oldmanfan

You nailed it

Really? What's the correlation coefficient? What variables affect completion percentage than have no effect whatsoever on accuracy? The answer to the latter: a lot.

Not a fan. We're OK with Allen and Barkley.

Because there are multiple variables that affect that, and not just the QB. As a team stat is maybe important. As a stat to assess QB play it doesn't mean much. Accuracy and completion percentage are not the same. This has been explained countless times on this board, but you continue to think the sky is purple.

It is not an important stat. Math, not homerism. Grow up.

You are acting like someone who claims the sky is purple. Countless numbers of people give you solid explanations as to why the sky is blue, and you just keep saying the sky is purple no matter what. I'll give you the same data I've given you before. You throw thirty passes in a game about two completions change you from 52% to 60%. So take away one throwaway and one drop and there you are. Doesn't matter if other QBs have these as well. Doesn't matter at all what other QBs do past or present. All that matters to you is Allen increasing his percent. If you're going to continue to cling to this completion percentage thing, and continue to ignore that accuracy and completion percentage are not equivalent, all that matters is two passes a game. Give him a couple receivers that don't drop easy catches or make tough ones, and voila- you have your magic number. Yes Allen can get better. Yes he is already working to do so. But drop this nonsense about completion percentage. Enough already.

Has anyone realized yet the OP has four Bills players in it but talks about trading three? Who gets traded?

Let's say with this upcoming # 9 pick you have a guy at edge rusher you see as a perennial all Pro type, and a LT you see as a solid player for years. You'd be nuts to take the LT over the Edge guy. Talent wins.

I agree. Let's do what's right. Our difference is I want the government open right now, and then negotiate. You don't, and I presume because you think the president would then no longer have negotiating power. Here's the thing I would say to those who take the latter view. Opening he government gives you the high ground. Polls indicate the president is being blamed (and since he said he'd take the blame that seems appropriate). I don't think the American people are dumb; if they see someone say on TV they'll take the blame, then that's where they'll place the blame. But you open things up, you look like the guy wanting to get things done. The Democrats then don't want to negotiate in good faith, they are the ones that look bad politically. You open the government today, then Pelosi refuses to negotiate, you have the political and moral high ground. The precedent that cannot be set in my view is to allow the Executive branch to have so much more power than the Legislative branch, regardless of what party holds each part of government at any time. If a precedent is set where a president can shut down government for weeks or months at a time just because he or she does not like one part of an appropriations bill, then our country's government cannot function.

Add something constructive. This is just more garbage from you.

I have already said I think she was wrong to say that.

How would I do it? Simple. Tell the Senate majority leader to allow the House bill (the one the Senate approved in December) to come to a vote and pass. Then sign it. Then negotiate. is there blame on both sides? Yes, Pelosi should not have said no money at all for a wall. But that does not put her in charge , or blame, or whatever, of the shut down. The president said it would be on him. He was right.

Yes they can. The Senate should vote today, pass the bill the House sent them that the Senateapprovrd overwhelmingly in December and send it to the president. If he vetoes then decide to override or not.

Correct. The president can veto bills. We all understand that.

Congressn passes budgetary bills but the president has to sign off, correct? You're correct. So he needs to take the blame. Because he said he would.

That is a risk for Pelosi. As I said earlier I hope every one in government right now gets voted out of office as soon as possible. We deserve better than what we're getting.

More childish insults. Do I think the public holds the president accountable? Yes. I am independent, hate things about both sides. But to say the left is getting their ass kicked since 2015 when they just had a huge victory in the House election is just stupid.

I just said the exact same thing above, so why you are arguing makes no sense. The president said he'd be proud to shut the government down. He owns it. The constitutional process is not being followed. That is the problem.

I am not going to respond to your childish rhetoric anymore. You want to have an adult conversation, act like an adult.

And the president put himself in his position on live TV and he has to figure a way out.

Right now the president has sole power in that if he accepted the House bill that he said he would in December, and then reneged, this would be over. I am saying that the constitutional process should be followed. The House sent the same bill to the Senate that they passed overwhelmingly in December (yes, by voice vote). The Senate should do its constitutional job and vote on it. Assuming a similar result as in December (because if they then went back on it that would be the height of hypocrisy) then it goes to the president. If he wants to veto, he should. That is his constitutional right and duty. Then the Congress can vote to override or not. And if the citizens don't like the results of that they can respond with their votes in 2020. Let government operate the way it is supposed to operate an stop playing games. If you set a precedent where a president can simply stop government because he doesn't like an appropriation we will have chaos.

I agree the Dems in the House are going to start feeling the heat as well. Pelosi should never have said no funding for any wall, as her own folks have voted in the past for barriers along the border. That was stupid of her to say, especially the part about it being immoral. Her position is that if you do that then you are basically saying that any Chief Executive should just shut down government if he or she doesn't get their at on a budgetary issue. I agree with her on that. It would be a horrible precedent. And she doesn't have sole power, as it would depend on the House and Senate agreeing with that bill. Unlike the President, who has sole power. Nice try though.

If Trump says he will sign the bill sent from the House to the Senate today government opens today. That simple.

Trump is the only person who can reopen government. All he has to do is agree to sign the bill the House sent to the senate, the one that the Senate agreed to by a vote of 100-0 in December. If he says he'd sign it McConnell would bring it to the floor right now. Don't be disingenouous. Several others here make good points and are worth having a discussion with. You, on the other hand, bring up bizarre references to transsexuals and such make it clear you have no sense, since that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Then bring it up for an actual vote. How about the Senate actually do its job. I am blaming Trump for shutting down government over it. Not blaming exactly, since he is the one who said he'd be proud to do so. Just that he needs to own it.

So they should have put the bill in front of him, then not have him sign? I could go along with that. In fact that is exactly what should happen if the Congress was doing its job. The House sent the same bill that the Senate approved a month ago. The Senate should vote on it, pass it (unless they are so spineless that they change their votes within a month), put it on the President's desk. If he vetoes then the Congress can decide if they override the veto and put people back to work. That is how our government is supposed to work. But, again, Trump is the only one right now who can reopen government. If he indicates he'd sign that then it's over with today. But, no, he's proud to shut it down. Because there are 800,000 people not being paid, and because it is affecting our national security. Open it, and if the Dems refuse to negotiate in good faith then you have a ready made political hammer to use. I just said above there is room to blame for both sides. Try reading.