oldmanfan

No. I do not think the Congress should fund the President's proposed barrier, because I don't know what his proposed barrier is because he seemingly changes his mind every day on what that is. My understanding is he wants a 2000 mile long beautiful wall along the entire Southern border. I don't feel that's necessary. I would fund what the professionals suggest is absolutely required in certain areas. I mention the Northern border because if we're going to talk about protecting our country against drugs, potential terrorists coming across, etc. there are miles of unsecured border on our Northern border as well. Should we not also be concerned there? Good point. But one of the arguments given when the statistic about only 6 folks of watch lists crossed the Southern border is that if even one gets by and commits a terrorist act that it's one too many. Should that logic not also apply to the Northern border?

I would if it were just a 2000 mile wall across the entire Southern border. Because that's not needed. I would certainly vote to fund parts of it where absolutely required as I pointed out above. One question on that: would we need a wall in North Dakota or Montana? What is the extent of illegal crossings/smuggling there, I wonder?

Probably right. I am an advocate of voting every single incumbent out of office and electing all new folks who are in the middle politically, with some liberal and some conservative thoughts, and let them get the country back on track. Actually have meaningful debate and compromise for the good of all. I myself? More liberal on social policies, more conservative on fiscal and law & order policies.

That's not really true as far as Trump goes, and you know it. All throughout his campaign it was a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for. And now reality is coming home to roost. We should let the DHS/ICE/CBP tell us where precisely it is needed, then fund that. Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security. And stop with the histrionics about a big beautiful wall from one side, and that it's immoral from the other. Or that one side wants just open borders when they don't, and on and on.

If I were negotiating on the Democratic side, I would say this: we are willing to fund a wall, or steel thing, or fencing, or whatever in areas where there is a critical need and where it is the best solution to illegal crossings. Not a 2000 mile uninterrupted border. That would be part of a larger policy where issues such as increasing enforcement personnel, DACA issues, employer issues, overstayed visa policies, etc. Perhaps you've just identified the real problem.

The president said he'll own it, then he needs to own it. And that means having actual negotiations where eh side gives a little. He needs to give, so do Democrats. quit trying to deflect thinking he has no blame. Both sides have to answer for this nonsense. And blocked what vote? The last vote I recall there were over 90 senators who voted for the CR that the president said no to. Bring the House bill up for a vote; the Democrats in the Senate block that then they should be shot. I would wager that if the House bills opening all but Homeland security wee brought up they'd pass the Senate, then assuming a veto you'd see if the Senate and House override. Which is the way the legislative process is supposed to work. It is likely happening, but not near the extent as at border crossings. Focusing on just a wall trivializes what is really needed: a comprehensive approach to immigration and border security. Why can't it happen though? The people need to demand more of their elected representatives.

For safety I am all for putting a wall up where it will make an impact. That does not mean 2000 miles of wall. Government data shows most drugs, etc. come in through checkpoints, right? How much of the drug problem comes in through the northern border? Should we build a wall between the US and Canada? Both sides shoulder responsibility for this. Both sides have ignored or played political games with the immigration issue for far too long. But shutting down government over a wall is pointless. Put folks back to work, then lock both sides along with the chief executive in a room somewhere until an actual comprehensive immigration policy addressing all issues (like people overstaying visas, employer issues, etc. ) is arrived at. And quit saying you'll shoulder the blame for a shut down, then deflect. You say something, own it.

Once again: when you are filmed saying you own the shut down, people will interpret that to mean you will own the shut down.

McConnell controls the Senate floor. And like it or not Trump said he will own the shut down. Words have meaning, words have consequences. Democrats should have gone to the White House yesterday I would also say.

Excellent

One of these days the occupant of the Oval Office might learn that words have meaning and consequences. When you are shown on camera telling the Democratic leaders that you will take responsibility for the shut down, people will tend to believe you take responsibility for the shut down.

I think Williams is a classic example of a guy that can be a good coordinator, but not cut it as a HC. Unfortunately for the Jets, they hired another guy for HC in Gase who meets the same description.

I would but I'm busy working on my it's all Russ Brandon's fault thread.

Sure. He's better than Clay. So he'd be an upgrade.

I like the kid. I think he'll get better with experience. As with most young QBs the game needs to slow down for him, so he can make quicker reads, get the ball out quicker, make the right decisions such as dumping the ball off quicker when warranted. I have no issues with his mechanics; he needs to be more precise on passes but when given time he shows good accuracy and precision. When he has a more solid O line and better WRs it will help. One thing about the question posed by the OP though. It presupposes skeptics want to but in. I think that's probably true form most in that category. But if one reads posts around here with any degree of regularity it is clear there are some here that would prefer Allen fail so they can sit on this site and crow about how they were right. Which is just sad.

Agreed. That's why completion percentage doesn't measure accuracy. You have to know where the QB intends the throw to go to know how accurate and/or precise a throw is.

It would depend how big the target is. If you're throwing a football say from 20 yards and your target is a foot wide, you hit it every time you are both accurate and precise. If the target is 5 feet wide and you hit it 10 times but all over the target you're accurate (although not as accurate as the first scenario) but you're not precise. Your last statement is dead on. Your miss it ten times and miss in the exact same spot you're precise but you have terrible accuracy.

I would disagree.

The classic way to explain it is the dartboard. Say you're throwing darts and want to hit the bulls eye. If you don't hit the bulls eye with ten throws but they closely surround the bulls eye, you're accurate. But you're not precise because your throws aren't hitting the same spot consistently. Now let's say your ten darts all hit the exact same spot, but that spot is three inches away from the bulls eye. Now you're very precise, but your accuracy is bad. What the OPs data suggests is that Allen is accurate, but that he could stand to be more precise. Really good QBs are both. They put the ball not only in the receiver's catch radius (accurate) but put in on a specific spot within that catch radius where the receiver can make a play (precision). When one talks about fitting a ball into a tight window, that's a throw that is both accurate AND precise. Allen needs to be more precise so his receivers get the ball in stride and make YAC, as an example.

That is the difference between accuracy and precision. If the throw is within the catch radius it is accurate, but may not be precise. Really good throws are both.

Was that the one year with Kelly?

Jumped a kid after school in third grade that was my sworn enemy. When he fell his glasses flew off and broke, and as he fell he knocked over a girl carrying her flute, and her flute broke. My dad got the call from my enemy's dad right in the middle of dinner, demanding payment for the glasses and the flute (because the girl's dad called my enemy's dad demanding payment). I remember my dad staring at me, the top of his head getting redder by the second, knowing I was a dead man as soon as he hung up. We had spaghetti that night; it took me 20 years to be able to eat spaghetti again.

It will be interesting to see if Foles has the same degree of success when not in Peterson's offense.

Accuracy can only be measured by giving a QB a specific target and asking him to hit the target. If he surrounds the target but doesn't hit it right on the nose he's accurate. He's not terribly precise but he's accurate. Completion percentage as you so rightly point out has considerably more variables associated with it. It would be like comparing accuracy of a rifle shooter firing at a stationary target vs. one that is randomly moved.

Good compariosn