oldmanfan

If you can get another first or second round pick then absolutely

At some point each side is going to have to compromise on this and get the government open. There is no question about that. But to the larger point, yes I do take issue when I have a president that refuses to take responsibility for his own words, or with those who would support that. The substance of the issue is this: there was no crisis or emergency for two years that required a government shut down until one part of the government was taken over by the opposing party. And now it is a crisis that for some reason requires shutting down key aspects of government. It is all political nonsense. It is quite simple really. The President said if he does not get the funding for his wall he would take responsibility for shutting down the government. Those are his words. And words matter. Now he is trying to say it's others fault and not his. So, basically he is telling us we cannot trust him to stick to his word. This, of course, is not exactly a secret about him. But then how do foreign leaders and adversaries trust our government? How do the people trust he will keep his word on other aspects of government? This is a problem. he said it, he needs to own it. And just so you know, it is not partisan with me. When Obama went back on his word about the red line with Syria, I was through with him as well. His foreign policy was feckless because foreign governments knew his word meant nothing.

He based his entire campaign on building a wall and having Mexico pay for it. And he stated on camera when with Pelosi and Schumer that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government. Why should the American public give him a pass on actual statements he's made? I care about them, and most people I know do as well. No, the Senate voted to provide a spending bill with no funds for the wall, that would extend government funding through February. You can try and deflet all you want, but it is the President that said he will take responsibility for closing the government over the wall funding. His words. Do his words not matter?

I read this. What it says is that in the previous Congress the Senate (which was controlled by Republicans) passed a stop gap bill with no funding for the wall, that would fund the government through February. The House, which at the time was also under Republican control, passed a bill with 5.5 billion for the wall. So I don't quite get how the Democrats blocked funding for a wall. If you are referring to the Senate not getting past 60 votes for the House bill, then perhaps that makes sense. But the Senate did pass a bill to keep the government open back in December. Like it or not, you have divided government now, and like it or not when the President met initially with the Democratic leaders, in that now infamous White House meeting captured on camera, he accepted responsibility for closing the government if he did not get his wall funding. His words, in plain view for all to see and hear. And now he wants to say it's not on him. Sorry, but that simply does not fly. Not that Democrats could not negotiate more. I think ultimately the Democrats should agree to funding walls where the experts on border security says they are absolutely essential. They are going to have to give, as is the Executive branch. But the President made his bed, now he has to lie in it. And none of this answers the question of why the vast majority of government could not be opened right now, and allow for more negotiation of Homeland Security budget including the wall. Nor does it answer why until the balance of government changed this was not a crisis or emergency requiring shutting down government until the president got his money, and that it only became an emergency crisis when control of the House changed.

When did the Democrats block the House bill? I have looked all over and see no evidence for this. Show me your source of information on that.

I'd call It grace.

What you do to the least of them, you do to me.

That's a fair interpretation. Let me try to highlight using a clinical assay, something I do every day. Say you are measuring the concentration of substance X, and you know it's 100. And you want to determine accuracy and precision. Accuracy would be how close you are to 100 over a series of measurements and is generally defined by standard deviation if the mean. So I might not have any of the ten measurements come out 100, but if the values are 95,96,97,98 99, 102,103 104 105, 106 then I am accurate and I accept my measurement because it fits within an acceptable SD. Precision is how many times out of ten measurements I hit the same number. So let's take that sample of known value 100. I do ten measurements and each is 90. I'm very precise but I can't accept that test because it is inaccurate. I agree with my friend above that it comes down to essentially what you consider the SD for a QB throws. The OP considers it (I think) within the catch radius. I think that's reasonable, you may not. But for a QB to be really good he had to combine that with hitting a specific spot reproducibly- precision. It's not an either/or necessarily; the greats need both. It wiuld be interesting to watch film with Allen and ask him where he was targeting throws; it would tell a lot about his accuracy and precision. Take one pass to Croom as an example, I think in the last game. Croom was coming over the middle, and the ball was out ahead of him by 2-3 feet. Terrible accuracy at first blush. But what if he told you he threw it exactly where he wanted, but he and Croom were not communicating on the route, he thought Croom was going to keep crossing but Croom thought he was supposed to sit down? Allen gets accused of being inaccurate because it affected his completion percentage, but in reality he threw a good ball. Interesting conversation and has made me think more about my approach to analyzing things.

I think that is likely.

I think we're saying the same thing. I agree with what you've said here. I run a clinical lab so I get accuracy and precision of assays. Where I think we disagree is the distance from accepted value. You seem to want to define it to such a small degree (I.e. Hitting a guy right on the numbers) that in reality there would be no real difference between being accurate and precise. The OP defines a wider radius to be accurate. My definition of precision is how repeatably you hit a specific value. For QBs it's how oftten you hit the same spot the same time. QBs have to be accurate, but also precise.

Accurate is how close you come to a target and precision is him consistently you hit a given spot. The great QBs have both. Thd only way to know if a throw is accurate or precise is to know exactly what the QB is aiming at. Also if you narrow the area in which a throw has to be to be considered accurate, you can narrow it to a point where accuracy and precision are the same. So if say you want to define a WB as being accurate only if he hits a guy right on the numbers, then there's really not much difference.

No. The dot in the red is more precise, not more accurate. That's where you're confusing the two; it's shown right in the label of the diagram. The OP talked about catchable balls. Let's take a WR numbers as the bulls eye. If the QB throws a ball that is "catchable", which I think could be be interpreted as within the catch radius, then it's accurate. But not precise. The OP should weigh in on what he considered accurate. When you say hitting a guy in the numbers consistently, that requires not just accuracy, but precision. When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window that's not just an accurate throw it's a precise throw. Allen can stand to be more precise for sure. as for completion percentage by the way, if he throws 30 passes the difference between 52 and 60% is about 2 passes a game. Or two drops or throwaways.

You have the diagram right but the interpretation wrong. I've posted the same one. When you hit a guy in the legs vs. chest it is the lower left hand diagram, high accuracy but low precision. Allen and others need to be more precise, less so accurate. Hitting the bulls eye every time is high accuracy but importantly high precision.

Refer to my previous comments in this thread. Many people confuse accuracy with precision and that includes folks like PFF. If you throw a ball at a WR and it comes in say at knee level that is accurate. But it is not precise. Precise would be putting it right on the guy's hands as he's running so he can make YAC. Allen is accurate as are the other rookies as indicated by the OP. But he could stand to be more precise along with his accuracy. The best QBs have both high accuracy and precision.

Depth move. After FA and the draft one hopes you have better guys, and this guy gets cut.

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