JohnC

Excellent post. I don't see where there was an intent to injure. As you noted it was a case of exercising poor judgment more than a criminal act. The questionable conduct by the police could have been handled within the structure of the police disciplinary system. And although the initial report was inaccurate there was a quick organizational response by the department. The department can't be accused of not quickly taking action to address this situation. In my opinion placing this incident within the criminal system is the worst of both worlds from a police and civilian standpoint. It antagonizes the police membership who believe that the behavior in question is wrongly considered a criminal act. Even the police who don't agree with the response don't necessarily believe that it rises to a criminal act because it puts them in greater peril if they should happen to make a bad decision in carrying out their responsibilities. And to make things worse the criminalization of this situation doesn't more quickly resolve the situation but extends the lifespan of this issue. In addition, what happens if the police are acquitted of the charges? And there is a good chance that will be the outcome. Then a large segment of the population is made to be even more angry with the outcome. How does that help the police/community relationship? Most people would agree at the minimum the police didn't respond in a proper and professional manner. But in my view another egregious misjudgment is made by the prosecuting office for not putting this incident in a more proper setting of the police disciplinary system. A manageable issue became a bigger and more inflammatory issue because there was a rush to judgment due to the political imperative to do something.

The officers are on a police force. It's not a social club where you can walk out on your duties. If they want to in unison resign from the response team they probably can do so. That doesn't mean that their resigning from that detail is going to be immediately accepted. If their officials determine that they are needed for this specific assignment to the response team they will have to accept that assignment. If they refuse to comply with their assignment (order) they could be fired (with due process) for insubordination.

Darren Dreger was on WGR's the Instigator Show. He commented that Nashville was considering making changes to shake up the lineup. One player he brought up who could be available is Ryan Johansen. So I am proposing a trade: Risto for Johansen. Is this a fair exchange or would we have to add more to the deal? Johansen is soon to be 28 yrs. old.

There is no doubt that the elderly were the most vulnerable, especially those housed in elderly facilities. It should be noted that the elderly weren't forced into those domiciles. That was where they resided before the pandemic spread. No one disagrees with something that is so obvious. WHO treatment protocols and individual national protocols have changed as more knowledge and data have accrued. That shouldn't be surprising. The medical field is adapting and changing as more information comes in as to what works and doesn't.

I'm candid enough not to exaggerate my medical expertise. But by almost all accounts of those in the field who are involved in this field of medicine decisively say that infected people without symptoms can transmit the virus. That is what makes this virus especially pernicious. As a layman I am comfortable without any equivocation in holding to this position. It's not about the politics; it's about the science and data.

As you and others have frequently pointed out if you follow the science and data and appropriately respond the results will be good. NYC didn't get to this point because they lucked into it. They took the necesarry measures, painful as they were, to get this point. If the state and city would have relied on wishful thinking and magical solutions instead of following the standard public health strategy to deal with this scourge the results would have been even more devastating. As you well know this killer virus is far from being defeated.

I apologize for not properly comprehending your response.

I appreciate your response. I'm out of my depth when discussing the best medical practice in fighting this virus which from all reports is more contagious than the standard yearly flu. My sense is that you are not only under estimating the widespread worldwide infection rate but alo are exaggerating the effectiveness of certain drugs. Again, I appreciate your response but I am very much skeptical of it.

I don't agree with you that the response by the officer/s was proper. As NYC Bill indicated this older fellow could have mental health issues or simply be befuddled. The right response would have been either to arrest him or with less force push him back or be guided out of the way. The officer who forcibly pushed him used poor judgment. All he had to do is look at who was confronting him and make a better judgment in calibrating his response. It was an older man who although wasn't following orders was no threat to the officer pushing him. He could have been handled in a more professional and common sense manner. Prior to demonstrations instructions are often given to the unit as to who is going to do what such as the designated arresting teams or even first aid personnel. This non-threatening individual could have been passed off to someone who would have arrested him thus allowing the police line to remain in tact and move forward as a unit. Another problem I had with the incident is that I didn't like the delay or confusion of the officers in responding to the individual's medical situation. In my opinion the biggest mistake was the excessive hard push against an older man who wasn't much of a threat. That was the triggering act. Yes, the individual wasn't obeying the commands to move back but he didn't appear to being acting with any malice. It's fortunate that he didn't die from falling and hitting his head on the concrete. I don't believe the officer intended to hurt this fellow but in my opinion he used poor judgment that could have ended up being a catastrophe.

It's hot and humid in south and central America. It is spreading there. This administration is very determined to get on the road and rally the tribe. And with the understandable desire for people to not be cooped up and be outside and mingl I worry that this virus is going to be more pervasive that it needed to be.

The mother conflict is a little more complicated than you are making it out to be. Note attached link. One version of the conflict is that he didn't want her to be his agent and represent her. And included in that story is that she had a history of financial shenanigans/deceit. As I'm sure you are well aware that family dynamics can be very complicated and difficult for outsiders to fully comprehend. I strenuously disagree with the beliefs of Focus on Family which he subscribes to, especially the anti-gay fixation. But there are a lot of people who base their beliefs using religion as the basis of their beliefs. They are entitled to their beliefs. Just because I don't subscribe to their restrictive views doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to have them. As far as his view on the anthem issue it is a stand that many people have. He took a stand on an issue that he narrowly framed within a military context without the wider context. And as others have said he demonstrated a tin ear in not carefully expressing himself on this topic in this volatile environment after a public murder. My worry is that in this social media reflexive response and manufactured outrage twitter world the pendulum can swing to a damaging point of stifling discourse and not allowing unpopular opinions from being expressed. It's not unusual that an opinion that is currently derided by the majority can in the future become a prevailing view. https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/death-of-drew-brees-mother-ruled-a-suicide-112109

It is going to be interesting to follow if the demonstrations in the various locations result in a spike of cases. Crowds were tightly packed and to a significant extent were unmasked. The cause is worthy but the aftereffects of being in the crowd could have major health ramifications. I hope I'm wrong.

Are teams allowed to use the schools facilities to work out?

There have been many coaches from Belichick's staff who have been hired to be a HC with mediocre results. Flores, a less than prominent coach on his staff who wasn't even a coordinator, was surprisingly hired by the Dolphins. He took over a team in which the organization he joined wasn't even subtle in publicizing their intention to tank for the purpose of being in a position to draft one of the top qbs in the class. What really impressed me about his job last year is that there were games in which his overmatched team was steamrolled. Usually the next game they came back with a maximum effort, and sometimes won. At the end of the season his team was a tough team to play. I was really impressed by him.

I consider McDermott's first year of coaching the Bills as one of the best coaching job in the history of the franchise. He got a stripped down and rebuilding team playing to its maximum potential. Getting that team into the playoffs was beyond anyone's expectation. Last year I thought that Miami's coach, Flores, did an equally terrific job in coaching a team that deliberately was tanking for one of the top qbs in the draft to consistently play hard, although clearly outgunned, throughout the season. They finished the season playing well and winning more games than expected and to be honest desired by the organization. The Dolphins, like the Bills before the installation of the McBean regime, finally have a plan and seem to be executing it instead of taking a year to year ad hoc approach. This is a good situation for Tua to be part of.

There are so many unknowns and uncontrollable events that it is difficult to predict what will happen not only in the games but to the sport. What happens if a few players or staffers prior to a game test positive? Do you subject the team to a quarantine? What happens if the opposition, home or way, have players or staff members who test positive? Do you still play them knowing that there is a lag time between exposure and detection? This sport is different from the MMA where there are few people involved in the contest. Even with the lesser number of people involved in the contest it was a complicated and tricky endeavor to put on. The football enterprise encompasses such a large number of people making it so much more difficult to execute not only the games but the logistics. Without a doubt Coach Saban is one of the most prepared coaches in the game and will be meticulous in dealing with the innumerable unpredictable issues he and the program will be confronted with. Saban is not an easy man to deal with but he is certainly a good man who will look out for the best interest of his players. Getting back to your question as to who has the best advantage? I don't know.

Gronk is going to be a near unanimous selection to the HOF when he is eligible. Compared to what he got paid with the Pats he could have gotten more if he played for another team. And the same argument applies to Brady who is arguably the GOAT qb in the modern era. As I said before New England runs a different operation compared to other teams.

I have said it upfront that there are exceptions to the rule. And without question the wide out is usually the most valuable receiver in an offense. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that a TE can be the most valuable receiver (regardless of stats) in certain outlier situations. I cited Gronk as an example of that point.

You missed the point of my post. The ranking of a position and the commensurate pay scale can change. If a hybrid TE (mostly receiver) is a bigger factor in a team's offense than the wideouts then it shouldn't be surprising that the hybrid TE get paid more. Just because it is currently so doesn't mean that it won't be so. And neither was Tom Brady! The GOAT qb of the modern era of the NFL. New England is a unique situation.

When Gronk was in his prime I would say that he was the most impactful receiver in the New England offense. And it wasn't necessarily predicated on his stats. I agree with you that usually the wideouts are more important receivers but there are exceptions to that rule.

For some teams the TE is a prominent offensive weapon and on other teams it is less so. A good example of that would be the Ravens. If in the example you cited with Gilmore covering the hybrid TE even if the result would be less receptions for the particular player it would loosen up the coverage for the wide receivers. In this example stats would not necessarily reflect the impact of the player and how it positively affects the production of the offense.

You can have whatever view you want to have about the team and its prospects. The players under Krueger played with more structure and did so more consistently. No question there is not enough talent disbursed throughout the roster. That is obvious for all to see. But understanding the limitations of the roster doesn't mean that that this team is barren of talent. The GM is in the last year of his contract. If he doesn't adequately address the shortages and imbalances of the roster he will not be back. It's my belief that with the internal improvement of the young players and with some judicious acquisitions this team will be improved enough to be a solid team. If you don't believe that more optimistic view (I consider realistic) that is fine. You follow your path and I will follow my path. I'm very comfortable with my stance even if it goes against the local mainstream.

I agree that a team would first have to play a hybrid TE the top shelf money for the model to be altered. But the position value changes all the time. Many teams believe that running backs shouldn't qualify for premier money because they are interchangeable and have a short shelf life. However, some teams don't follow that conventional model. The Giants selected Saquan Barkley with a top of the draft pick and made him the centerpiece of their offense. The Cowboys didn't follow the same positional value when they drafted Ezekiel Elliot. And the Rams took the same approach when they drafted Gurley (now traded to Atlanta). Each of these players ended up or will end up with contracts that didn't follow the conventional more modest model for backs. There are teams that place a high value on safeties and how different philosophies on how they will be used. And unsurprisingly there is a wide variance with the salaries. Again, the point that I am making is that the precedents for salary scales for positions are constantly changing. And it shouldn't be surprising that for certain teams that get a maximum output from the hybrid TE position will pay the player with a commensurate salary according to one's value.

You are right that Graham lost an arbitration case that ruled that he was a TE governed by the parameters of a TE payment scale. But that ruling doesn't necessarily carry over forever. What happens when another hybrid receiving TE who doesn't go through arbitration gets paid at a high receiver level? Then the previous hybrid TE model is altered. Not long ago premier guards pay structure increased. It appears now that they have gone down. My point is that the salary scale for a position is not static but instead very fluid.

The difference between success and failure isn't always wide. A less than large deficiency over the course of a season can't be hidden. Usually it results in a lack of success. That doesn't mean that the deficiencies can't be addressed. I believe that this offseason there will be subtractions and additions made to the roster that will address some of those deficiencies. I'm confident that my more optimistic outlook will soon prevail.