g. WH people..."talking schit"). You're being hyperbolic. You're randomization/bastardization of facts is unfortunate and it makes debating with you an exercise in futility. What you will never understand, because you do it so frequently, is that your entire post presupposes "truth" and accuracy on your enumerated points. The problem is that you're not correct. You'll point to instances that, in your estimation, substantiate the way that you decided to characterize Administration actions. But your characterizations are hyperbolic at best, fundamentally wrong, at worst. Did the Administration hire economic professors. Yes. Everything after that is hyperbolic. Was the WH expecting some "shovel ready projects"? Undoubtedly yes. Did they hand over billions in money to corrupt officials? Again, hyperbolic. Was some stimulus cash used injudiciously? Yep. Did some money go to folks who misappropriated stimulus funds? Probably. Did they turn a blind eye to unmitigated corruption? No. Basically, you ask a question that relies on the veracity of the points that you, yourself, contrived. Therein lay the loaded question. For me to answer it requires an acknowledgment that your points have validity. Therefore your question, "how else should we define 1-10 besides hubris" is premature. Though I can see where some of you points originated from, I think that the majority of them are embellished and structurally compromised. Trully, only you or the choir can answer your question, since it requires acquiescence of many other things to even entertain it. For example, if I asked you "what shade of orange do you think the sky is?", in order for you to answer the question in any affirmative way, you'd have to acknolwedge the the sky is orange. For the reasons mentioned above, I think that you're being intellectually dishonest. The problem with what you're saying here is that because the WH *MAY* have been wrong about one thing, they're unsatisfactorily capable somewhere else. Imagine if that same principle was applied to you, or to anyone else, or any thing else. Seriously, follow that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion: The extent of someone's competence as to any thing is only as sound as their first, second, third, tenth, whatever, mistake. If you make a mistake, that conclusively means that everything else that you do going forward is presumptively wrong. Really? Look at the converse as well. If someone does anything right, their presumptively correct about everything else res ipsa loquitur. It's a bit of a self-referential paradox\ Speaking of paradoxes, here is a fun one. Maybe you'll enjoy it as you read this while bored and on the phone: "A male beautician shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave himself?" Did you apply that same logic to Bush? And that is presuming that the WH is making mistakes.

November 29,2011 UConn James 1454 Sweetlove Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06601 Good morning sunshine, I've had occassion to read your letter. It brought back fond memories of home - the blissful smell of your perfume, your supple crescent-shaped bosom, your womanly embrace. How I long to be back from the perils of war and with you and our children, whom you've raised with unquestioned dignity and charm. And though the country cannot refrain from tendering to you the thanks of the Republic that we fight so that you may enjoy, it will remain an inadequate consolation. So hopefully the following points will supplement, and assuage the anguish of your longing: 1. The Administration has tons of opp research on Romney. It can be best categorized as voluminous. In talking with folks who vet data and write speeches, I've had occassion to hear and see some of the info. It's basically different iterations of core issues where Romney has fundamentally changed. 2. You, as a person who supports him (though you'll invariably say that you don't - but the passion with which you inarticulately present your case suggests otherwise), are getting annoyed or otherwise flustered because you don't like the idea that the information exists. You're arguing against generalities...with platitudes. 3. I made a declarative statement; to be believed or disbelieved. I'm comfortable with what I've read, and what has been divulged concerning Romney's inconsistencies. Though it would be somewhat awesome to have a more developed conversation about his inconsistencies, its fruitless to have that conversation with you because: a. You haven't demonstrated a shred of anything resembling objectivity that would suggest, even given the most liberal of interpretations, that you could lend value to such a conversation. b. Nothing that you've mentioned would suggest that your contribution to such a conversation would amount to more than "people change their minds." If I had no other way to valuably utilize my time, I would write out a page long exigesis for you to respond with that gem of analysis. c. When people insult, without provocation, it's time to move on. You're welcome to say/write anything that you want. But I'm not sure that you should expect that your insults be met with reasoned response and substantive discourse. So, I'll continue to humor you with a little condescension here and there now for fun...but I won't take you seriously. When someone concludes any level of intellectual exercise or debate with "!@#$ing idiot" they've discontinued taking themselves seriously. Why should I give you more than that which you've given to yourself? SO save the heavyweight conversation for Magox, 3rdlng, or anyone else who has demonstrated some aptitude to debate. And don't think I'm just picking on you lady luck, it's OCinBuffalo too, whom I'll now turn my attention to tackling his mess of a post above. In conclusion, if you don't like my comments above, super; move on. But I'll reiterate again, the WH has tons of opp research on Romney. And it will be a fun campaign. Thanks for your kind words. You're !@#$ing wonderful. So I leave you with these words, that I hope you care to receive, and I remain, Sincerely, Juror #8

I agree mostly. I just can't say with confidence that the squib kick was forseeable by either Stevie Johnson or the "reasonable person." Rule Against Perpetuities never showed its ugly face on that hot summer day on the North Carolina exam in July of 2002 (at least not obviously). Now...the term "contingent remainder" somewhat rings a bell, but really...who the !@#$ knows.

Forseeable or unforseeable (and therefore breaking the chain of causality)? This and Rule Against Perpetuities made L1 year /thread jack

!@#$ GM. Mustang (pimptastic pimpness of epic proportions) owns Camaro (mullet mobile blown head gasket rattle trap). /end valuable contribution

1. That's what I have on the subject. 2. Something different then what your choir is singing. That offends you. 3. I did. That you don't like it or feel that it is unfulfilling doesn't make it any less of a reality. It's all a matter of "degree," and the form of "d e g r e e" is floating in the air in some weird Platonic way. We're dancing on the edges of expectation and satisfaction. You're just wanting coitus and I'm hesistant because you're menstruating.

Double post

I kind of missed this gem of a post. Wow. So much here to enjoy and keep one entertained. In a way, I'm glad that it went unnoticed till Monday. It was kind of like finding a 20 spot in my pocket that had been forgotten since paying my mortgage or something. Ok, well, moving on. Stop me when this sounds familiar : 1. Who are the people to whom you should be listening? Who are the people whom I am referencing? 2. Weird "defense" mechanism here. So the fact that you've used straw men as an debate technique was somehow projected upon me, by you, as a way for you to explain why it is that you don't know to whom I'm referencing when I'm referencing political conversations with colleagues. 3. I can only assume that you added this to have a "third" point, because only two points would look like you hadn't put the requisite time, effort, and energy into formulating a cogent response. Not sure what you're asking. You presented an item from Karl Rove, ostensibly from a place of dispassion and objectivity, for me to refute. Then you conclude by referencing the same loaded question to which you've referred repeatedly throughout your work of fiction as if the reference somehow validates the non-point that you've made, vindicates Karl Rove's biased opinion, and underscores a lack of credibility with respect to my opinion and the opinions of others to whom I've spoke. "So Mrs. Lincoln, outside of that, how did you enjoy the play?" ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Who do I say I know? 2. It's interesting how you come to you own conclusions about what someone thinks, then make an analogy based on your own conclusions, and then pass it off as analysis. Other then that, awesome analogy. It's somewhat perpindicular, but it sings...in an Orphan Annie kind of way. 3. The Administration is not politically worried about Romney for very specific, articulated, well-understood reasons (as many in the conservative and independent political community(ies) have enumerated them as well)...none related to the bravado and machismo with which you've referred in your haste to ascribe hubris to the Administration. So basically, your post was one big "SIKE." Take another crack at it. I know that you can do better.

Aaron Rogers and the rest of those co*ksuckers laughed at and mocked the Bills from the sidelines during the week 2 game last year. F**k them.

Presumably unless someone disagrees with you. I've said it before, in two separate posts, and provided actual support for the claim that what you say in #12 is fundamentally untrue. You've ignored the point before, you'll likely ignore it again. However, here goes nothing...the idea that an expert pass rush shuts down the potent offenses in today's NFL is farcical at best, delusional at worst. The offensive minds in our division responded by creating offenisive schemes that are so quick and so precise that a pass rush doesn't have any time to be disruptive. Look at the stats. Look at the points that New England put up on Philly, K.C., Oakland, and teams with legitimate pass rushing specialists. Look at Welker's stats in those games. Look at Green Bay and what they did to the Jared Allen-led Vikings, or the Bears, or DENVER. You're trumpeting this 10 year old philosophy that doesn't even reflect the reality of today's NFL. And you don't even rebut the references, you just ignore them and make the same claim the next time around. We need a pass rush, yes. Without a doubt. Certainly. Absolutely. But if we had Bruce Smith circa 1989, we'd still get ate up through the air on short crossing routes, fades, and screens. We need a physical secondary who can press, disrupt timing and be physical. In our division, (and with the growing trend league-wide) we have a better chance at a coverage sack than a traditional rush sack.

I'd love to see that, if for no other reason than to read BillfromNYC's post later that evening.

1. The run defense has been better but it still sucks. 2. There is no push on the inside. 3. If you read my posts, I have said on no less than two occassions that injuries have affected Dareus and that he has been amazing considering the injuries surrounding him. 4. My logic is sound. It's o.k. to opine and wonder aloud if other options would be better. This is especially so considering that, if the season continues on the current trend, we'll be drafting at the top of the draft again for need so hindsight can be particularly helpful. 5. Don't get me wrong, I support you in saying that Dareus was the best choice. Again, DAREUS WAS THE BEST CHOICE. That doesn't make the dialog less interesting or other perspectives less valuable. 6. We desperately need WR help. 7. Superchargers are better. See point #4 above.

I'm very vocally in the draft RG3 camp. But I would love getting a 4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB if no franchise level QB is available.

Yea, (if you believe the insiders) his bull-headed insistence of status quo on draft day is not helping this team acquire talent. More than anything, this team NEEDS an infusion of talent. Despite the difference in draft selection, there would have been no drop off between Kerrigan on this team as compared to Dareus. Also, we could have grabbed a frachise-level QB in the process. How can a GM not entertain that possibility (assuming his talent evaluators recognized the potential that these folks had)? I hope that I'm wrong and that he entertained these scenarios. For him not to have is nothing less than dereliction of his duties.

Funny enough I'm not saying that we should have done anything. I'm in as being a Dareus supporter. I'm interested to know what people think the impact would have been if we had of gone a different direction. And this is as important a conversation for the upcoming draft as it is an interesting conversation in retrospect. Fewer people now are saying that "you don't take a WR that high," than at draft time. When an offense is predicated on short routes, the receivers can't get off a jam, and there is absolutely no deep threat, a big-value WR begins to sound slightly more reasonable. Our defense has been bad ALL year. We were able to maintain by scoring more points than the bad defense gave up. The offense became bad when teams realized that we had 0 talent at wideout. The question is, if the defense is bad ANYWAY, Dareus or no Dareus, why not just go "no-Dareus," add Green, and at least keep out-scoring teams? You may not like it, but it is a valid consideration. In the era of free agency, you have to add some sizzle to that steak. Hitting on 50% of draft picks is the best way to do it and maintain a balanced overall build. But when a team drafts at a sub-20% rate, building the lines first will not be a successful approach. At least with some sizzle, you may be able to attract free agents to a geographically challenged area. IMO, a free agent would rather play on a team with Adrian Peterson than Jake Long.

I can't believe that there were so many QBs sitting at the top of the second and we took none...didn't even give them a sniff. I'm gonna say that trade-down possibilities presented themselves on draft day. It would have been nice to trade down 10 spots, picked up a 2nd and 3rd, grabbed Ryan Kerrigan and Andy Dalton, plus Williams (if they coveted him that much) and been in a better position both defensively and offensively.

The only problem is that our D is still getting eaten alive and we have Dareus (I know that that is not entirely his fault). The question is, would anything be different on defense without him there? AND If we say that a "with-Dareus" defense hasn't been any better than a "without-Dareus" defense, could we have drafted Green and be winning games with a potent, non-predictable offense (and just as bad a defense). At the end of the day, the consideration is: there has been no defensive change with Dareus but we could have made a significant offensive change with Green and at least scored points.