GaryPinC

And pudgy in unfiltered videos.

I had Baker as my #1, Darnold, Lamar Jackson, Allen, and Rosen last. I really didn't want Allen because he made some pretty terrible decisions at Wyoming but happily I was wrong. I changed my opinion quickly after the draft with his wonderlic score and discussion to the lengths of our due diligence. Jackson was a huge dark horse prospect because, like Allen, he was very underdeveloped. But at Louisville you could see his strong decision making on the field. I wonder if Jackson's critics ever consider that like Allen, he is still developing to the NFL? Regardless, it shows how important the mental side of the QB is. Both in motivation and decision-making.

I think you have Edmunds spy him. And get D pressure on him. Cam still makes a lot of dumb decisions with the passing game and can be wildly inaccurate at times. If our D-line can put some pressure on him and Edmunds close him down quickly, I think they're beatable. Still their division to lose. They've more than earned that respect. I think it was Collinsworth who had an interesting point about containing Russel Wilson. He noted late in the game that NE started blitzing safeties and DB's and that Wilson can't escape guys that are as athletic as him (as opposed to D-line and LB's). Hopefully a blueprint for us Think about what we did to Lamar Jackson last year. 40 yds rushing and 145 yds passing. You can really see the value McD was going for with Edmunds and Milano. Hope they're back soon.

First, this is about the virus and how it was handled, not about Trump in general. Second, most Americans are aware the MSM enjoys spreading filth about Trump, turning around and spreading right wing filth blindly deifying Trump does not make it ok or make you any more discerning. Third, despite all the bluster on this board there are no significant prosecutions in this supposed coup, just a lot of empty words and promises "Durham, Labor Day". Lastly for now, anyone such as yourself, who seems to seriously believe China planned to unleash Covid 19 upon the world in their own country, to the detriment of their own country, their own country's reputation, and the world economy in which they flourish, should not lecture anyone about their comprehension of a situation. That is as twisted and nonsensical a take on a situation as exists in this world.

Both sides made things political Captain one-eye.

I'm not a leadership expert, but if you accept that Trump knew the virus was going to be bad in late February what could he have done differently? Plenty. Absolutely he did great cutting flights from China and Europe. Plenty of stupid people criticized him at the time and now those same people are crying he should have done it earlier. Whatever, he deserves full marks for stepping up here. What could he have done differently? One easy catch-all answer: SET A BETTER TONE FROM THE TOP. Try to avoid panic? Yep, good job and understandable. Get the nation at large to take the pandemic seriously? Total fail. Wear a mask. There's unrefutable reasons surgeons wear masks. Those apply here. Most importantly, masks protect others and instead of us pulling together as a society for something so simple, it got politicized and pulled us apart. What role did Trump play in this? Yuuuge. Get the message out alongside democrats that this virus is real and to set politics aside, be a good American and pull together for each other despite personal opinions. Force businesses to implement distancing measures before the shutdown, especially senior care facilities. Very few were willing to do it unless forced. Instead, we had to shut them all down. Getting the economy going? No one discusses this much, but even with businesses open, there's a large percent of the population that won't take a chance going to them because of all the people that don't take Covid seriously. This post's long enough, there's much more but Trump's tactic of being optimistic while refusing to advocate a cautious, nonpolitical tone has made this entire bad situation worse, medically, socially, and economically.

Very true, one can point to all the excuses you want but let's be real. Quarterback is the most difficult and coveted position in the league. You look at guys like Peterman, Cardale Jones, EJ being able to stick around. AZ turned around and drafted another QB to dump Rosen instead of trading down for a wealth of draft picks. Here's Flores' quote "Miami head coach Brian Flores called Rosen "immensely talented" and praised his work ethic, but noted that not every trade or draft pick pans out as expected." My translation:. Rosen can't handle the mental component of NFL QB. By a lot. I respect Flores as a coach and I find it difficult to believe Rosen gets dumped twice if either franchise felt there was anything worth developing in him.

Her pictures in that article are from 2010. Here's one from 2016. Enjoy! https://www.thebatavian.com/billie-owens/corona-will-likely-lose-her-freedom-in-mid-july-after-violating-terms-of-probation

My only complaint is she needs to be less neat about it and spill some on her top.

@HaplessBillsFan "Ok, this one has me scratching my head. CDC travel guidelines have changed. They have dropped the recommendation to quarantine for 14 days when you return from travel: You may have been exposed to COVID-19 on your travels. You may feel well and not have any symptoms, but you can be contagious without symptoms and spread the virus to others. You and your travel companions (including children) pose a risk to your family, friends, and community for 14 days after you were exposed to the virus. Regardless of where you traveled or what you did during your trip, take these actions to protect others from getting sick after you return: Given this, and the fact that the CDC notes returning travelers pose a risk to those close to them for 14 days, the focus on "outside the home" and "other people who are not from your household" while removing the advice to quarantine, is puzzling to understand. The revision is from last week and has received relatively little press coverage. I could not find any interviews giving a scientific rationale for the change. Gentle reminder that if you're moved to discuss or expostulate, please copy the link to this post and discuss in discussion thread." I can't say exactly why, but I do know here in Ohio from someone who contracted Covid the DOH told her she could be spreading asymptomatically up to 48 hours before her first symptoms appeared and focused only on that time frame. It was interesting to me because they seemed to assume if you contract you will show symptoms up to 48 hours later. I've never seen any science behind this, so feel free to correct me, but if this is accepted practice it could partly explain why CDC is dropping the 14 day quarantine.

I have to disagree with you. I believe Harbaugh hurts Michigan more. They certainly are not among the elite for a good number of years since Carr. Carr's overall record was ok, but they had a knack for beating the SEC (7-2 in bowl games). Harbaugh was supposed to return UM to that level. He's failing miserably and I have a hard time blaming the university. I don't follow college ball too closely anymore, but it always seems he's having issues with the level of play of his QB's, defense, etc mid-season. There's articles like this (admittedly a bit dated) https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2016/01/26/michigan-football-recruiting-jim-harbaugh/79352270/ All those crazy recruiting tactics end up looking pretty disingenuous when you're willing to turn around and cut good numbers of verbal commits Otherwise, I sat down to watch last year's OSU-MI game and Harbaugh showed me one of the most poorly coached team efforts I had ever seen. MI was disciplined enough, but base defenses, bland offense and zero adjustments to what OSU was doing. Not impressed with him as a coach these days. And Michigan's kind of stuck with him.

Well, if you really want to know why you feel you are in control of your alcohol while your friends are not, why not first ask your family if they feel your alcohol consumption is a problem? If the people who love you and know you best feel you're in control then you have your answer.

Holy hell. Others have been trying to tell you but you keep ignoring. HE DID NOT HAVE A BEER CAN BETWEEN HIS LEGS. It was in the side door and used for his dip spit. Easily proven by pouring it out. Whether the cops did the right thing or not I won't comment on as it's their judgement, but blowing a 0.00 and NOT having an open beer would change my perception.

Sure. You are making a big deal about 1. God -------------------> 2. People and I am just trying to help you understand that's really not how it works for most of us who are religious, I feel it is a misconception on your part. You generally seem open minded and have been respectful and that is always worth a shot to increase understanding.

Actually people are, but by a very small amount, not the wide margin you imagine. A big part of your relationship with God is how you express it through your love of people. He's also mentioned he's started to see things in a new light with all the conversations he's had and perhaps he'd like to do more listening and gathering of information instead of opinionating. What's wrong with that?

This is what he was quoted as saying: "There’s a lot of things going on and the last thing I want to do is get political in any sort of way, but I think the world would be a better place if we can love God first and then love people." So he immediately says that he's not really going to answer the question and simply says for him love God first and then people. For Christians of faith this is how it's taught to be, it doesn't mean he's saying "well God is more important than people anyway". Also, one of the biggest lessons of Christ was to love all people equally. I think it's his way of pointing back to that. As far as him deflecting, why shouldn't he? His texts were not a good look and now a certain subset of people will find bad in whatever he says. It's already happening on this thread, including yourself. At this point he needs to prove who he is through his actions and that takes time.

A good chance it's part of why he came here to practice before making the final decision. It's a given McDermott is going to have a strict system set up. Tre can take it all in and use what he's seen as part of the discussion. I certainly understand if he opts out but am hoping not. Also think with others he's hoping for that "23%" lol. So true.

I don't think so. Yes, they are only part of the solution but an important part. As I said I didn't disagree with what you are saying except for the laughable part. For me, it's ok for people to latch onto them as a solution, infinitely better than pretending it's all a democrat/left wing conspiracy.

No, you failed to understand what I was saying. I was saying from this description it sounds like Bundgaard's study focused on if masks self-protect. That is one facet of mask wearing, a more important one is that it protects others. If he finds a face shield is better self-protection it doesn't invalidate the utility of masks to protect others. If his study finds masks don't significantly self-protect, we should be careful not to condemn masks unless he also shows it doesn't protect others. But I absolutely mentioned he feels like people would eschew other self protection and over-rely on masks. That gibberish means us scientists go beyond variables and how data is collected. It deals more with scope and shortcomings of the entire study. I have tried to replicate data following exact methods in peer reviewed journals and come up short. Sometimes it's a problem on my end and sometimes it's a problem with their study. I was asking because there are many who looked at the data and did just that. Glad it wasn't you, but it happens all the time. You have a good point and so do they. Certainly once your baseline went down it's fairly routine epidemiological methods Shoshin was talking about. My apologies for misunderstanding your end of it. Haha. Nutty left wing extremists, nutty right wing extremists and me somewhere in the middle. I voted Trump too. Left wing snowflakes need their safe spaces, right wing snowflakes need their conspiracy spaces. Listen to 'em both howl and moan! No conclusive data evidence? So sometimes you're all about the hard data when it suits you and sometimes you're not? Certainly acquired immunity will help slow the spread. The problem is we haven't figured out the nature of the acquired immunity, what percent of post-infected have it and for how long? I don't know if you're familiar with R0. If not, here's a link that does a decent job without getting lost in the weeds. https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/rounds/how-scientists-quantify-intensity-of-an-outbreak-like-covid-19 There are a lot of factors to get our R0 under 1 and keep it there. Certainly the draconian Asians are the most effective. In the absence of that, masks, social distancing, hand washing, etc. take on extra importance with a novel virus like Covid. I don't argue with you that mask wearing is overstated at times. But to avoid lockdowns we need to take their use and the other measures seriously. Not wait until a family member or friend has their lungs damaged or even dies. It rubs me the wrong way that people overblow having to wear masks so much when it's so simple and helpful an act. Sorry if you got caught in the blow-by.

Yep, I definitely agree with you about the evidence of no resurgence so far. To answer the likelihood of the virus returning in March form, two things are important, was what NYC went through because lax preparation allowed undetected superspreading or was it an isoform of the virus that drove the R0 to become very high? Not sure we have enough captured data to determine that. You can argue either way on it, you can look at Michigan's journey (similar to NYC) vs Ohio or look at California and the south.

Thanks for the explanation, I'll have to dig deeper into that one. But again, acquired immunity is still a big unknown here and we're conducting so many infection tests not sure when we'll get good numbers on immunity. The virus is not gone from NYC. Rest assured of that. It could be eradicated but it requires an Asian persistence which we don't put up with sacrificing that many of our rights in this country. Also, one other big factor is your infection rate outdoors vs indoors. Certainly experts don't think it's that different but I respectfully disagree with them.

LOL, forgive my midwestern ignorance but what is the Hasids of Williamsburg? The rest? And these are only educated guesses. Incidence in NY is very low right now. If, loose behavior is as rampant as you describe, then the virus will come back up. As I said, we still don't know enough about long term immunity from this virus so it's certainly very possible that is tamping it down right now. Will it be long lasting? Maybe NYC will teach us then. BTW, I was up at Chautauqua 2 weeks ago. NY still has a lot of restrictions that help. This is a novel virus. It is highly infectious. Yes, the numbers tell us only a small percent of the population will have problems with it. But I don't want to have those kinds of problems nor to I want to be careless and inflict them on someone else. I go out to eat at bar/restaurants that are operating responsibly and am out doing my part to support responsible businesses.

You're certainly right about most everything except the laughable part. You keep at the efforts to control it until you get control then really need to use contact tracing to keep it under control. But even then people need to take the prevention steps. The baseline can come down, isolation and these other measures help that.

Look, I get your point, but there's going to be outbreaks in New York also, nearly everywhere unless we get, as Magox says, draconian about it. Certainly previous exposure (innate immunity) will play an as-yet-unquantified role but it's up to everyone to do their best to follow guidelines to limit the outbreak. You're comparing Sydney to Melbourne today? It could completely flip in a week, who knows?

Really? And why is that? If you actually dig into their rationale, it usually revolves around the fact that experts prefer people concentrate on hand-washing, social distancing, and self-isolation (like Bundgaard) or that many looked at the tiny size of the viral particle but failed to consider it would be spread on water droplets. Already, Bundgaard advocating for face shields means his study may have focused on if masks self-protect. I don't know, but when it comes out this needs to be evaluated so we can appreciate the full picture on the role of masks. There is ample proof masks help protect others when you are infected and with an asymptomatically contagious virus, that becomes critical. It is doubtful simple masks offer much self-protection and some experts worry people will falsely rely on it and won't be diligent in self protection. Your mask wearing helps protect others. "the virus is going to do what a virus does" Sure, except that we are trying to dilute what the virus is doing. Go look at data for S. Korea, China, Japan to see how it did over there. You're on here crowing about how you follow the data. In science, in an emerging area, you can't just follow the data blindly. Data is collected from studies, and studies have limitations and biases. Many different studies and forms of data from different investigators must be collected before drawing conclusions and even then we must be careful to reconsider if needed. Things look different now than they did at the beginning of March and will look different next year. You follow the data? Were you one of those proclaiming this thing wasn't as bad as the flu back in early March, ignoring the problem of comparing an emerging virus to an endemic one? Were you one of those in late June/early July proclaiming the outbreaks in Florida, Texas, Arizona were simply due to increased testing because deaths hadn't risen yet? Even though recent history shows deaths trails incidence of new cases by 1-2 weeks. Because there were plenty of those people even if you were not among them. You say you predicted this virus would have outbreaks again? Big deal, the controlling factor is how bad will it be, and our efforts to control the spread can have some say over that. I also predicted the re-emergence in Ohio. Why? Our hospitalizations never bottomed out enough before reopening, too many people were convinced it would go away with the warm weather and the nutty right wing extremists and younger crowd were going to try and return life to normal and ignore protective measures. Not difficult to predict. And guess what? There is no evidence "herd immunity" will extinguish the virus (recent international outbreaks point otherwise) or bring it under enough control until we get a vaccine. Anyone who truly cares about getting the economy going and returning a semblance of normal should realize masks, distancing, etc are critical to that until either endemic outbreaks remain small enough or a vaccine is proven and in the population. People want to feel safe when they go out to spend money, unfortunately we have to rely on each other for that and in the USA we seem to be terrible at making small everyday changes for the good of others.