Jump to content

Stank_Nasty

Members
  • Content Count

    3,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stank_Nasty

  1. i'm sorry but Fitz doesnt make up for how below average Edmunds has been. That rank is absurd.
  2. Well I’ve already come to accept he’s probably not playing and I’m now in the process of talking myself into at least a top 10 defense with a Norman resurgence and continued Wallace progression... That being said. I thought after the last 3 years of seeing things progressively turn around for our bills I could officially put to rest the term “BILLSY”. Then we come off a 10-6 season with our roster intact and a huge addition... a Pandemic and the threat of losing our best player immediately follows the promising outlook. That’s BILLSY, bro..... and I’m pissed.
  3. yup. i've been thinking it since the interview. She's throwing some weight around. Tom Pelissero just said this is expected to go right up the wire.
  4. how about they just wait until after 4pm today to do anymore interviews... i cant take anymore surprise gut punches.
  5. to me it feels like his lady is pitching a fit and he's dragging it out.... this happens in my house routinely and i mope around as hard and pathetically as i can until she feels guilty about it and changes her mind.... its got about a 23% success rate
  6. You guys remember yesterday when CB2 was all we had to worry about on d.... those were the good ole days.
  7. Burleson and schrager still clinging to the newton of 3 or 4 years ago. Sorry Nate, but I can’t see newton all of a sudden thriving on the short to intermediate area that edelman lives in. Or as Brandt coined it, “can’t see him edelman’ing his way down the field”. Newton and his career 59% comp rate is all of a sudden gonna morph into a precision slot passer just because he’s a Pat now? I’m skeptical. Team Kyle here, obviously.
  8. Just a heads up. Allen coming up with an interview soon on GMFB
  9. I would be down with a poor mans version of Big Ben to AB to start. Those 2 automatically come to mind and made a lot of hay over the years in those scenarios.
  10. So Nate Burleson was on GMFB this morning commenting on the potential of the Allen/Diggs duo. I thought he brought up a very interesting point that I personally hadnt thought of yet. He talked about how Diggs hasnt had a qb yet, thats a legit threat to extend plays. And that he's very anxious to see what happens when Allen extends some plays and Diggs has the chance to use his crisp route/playmaking abilities to get open for his QB. Mentioned how this may open up a part of his game we had never seen before. Link is below. While Allen hasnt been very good in play extending pass situations i'm betting having a wr like diggs out there may have a positive influence on it. https://www.nfl.com/videos/brandt-josh-allen-stefon-diggs-are-a-perfect-match
  11. Just a heads up. Kay just said Mcdermott is coming up for an interview during the 9am eastern hour.
  12. I can’t get over some of these pics zack moss. What a freaking Specimen.
  13. Right. You don’t trade away a first rounder and more, for 700-800 yds a season.
  14. Dude he was 45th in targets last year. Yes its a fact. Are you always this obtuse?
  15. I’ve seen 2 lists just this last week regarding diggs as a top ten wr. The nfl networks playing voting and then another analyst on NFL.com did a list putting him at 8. It’s not just some fan bias. But whatever, my man. I honestly don’t care enough about this to keep going. My main gripe is he had low target counts last year. That’s a fact. I literally conceded the prior 2 years and you still try and argue about it with me. So I can sorta see what I’m dealing with here. You win??? .... i guess.
  16. It was 45th in the whole entire league. Let’s add some context. A healthy top ten talent ranked 45th in targets. No. It’s not a lot. It’s just not. factor in who we are talking about and it’s ridiculously low. I’ll concede the other years. but ya. If we need to get into being overly literal about what somebody said then sure he had more than “no targets at all”
  17. “Wasn’t targeted as much as some of the other top guys” is an extreme understatement. Like I said in another post. He was the only wr in the top 20 for yds that had less than 100 targets(94), and the next closest was 113. he put up those yds because he had the ability to maximize his low target number and he had a real accurate qb that helped make them count as well.
  18. Saw him in the bills video they did recently of players checking in at the facility.
  19. From the list I’m looking at on ESPN he’s the only wr in the top 20 for yds that saw less than 100 targets. He had 94. The next closest is 113. Last year he wasn’t targeted nearly as much as other high profile wr’s. That’s a fact. It’s not a bizarre take IMO.
  20. The confirmed cases and deaths i cite in the 2nd paragraph are from my own knowledge of the situation. As a gym owner in the area I’ve paid very close attention to what’s going on. The adjusted fatality rates I speak of are me doing the math. It’s the confirmed deaths, at the time, put up against the estimated total cases from the article. As far as how useful or accurate the data is I cannot say. I’m no scientist. And in my post I sort of hint that maybe it’s not an accepted or reliable practice right now. So that might be why it’s gained no traction. But if those numbers are even 25%-50% correct it completely drops the floor out of the fatality rate and hospitalization rate on a local level anyways. I’m not taking it as gospel. I’m just tossing it out there. I continue to be mindful of my surroundings and situation. And as a gym owner in the area my sanitation protocol is STRINGENT. But like I said in my original post, if these numbers are even 25% correct it still literally drops the floor out of the fatality and hospital rates. The infectious disease specialist, Howard Nadworny, that they are interviewing in the article is a colleague and close friend of a nursing professor that I personally train. My client has told me that she and him have had some in depth talks over the study and he’s quite an advocate and very confident in the data. For whatever that’s worth 🤷‍♂️.... I would hope my county isn’t paying for a study that’s only 25% accurate. That would be silly right? like i said. I continue to do what I need to do to keep my family, strangers i come in contact with and my 300 gym members safe but I think it should be obvious that the case counts are much higher than we hear and in turn the fatality rate is much less. I also get that there are more risks than just death.
  21. Bro. Are you really giving the definition of snub? Use the context clues and I think you get what I’m saying. also don’t mistake me thinking mahomes got jipped as being the same as thinking Jackson didn’t deserve high praise. Jackson’s season was historic and he deserves any praise he gets. It’s you and maybe like 2 other dudes that wanna die on that hill.
  22. I've stayed away from most covid talks because i feel like it just gets too judgey from either side. But i'm gonna go ahead and post a link to an article about a study done in my own county of Erie, PA. Why this hasnt gotten more hype i dont know. i think maybe because it doesnt support the medias fear based narrative. It could also be that the formulas used arent peer reviewed and its relatively uncharted territory so maybe people just arent confident in the results of the data. Anyways.... This is a sewage study done in one of 400 different cities. The bio company apparently created a formula to estimate active covid cases through testing the sewage before it gets cleansed. I'll preface these staggering numbers by saying that at the date of this article 3 weeks ago there was less than 1000 CONFIRMED cases in Erie county, PA since march and 7 or 8 deaths at the time of this article. With that being said, this article estimates over 30,000 active cases from just mid june to early july. this isnt even accounting for anything before june. If you plug the deaths into those estimates is drops the fatality rate to a staggeringly low %. Like less than .0003.... heck even if their numbers are 75% off it still drops the death rate an extremely low number of .001 I'm not saying this study is any sort of "end all be all", but it blows my mind it hasnt gotten more coverage. if these numbers are even remotely close it would seem to change the views on things quite a bit. I'm just tossing it out there. Do with it what you will. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/erie-county-s-covid-19-sewage-numbers-drop-again/ar-BB16v2dJ [EDIT: I find the potential of monitoring sewage as an "early warning system" for covid-19 spikes to be intriguing. You can find a link to one of the first studies pubished on the technique posted here on May 5: The Achilles heel of trying to translate this back to "number of patients actually infected" is that our data on the viral genome titer in infected people is limited. When it comes to viral genome titer in poop, it's even more limited. The chances are very good that titer varies A LOT depending on a bunch of factors, including how sick the infected person is. So using viral genome titer from sewage to back-calculate number of infections seemed very squishy to me back in May, and it hasn't gotten much less squishy (see what I did there?) in the last 2 months.]
×
×
  • Create New...