The Big Cat

Great. Another abortion thread. These are always so productive. PS--Don't know/care if KD is being sarcastic in his response, but I agree completely.

Find another thread and post your thoughts there. Plenty of options out there.

Attention New York Jets fan base: you should talk some junk to Mario

No no for TANK. Bad = getting cut Worse = getting signed by the Browns

Too bad for him. Things just went from bad to worse.

I don't recall Fitz and Graham getting any reps together in PS. Wonder if that was intentional...

Don't like that bit about "right" fit.

The Offseason grows heavy on my tolerance.

This is a joke, right?

What was Megatronish about that play? When a man--6'5" 240--turns on his burners and leaps in the endzone for a touchdown grab, there's not much any human can really do about it...

You guys, "scary?" No "football awareness?" Aaron Williams got smoked..on one play...by Calvin Johnson. Calvin Johnson is indisputably the best wide receiver in the NFL, he has freakish physical attributes, and we had reserves on the D-Line who were still able to generate pressure and almost get a sack. The throw and catch was a play those two make--at most--4 times out of ten. I'm not saying when it's live football Aaron Williams WILL be just fine, but to make up your mind about the guy based on one play (the first team defense dominated on all but two plays (but those were enough for the Lions to poke one through)) then I guess you're setting yourself up to be pleasantly surprised come the RS.

I simply don't believe the scrubs v scrubs outcome has any...ANY relevance to our depth vs. their depth. We'll never trot out that many non-starters to make the prediction valid.

I'm basing it on how often we saw shotgun spread formations last year, and then again in the preseason, leading me to believe it's one our base formations. Obviously, we can run out of those, and we do, but certainly not at a run-heavy ratio.

C'mon. That's like saying we should never prepare for a hurricane because of the Katrina fallout. Unfair comparison, and you know it. Not to mention, the "war on drugs" was a moving target, it attacked a crime pestilence by going after a symptom, not the cause. We're talking about the exact opposite. Totally agree that it's a step, but I hesitate to agree it's step ONE.

No, but at the very least there could be an awareness campaign that dissuades the state of single-motherhood before it even becomes a problem. Once the deed is done--you're right--they shouldn't be vilified for their plight. That doesn't mean it can't be preempted though.

But you can't deny the problem, or deny the fact that nobody addresses it head on. When was the last time you saw a PSA that warned against the ill effects of single motherhood? How bout a proclamation from an elected official that tells the ladies to be more responsible? Something, anything that comes right out and says: stop having unprotected sex if you don't have the means/desire to raise a kid in a stable, two-parent home? This is a real problem our society faces but it's such a hands-off issue because nobody wants to address the problem by actually identifying it.

I'm sorry, so you think we will or won't pass to setup the run? I said I'd prefer we did, but don't have confidence we will.

Is there evidence to suggest otherwise?

You seem optimistic... As I am (shocking, I know )

I've noted this in several other threads, but nobody seems to acknowledge/respond to it, but I'm using it to formulate the basis for my observations re: the offense in the preseason. Yes, they've looked middling--at best. But, including the detail alluded to above, there are two things that stick out as indicators as to what was going on out there: First: not a single rushing attempt by the first team against WAS. Gailey/Fitz were not calling situational plays, they just called the plays they wanted to work on. One could say: no better way to practice situations than by practicing how you'll respond in real time. But, this is Fitz's third year in Gailey's offense...he gets it, and Gailey knows it. That's why-- Fitz didn't audible out of anything during preseason. He knows his reads, he knows what he should have called, but doing so would reveal how they might disguise plays, the different plays we'll call from the same formation, so and so on. I think this rationale gives some hints as to what it means to not "show anything in the preseason." Which brings me to: Six consecutive incomplete pass attempts to Stevie during the Pittsburgh game. It was clear on some of them Fitz/Stevie were not on the same page. I think it's highly unlikely Fitz would go to the well that many times in a row and come up empty with Stevie during the RS. But, this was also an opportunity to fail/learn when it didn't count. Now they can talk about what did or didn't happen on those plays. I do, however, think the play call was run blah blah blah blah, but make sure you target Stevie and Stevie only. In this sense, they were testing what could happen in a worst-case scenario, we have to get the ball to Stevie type situation. My conclusion: This was Bill Walsh scripting the first 25 plays on steroids, except the plays were called with absolutely no regard for what they should expect the opposing defense to do. Both Pittsburgh and Minnesota got very blitz-happy, yet Fitz stood in, took his licks, didn't call for extra protection, etc. There was clearly on desire to win, to counter-attack the defensive scheme, none of that. Where I do have some concern is whether or not Chan will utilize his backfield to the best of its ability. I want to believe he'll run the ball...a lot, but thus far, I see no indication of that. He seems to want to pass to setup the run, whereas I think we're in a much better position to do the opposite. As far as defense goes: anyone with a set of eyeballs could tell we were giving a 75% effort--at most. If these guys can stay healthy, they're going to be a pack of maulers out there.

Honestly, I don't see how the direction of the country will be noticeably different under Obama OR Romney, that's why I'm not voting for either one of them. RE: Obamacare, I think there were slaps on the wrist that the insurance companies had coming their way (pre-existing conditions comes to mind), but with the mandate, they came out much further in the black--not that health care reform should have been punitive toward the insurance companies, but I truly believe a great deal of their practices had to be reeled in, significantly. I don't think Obamacare does enough, I don't think it addresses any real problems. I get the reputation as an Obama lover around here because I consistently bash the GOP. I take it from your invitation to discuss Obamacare that the assumption was I'm a huge supporter of the policy. That's far from the case.

I agree with just about everything you said except the part about adopters not caring how the baby was made...I think I would want to know if the father of the kid I'm raising was a rapist/into fiddling his daughter. But much of what you highlight makes up the bedrock of their platform...yet you have fundamental issues with it. That seems to be a recurring theme which leads me to believe you and others are third party guys, is that fair?

Ha thanks. Standing offer for you and TheMadCap, too. I sit right down front.

Should you find yourself in Chicago on a game day, I'll be at Lincoln Station. Cold one on me.

It's no secret that PPP predominantly hails from one side of the aisle. The criticism of Democrats and Democratic policies knows no end, but I rarely--if ever--see inward criticism. So I ask you, for the sake of switching things up, what don't you like about the Republican Party? Author's note: I don't really expect anyone to answer this question, and I fully expect the first four responses to be a spiraling litany of "define criticism" and "your supposition is wrong" and "that's not what you said." But, what the hell? Prove me wrong.