-
Search Results
-
Rams trade is risky, understandable
Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/28525/rams-trade-is-risky-but-understandable
The NFL draft is almost here and the Los Angeles Rams are already making a splash after moving up to the No. 1 overall pick. We’re less than two weeks away from the draft, which means you have plenty of questions on the topic.
As always, you can find me on Twitter @nwagoner and fire away with any Rams-related questions you might have. Please use hashtag #RamsMail so I can see them.
On to your questions.
James Armstrong @jamessarmstrong
Q: what do you think of the big trade? Who will it be? Will they be patient & not start him?@nwagoner: My initial reaction was like something out of an old bit that Chris Rock used to do. I’m paraphrasing, but something to the effect of “I don’t think I would have done it … but I understand.” I spoke with our draft analyst Todd McShay on Thursday evening, and he had a similar sentiment. Look, the Rams need a quarterback and have needed one for a few years now. They probably should have addressed it sooner, especially when they still had extra picks from the Washington trade. In fairness, they still believed in Sam Bradford at that time and injury issues were out of their control. Still, I’ve been critical of them in the past for not more strongly addressing their need at the position, so I’m not going to be a hypocrite about it and say that this was a dumb trade or they gave up too much or whatever. Did they give up a lot to make it happen? Unquestionably. Are Carson Wentz and Jared Goff elite prospects like an Andrew Luck or Jameis Winston? Probably not. But we don’t know how they will fare when they get to the league, and people I trust in the scouting community have really good things to say about both of them, especially Wentz. So as is always the case with deals like this, let’s wait and see how it pans out. If the Rams end up with a true franchise quarterback from the trade, it’s absolutely worth the price. If they don’t, it wasn’t. This isn’t rocket science. As for who it will be, they’re doing a good job of putting out conflicting information to keep everyone guessing — almost as good a job as they did of keeping this trade plan a secret. I tend to think Wentz is the better fit and the more likely choice, but others say the same thing about Goff. Perhaps we’ll get some more clarity as the draft gets closer. On the patience front, it wouldn’t shock me if Case Keenum entered training camp as the starter, but we could see something similar to what happened with Matt Ryan in Atlanta. The Falcons intended to use Chris Redman as a bridge to Ryan and he was the starter until the third preseason game when Ryan took the job. I could see something similar playing out here. (By the way, Rams GM Les Snead was with the Falcons when this happened).
Victor Aldaco @VAS039
Q: Do u see the Rams packaging Foles to move up or recoup picks? Which teams might be interested? Or do they release him?@nwagoner: As I’ve written multiple times this offseason, I think Nick Foles is the most likely to go if the Rams add a quarterback. Obviously, they are now going to add a quarterback, which means Foles’ future with the team is uncertain. The Rams still have Keenum and Sean Mannion, and it seems they probably won’t want to give up on Mannion while Keenum would be a better (and cheaper) option as a backup and/or possible bridge quarterback to the rookie. The issue here is the Rams probably would have liked to trade Foles already by now, but there simply isn’t much of a market for him. Perhaps that could change as we get to the draft, but if the Rams do manage to get something for him, I wouldn’t expect it to be much.
http://www.thehuddlereport.com
RamBill
Huddle Report Loves Lynch
Note– The Huddle Report is no longer a pay site.
I suggest you check it out. There’s a lot of good info there. They have the Mock Draft Scores and Top 100 Scores. Their talent evaluator (Drew Boylhart) often goes against the grain with his evaluations….makes you think.
======
Paxton Lynch QB Memphis
STRENGTHS
Paxton is a bigger version of Aaron Rodgers. He has excellent arm talent to make all the throws. He stands in the pocket and throws under duress with accuracy. He can throw with accuracy on touch throws and on the run, making him the type of quarterback for the next level that has the athletic and arm talent to become a franchise quarterback. Paxton has a very strong arm and can throw the ball down the field with velocity and power that will cut through a defense like a lance slicing through the enemy on the field of battle. He has those long strides when he starts to move down the field covering a lot of ground quickly. What makes Paxton remind me so much of Aaron Rodgers is his agility and athletic talent to slide in the pocket, extend plays and throw with accuracy from any release point. Along with this athletic talent and excellent arm talent, Paxton shows in his play on the field to have excellent leadership skills and the ability to deal with pressure on the field, but also stay humble with confidence and deal with the pressure off the field. If you’re a team that needs a potential franchise quarterback, I suggest you don’t pass on selecting Paxton in this draft. He has the potential to re-write some of the passing records in the NFL.CONCERNS
Although Paxton is ahead of the curve with his athletic talent and arm strength, he will struggle to not turn the ball over at the next level until he gets used to the speed of the defenses he will be up against. Others will suggest that the competition level is also a concern, but really Paxton just has to keep his head on straight and keep improving in reading defenses and getting use to the speed of the defenses at the next level.TALENT BOARD: ROUND 1
If you need a quarterback, I suggest you trade your mother, wife and your dog to move up in this draft to select Paxton. Remember, your dog will find its way back to you anyway so that’s a no brainer. Like I said, Paxton has Aaron Rodgers-type talent to throw the ball from any release point with accuracy on the run or standing in the pocket. He has the size that makes it very difficult to sack him with just one player and the agility to slide in the pocket or leave the pocket to extend the play. He has those quick feet to go along with long strides to cover a lot of ground quickly if he needs to run for the first down. Yes, he will have some growing pains, but the fans will see the potential the first play he runs after he is selected and they will wait patiently for Paxton to improve. Paxton can play under center or in the shot gun. He is smart and although the defenses he has been up against in college are not as difficult to read as the ones at the NFL level, he will learn quickly. Paxton is a franchise quarterback waiting to happen so don’t be dumb and not select him or that “happening” will be “happening” for some other team. In any draft all you can do is select players with the information you have in front of you at that time. My information says that selecting Paxton Lynch is obvious.Drew Boylhart JAN.2016
Sarah Knapton, science editor
4 APRIL 2016 • 5:25PM
Stem cells can repair a damaged heart and potentially halve the number of people dying from heart failure, scientists have shown, in a major breakthrough for regenerative medicine.For more than a decade scientists have been convinced that stem cells were the future of organ repair because they can become any cell in the body, reversing damage which was thought to be permanent. Finding new ways to treat organ failure is critical because there is a growing shortage of donor organs in the UK.
Now, in the largest trial ever conducted, doctors in the US have proven that even the most serious cases of heart failure can be repaired using stem cells harvested from a patient’s own bone marrow.
End-stage patients, whose only hope was a heart transplant, were treated with stem cells in a single operation. Doctors found the group were 37 per cent less likely to have been admitted to hospital in the 12 months following the operation and half as likely to have died than those on placebo.
The procedure takes just two hours and most patients were discharged a day after surgery.
“For the last 15 years everyone has been talking about cell therapy and what it can do. These results suggest that it really works,” says lead author and cardiac surgeon Dr Amit Pate, director of Cardiovascular Regenerative Medicine at the University of Utah.
“This is the first trial of cell therapy showing that it can have a meaningful impact on the lives of patients with heart failure.”
3-dimensional electrochemical mapping was used to find damaged areas CREDIT: MATTHEW BROBECK /MATTHEW BROBECK
Heart failure occurs when the heart can no longer pump enough oxygenated blood around the body at the correct pressure, usually because the muscle has become too weak or stiff to work properly.In the short term it leads to breathlessness, fatigue and swollen ankles but in the long run the major organs will shut down without enough oxygen, eventually leading to death.
Around 900,000 people in the UK have been diagnosed with the condition and up to 40 per cent die within a year.
Drugs to help keep the blood vessels open and lower blood pressure are often prescribed to help manage the condition, but for many patients a heart transplant is the only option. Many die waiting for an organ to become available.
But the researchers say stem cell therapy could one day offer an alternative to a transplant.
The trials involved 126 patients from 31 hospitals across the US. Each was assigned stem cell therapy or placebo and the doctors did not know which they would be getting.
A small amount of bone marrow was drawn from each patients from which two types of stem cell were extracted, and their number increased in the lab.
After scanning the patient’s heart to see where the damage was greatest, the stem cells were then delivered to those areas using a catheter.
The group were then followed for 12 months with doctors monitoring deaths, hospitilsations and unplanned clinic visits. During that period eight patients died who had been given a placebo, compared with four who were on the stem cell treatment.
82 per cent of patients who did not have the therapy needed hospital treatment during that time, compared with 51 per cent of the stem cell patients.
Although the study found there was only very small improvements in overall heart function including performance in an exercise tolerance test, scientists think a larger sample size may show larger benefits and are hoping to move to phase 3 trials with a greater number of patients.
Professor Jeremy Pearson, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation, said:“There are over half a million people in the UK, and millions around the world living with debilitating heart failure.
“Treatments are limited and the only ‘cure’ is a heart transplant. Regenerative treatments that repair the damage caused by a heart attack, which often leads to heart failure, are urgently needed.
“Over the last decade there has been a series of trials involving injecting a patient’s own bone marrow-derived cells to help repair the failing heart. Most studies have been small and overall shown the procedure is safe but the clinical benefit, if any, has been marginal.
“Bone marrow stem cell therapy appears to be safe but using it to improve heart function and the quality of life for patients depends on further research.”
The results of the trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology annual meeting and published in The Lancet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/04/stem-cell-therapy-halves-deaths-from-heart-failure/
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
Rams turn to draft, coaching staff in hopes of improvement
Nick Wagoner
To this point in the offseason, the Los Angeles Rams haven’t been very active in free agency, adding only a pair of outside free agents intended to provide depth on defense.
From the outside, the Rams’ lack of activity or apparent effort to improve the roster, especially on offense, has undoubtedly left many of their faithful frustrated. After all, it’s one thing to bring back most of the same roster from a playoff team. It’s another to keep most of the pieces in place from a 7-9 squad that hasn’t had a winning season since 2003.
General manager Les Snead understands that perspective, but also believes that sticking to the team’s draft-and-develop — emphasis on develop — ethos will pay off sooner rather than later.
“It’s definitely a fair criticism, but I think we’re at the stage where if we want to tip — and by tip I mean let’s stop being 7-9, 8-8 and let’s go above .500 and make a run for the playoffs — a lot of times it’s not just adding a new player,” Snead said. “A lot of times it’s going to be the core players that are in your building now that has helped you get to the cusp them taking a step, evolving, getting better, taking the team by the horns, making it their team. Some of that chemistry stuff that it’s not just a video game where you just go out and bring in new blood.
Rams general manager Les Snead isn’t deviating from the draft-and-develop philosophy.
“That does help, but I think we need some guys that are on our team now, that are the core of the Rams moving forward to take that next step and it’s up to them.”It’s a leap of faith that to this point hasn’t paid off for the Rams. After rebuilding one of the league’s worst rosters in the first two years under Snead and coach Jeff Fisher, the Rams have espoused preseason hopes that their cubs will turn into lions, to paraphrase one of Snead’s previous analogies. Some of those players have grown into team leaders, especially on defense, but the end result has remained the same.
So, how can the Rams, without making major roster additions in the offseason, expect to get over the hump? The answer first lies in the upcoming NFL draft and is complemented by putting the onus on a coaching staff that features a lot of new parts on the offensive side.
Looking at the Rams’ big picture, there’s understandable optimism that the defense can continue to produce under coordinator Gregg Williams, even after losing starters such as cornerback Janoris Jenkins, safety Rodney McLeod, linebacker James Laurinaitis and defensive end Chris Long. They did manage to keep linebacker Mark Barron, ends William Hayes and Eugene Sims and cornerback Trumaine Johnson, and added defensive end Quinton Coples and cornerback Coty Sensabaugh.
Keeping those players was clearly the priority over spending big money on an underwhelming crop of offensive free agents.
“Yeah our focus was to, as we got into it, our focus specifically was to address the defense because we had the potential to lose quite a few players,” Fisher said. “So to think that we kept Mark and Eugene and William, that’s good stuff from our standpoint that we hang on to them because there was considerable interest out there. And then to be able to lock Tru up, hopefully, in the near future for long time is beneficial.”
Still, it’s on offense where the Rams must improve to something closer to the league average.
2016 NFL DRAFT
NFL DraftRound 1: April 28, 8 p.m. ET
Rds. 2-3: April 29, 7 p.m. ET
Rds. 4-7: April 30, noon ET
Where: Auditorium Theatre, ChicagoIn free agency, the Rams kept center Tim Barnes, receiver Brian Quick and tight end Cory Harkey. Otherwise, they have stayed out of the fray besides quick looks at tight end Zach Miller and receiver Rueben Randle.
“It’s a combination,” Fisher said. “We did re-sign our starting center. It starts there. I think there’s still players out there, No. 1, and we’ll turn to the draft No. 2. I said this for a long time and we accomplished it last year, we always wanted to draft four or five offensive linemen in the same draft and we did that. They all got to play and all developed, so now a need becomes a strength for us. Obviously, having drafted Todd [Gurley] and Tavon [Austin], and potential tweaks on offense, we’re going to be productive.”
If that sounds like a familiar refrain, it’s because it is. The Rams do have three of the top 45 picks in April’s draft, which could offer some reinforcements at quarterback, receiver and/or tight end. However, this year’s draft doesn’t appear flush with instant-impact players at those positions and the players who come closest to qualifying might be out of the Rams’ reach, barring a trade.
Even if the Rams turn to the draft to add offensive help, that means more youth that needs to develop. To that end, Fisher brought in Skip Peete (running backs) and Mike Groh (wide receiver/passing game coordinator) and promoted Rob Boras to coordinator. Fair or not, that group will be expected to make a difference in their first seasons.
“We’ve got a new offensive staff; those guys have been grinding,” Snead said. “You can tell they’ve bonded. So between the rest of free agency, the draft, those guys installing, putting in their philosophy in OTAs is the goal of scoring more points on offense.”
And, in their ideal world, finally turning a patient approach into more wins than losses.
How Liberals Tried to Kill the Dream of Single-Payer
Prominent progressives have undercut a cherished policy goal of the left. They’re wrong on both the politics and the economics.
BY ADAM GAFFNEY
March 8, 2016Jonathan M. Metzl is the Director of the Center for Medicine, Health, and Society; and a Professor of Sociology and Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University.
https://newrepublic.com/article/131251/liberals-tried-kill-dream-single-payer
Around the time that the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders hit its stride, a chorus of liberal pundits and economists began to coalesce around a decidedly grim message for the 60 million people in America who remain either uninsured or underinsured: Give up on your pipe dream.
The liberal retreat on single-payer is in line with a long history of centrist Democratic thinking that haplessly confuses rearguard action with political vision.
Single-payer, Paul Krugman wrote in one of a series of posts in January, “isn’t a political possibility,” and is in fact “just a distraction from the real issues.” Last week in the American Prospect, sociologist Paul Starr went further in describing single-payer as a “hopeless crusade for a proposal that will go down to defeat again, as it has every time it has come up before.” And in an earlier article, he argued that even if single-payer was possible, other priorities should take precedence. Hillary Clinton is on the record agreeing with such sentiments: As she put it, single-payer “will never, ever come to pass.”
Single-payer universal health care, in other words, is dead on arrival. Time to move on.
Their essential arguments are twofold: Single-payer reform is politically impossible on the one hand, and economically infeasible on the other. However, they are very wrong on both counts. The first argument rests on a severely impoverished political vision, the second on inexcusably flawed economic and policy assumptions. Though the Sanders campaign is facing increasingly daunting obstacles to the Democratic nomination, the American health care question is not going anywhere. These criticisms therefore require greater dissection and contestation—before they congeal as the conventional wisdom.
Let’s first admit the obvious: The political terrain for transformational health care reform is currently quite adverse. A single-payer bill would encounter colossal resistance from, for instance, the health insurance lobby, which is understandably in no great rush to be legislated off the face of the planet (nor does the pharmaceutical industry look forward to long-avoided price negotiations with the government). It’s also true that a Democratic sweep of both houses of Congress is unlikely in the coming election. And Democrats are, in any event, divided on the issue, as this primary election demonstrates.
To proceed, however, from an admission of these facts to an acceptance that the cause should be abandoned is to concede the contest before the first shot has been fired. This is something the Democratic Party has excelled at—with disastrous consequences—for decades. Conservatives, in contrast, have been far more willing to adopt ambitious, long-range political goals, even when contemporaneous political forces are arrayed against them.
As Daniel Stedman Jones describes in his Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics, the articulation of an initially unpopular, highly ambitious, anti-New Deal “neoliberal” program—outlined and promoted in the decades following World War II by economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and associated think tanks—took decades to “bear fruit.” But when political and economic circumstances changed in the 1970s, conservatives had an ambitious program ready to launch, and the right-wing revolutions of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher could begin in earnest. From the 1980s onward, Jones writes, Hayek’s early “ideological vision” became reality with a vengeance:
The free market became the organizing principle for microeconomic reform … Trade unions were vanquished and the power of labor was diluted … Market mechanisms became the models for the operation of health care … The purity that Hayek advocated was meant as an optimistic and ideological and intellectual tactic rather than a blueprint. The results have been extraordinary.
In the years since Reagan and Thatcher, conservatives have had continued success in pushing the political center—on economic, if not social, issues—further and further rightward. Yet just as the right marched forward to the drum of Hayek, liberals have far too often been content to passively follow behind, albeit while maintaining something of a respectable distance. Nowhere is this clearer than in health care.
This story is well known and often told: Many—perhaps most—of the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act are derived from (formerly) conservative health policy proposals. As the sociologist Jill Quadagno describes in a 2014 article in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, the ACA’s “employer mandate” was drawn from Nixon’s 1974 “Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan” (itself a counterproposal to Ted Kennedy’s single-payer plan). Meanwhile, the individual mandate was first articulated by Stuart Butler at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. And by 1993, Republicans in Congress were proposing a bill (the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, or HEART Act) that, as she puts it, had “nearly identical” provisions to the ACA, including “an individual mandate, an employer mandate, a standard benefit package, state-based purchasing exchanges, subsidies for low-income people, [and] efforts to improve efficiency…” (She also does note a few differences, most prominently the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, which is by far the law’s most beneficial provision.)
Yet like Nixon’s 1974 bill, the 1993 Republican embrace of this individual mandate-based plan was provoked, in part, less by an earnest desire to expand health coverage than by a legitimate fear of single-payer reform. The economist Mark Pauly—one of the authors of a slightly earlier version of an individual mandate-based plan prepared with the hope of enticing the first Bush administration—acknowledged this in a 2011 interview with Ezra Klein at The Washington Post: The idea was to deflect “the specter of single-payer insurance,” as he told Klein.
Today, of course, Republicans are no longer afraid of the menace of single-payer, for a perfectly good reason: The mainstream of the Democratic Party has largely abandoned it. As Steven Brill noted in America’s Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Backroom Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System, when the Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus began formulating a health care agenda after the election of President Obama, he was clear about “one thing” above all else: His proposal would not look like single-payer. Instead, Baucus’s plan would, as Brill writes, be a “moderate plan … that could attract bipartisan support.” Yet despite this massive concession to (or embrace of) conservative health care principles, the ACA failed miserably in attracting bipartisan support: It didn’t even earn a single Republican vote in the House or the Senate. So much for the much-vaunted politics of compromise.
Today, Republicans have by and large abandoned earlier “moderate” positions on health care, and instead tried to lamely recycle various tired nostrums—Health savings accounts! Insurance across states lines! Medicare vouchers!—to a weary nation. Yet the net effect of this push and pull has meant that the health care center has veered rightward to a striking degree, such that today, liberals like Starr and Krugman contend that a law that is largely the same as the Republican HEART Act from the early 1990s should—with perhaps a few tweaks down the road—form the core of our health care system.
Republicans are no longer afraid of the menace of single-payer, for a perfectly good reason: The mainstream of the Democratic Party has largely abandoned it.
The liberal retreat on single-payer is in line with a long history of centrist Democratic thinking that haplessly confuses rearguard action with political vision. Passing a federal single-payer bill would, no doubt, necessitate key electoral victories, a powerful campaign at the governmental level, and a formidable grassroots struggle. Useful initial steps in this direction might include the election of a president determined to pass single-payer, the restoration of single-payer to the platform of the Democratic Party, and vigorous support for such reform by pundits and scholars in high places. That none of these things may wind up happening is a cause of the alleged political “impossibility” of single-payer—not its result.This brings me to the second of the two core arguments of the single-payer naysayers: “Medicare-for-all” would come at a price we simply cannot afford. The most recent iteration of this argument traces back to Kenneth Thorpe, an economist at Emory University, who published an analysis asserting that the Sanders plan (itself based on calculations of the economist Gerald Friedman, who has also taken a lot of criticism from Krugman and others for his optimistic economic projections under a President Sanders) would be about twice as expensive as his campaign has argued. Thorpe’s numbers spread like wildfire: After being initially reported and evaluated by Dylan Matthews at Vox, they’ve been cited by Starr, Krugman, the editorial board of The Washington Post, and basically everybody else. “[H]is health-care plan rests on unbelievable assumptions,” noted the Post, “about how much he could slash health-care costs without affecting the care ordinary Americans receive.”
But there are many ways to look at the issue of single-payer financing. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, health policy professors at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers in medicine at Harvard Medical School, efficiently took apart Thorpe’s numbers in two point-by-point by critiques. To get into the nitty gritty of the major errors in Thorpe’s economic assumptions, I’d direct readers to their article at the Huffington Post. And notably, as they describe in The Hill, Thorpe had himself previously found single-payer to be entirely affordable—indeed, he once asserted that it would reduce costs even as it expanded coverage.
Friedman, Thorpe, and Starr have also engaged in an exchange at the Prospect about these issues. In truth, it seems that more economic analysis may be needed with respect to the precise mix of taxes that are necessary. But the reality is that the specific taxes laid out in Sanders’s slim single-payer proposal are relatively unimportant at the current time; they would have to undergo significant reexamination and revision as the proposal was transformed into an actual bill. At this stage, it’s more useful to take a step back and look at the debate over the affordability of single-payer in more general terms, by asking three larger questions. First, what new costs would a single-payer system generate? Second, what savings would single-payer deliver? And third, could the new costs roughly balance the savings?
First, when speaking about new costs, I mean actual new expenses, not existing private expenditures that become public expenditures. The difference is crucial: with the proper mix of progressive taxes, the transition from private to public spending can be achieved without imposing any economic burden on the non-affluent (and indeed, lightening it for many). But actual new expenses, in contrast, can be seen as a legitimate source of real “new spending.”
For instance, according to the latest estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics, some 29 million people were uninsured in 2015. Covering these individuals requires cash. It’s worth pointing out, however, that many of these individuals are already using health care, with some of the costs either coming out of their own pockets or being passed on to other public or private payers. Replacing those existing expenditures will have zero effect on overall national health spending. At the same time, many of these individuals are, sadly, currently forgoing health care, and to the extent that universal health care allows them to go to the doctor or get tests or medicines they’ve so far been avoiding, some new money will indeed need to be spent.
Second, proposals for “Medicare-for-all” usually call for the elimination of cost sharing, which is to say no copayments, deductibles, and co-insurance. I’d argue that this is an essential aspect of real universal health care (with some notable exceptions, such payments are absent from the systems of Canada and the United Kingdom). The harms of such payments are all too real: As a result of out-of-pocket exposure, an analysis of survey findings published by the Commonwealth Fund last year put the number of underinsured Americans—the insured who lack sufficient coverage against the cost of medical care—at 31 million in 2014. Though discarding such out-of-pocket payments might sound like a pricey proposition, to the extent that these monies are already being spent, their elimination would be a wash, with no net effect on overall national health expenditures. But again, as is the case with the uninsured, insofar as some individuals and families are avoiding health care because of out-of-pocket payments, the elimination of these financial barriers would result in some real increases in health care utilization.
There are some other points to be made (like the additional costs of providing universal long term care and dental care), but in reality these two items—covering the uninsured and improving coverage for the underinsured—are the main new costs that a single-payer national health program would have to cover. Taking that into consideration, is single-payer indeed “unaffordable”?
To answer, we have to look at the opposite side of the equation, at the potential for efficiency savings in such a transition. And clearly, the biggest source of savings is the reduction of the vast bureaucratic apparatus that undergirds the entirety of the health care system, as Himmelstein and Woolhandler emphasize (and have studied in depth). This “apparatus” is devoted to such critical tasks as the compilation of lengthy itemized hospital bills, the pursuit of medical debtors, the design of needlessly complex yet shoddy insurance products, the issuance of bills to innumerable payers, the endless clinical documentation necessary to generate proper payment from insurers, and so forth. Overall, this represents a massive, parasitic drain on the American economy. And so, too, does our unnecessarily high pharmaceutical expenditures. But it is, in particular, the issue of administrative savings that has received insufficient attention in discussions on health care reform.
Frustration with the lack of accurate discussion around such savings (and around single-payer more generally) led several physicians—including myself, Andrea Christopher (a fellow in general medicine at Harvard Medical School), Himmelstein, and Woolhandler—to organize an open letter contesting this crystallizing critique of single-payer. The letter was published in February in the Huffington Post, and has been signed by more than 920 physicians and medical students. It makes this bottom-line point about the balance of savings and costs:
We devote 31 percent of medical spending to administration, vs. 16.7 percent in Canada—a difference of $350 billion annually. And single-payer systems in Canada, the U.K., and Australia all use their bargaining clout to get discounts of 50 percent from the prices drug companies charge our patients. The potential savings on bureaucracy and drugs are enough to cover the uninsured, and to upgrade coverage for all Americans—a conclusion affirmed over decades by multiple analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office.
Moreover, our letter notes that expansions of health coverage have historically been accomplished without massive increases in health care utilization: Essentially, doctors devote more attention to those who are sick and somewhat less to those who are well, resulting in relatively modest increases in health care use. “Experience in many nations over many decades,” we conclude, “provides convincing evidence that single-payer reform is both medically necessary and economically advisable.”
We can, in other words, afford to provide comprehensive health care to everyone in the nation, free at the point of use, with “one large network” of physicians and hospitals available to all. Currently existing private spending will be largely replaced by public spending, which would require a mix of new taxes. Overall health spending would stay roughly say the same, though future cost increases could be much better controlled. The number of the uninsured would fall from some 29 million to near zero. At the same time, the rest of us who are already insured would be able to stop worrying about which providers are in- or out-of-network, whether or not a doctor’s visit or a medication is worthwhile in light of a steep copayment, how to decipher a daunting medical bill, or the loss of coverage that might accompany dismissal from a job, loss of a partner, or the descent into poverty. This, to me, seems like a very good bargain.
Paul Starr, who (as noted) has penned several recent articles dismissing single-payer (as well as blasting Sanders’s candidacy more broadly), is perhaps most famous for his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1982 book The Social Transformation of American Medicine. It’s a book that I read as a first-year medical student, and that has shaped my understanding of the American health care system greatly. In it, he traces the emergence of the American medical profession, and follows how our failure to publicly organize the health system gave way to the rise of a “corporate medical enterprise,” a sector—as he notes in the final chapter—that is “likely to aggravate inequalities in access to health care.” Clearly, this has come to pass.
But I wish to conclude by turning to the very first words of the book. “The dream of reason did not take power into account,” the book begins. “The dream was that reason, in the form of the arts and sciences, would liberate humanity from scarcity and the caprices of nature, ignorance and superstition, tyranny, and not least of all, the diseases of the body and the spirit.” Power—whether of the medical profession or of the corporatized organizations that have since superseded it—complicated the fulfillment of the dream.
The dream, however, is not yet dead. With respect to health, the idea that all lives should be as long and as healthy as is possible—a vision that can only be fulfilled by the universal and equal provision of the very best that modern medical science has to offer—still burns bright. But now, in twenty-first century America, it is not just conservatives, but many liberals, who are among the powerful standing in opposition to its fulfillment.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/03/02/colin-kaepernick-robert-griffin-rg3-trade-future
Mar. 3, 2016
The End is Near for Flawed QBs Griffin and KaepernickAt the top of the game four years ago, the fall back to reality has been fast and infuriating for Robert Griffin III and Colin Kaepernick. Both players face uncertainty in 2016 and the future doesn’t look any better
Alex Brandon/APCarson Wentz and Jared Goff were the two most-discussed quarterbacks at the combine last week. Right behind them were Robert Griffin and Colin Kaepernick. Just four years removed from RG3 winning Offensive Rookie of the Year and Kaepernick piloting an NFC championship team, both find themselves at the center of trade talks. Griffin was pushed there by his team, Kaepernick by his agents. (It’s unknown whether San Francisco will act on his request.)
Griffin, with his astronomical $16.15 million 2016 salary, almost certainly will be released prior to March 9, when his salary becomes fully guaranteed. Kaepernick’s salary is $11.9 million on an embarrassingly team-friendly contract that can be voided with little penalty before April 1. Or, rather, it could have been. Kaepernick’s current injury situation presents complications here (more on that later).
At face value, the idea of acquiring Griffin or Kaepernick seems enticing. Both are young, big-name quarterbacks with prior NFL success. But experienced quarterbacks don’t become available unless they’re flawed. And given these flaws, I believe it’s likely they’ll be out of the league before either wins another 10 games.
The Kaepernick Case
First off, let’s ask why he is requesting a trade. The fresh start he needs seemingly found him when the Niners hired head coach Chip Kelly, whose system is built for a mobile quarterback.
But it’s also a system built on quick decision-making, which is far from Kaepernick’s forte. Kaepernick is slow to process coverages (when he processes them at all) and doesn’t have a great feel for moving around in the pocket. Kaepernick can be hard to catch when he runs around, but too many of his run-around plays are fruitless because they never should have been run-around plays to start.
Staying patient in a crowded pocket has never been a strength for Colin Kaepernick.
Too often Kaepernick will look to abandon the pocket the instant he reaches the top of his dropback. Coaches hate this because it nullifies the play’s route designs. It can also create pressure where none existed. If you’re breaking down and moving at the top of your drop, the primary place to move is up in a pocket that hasn’t fully formed, putting you closer to interior pass rushers and compromising the room you have for stepping into throws. Or, you can move laterally, out of the pocket, which puts defensive ends in play. Remember, offensive tackles can’t see the quarterback; they’re blocking under the assumption that he’ll be in the pocket. When the quarterback flees, his technique and his blockers’ techniques are likely to break down. Also, the throwing windows and angles are altered, which often leads to minus results.
And then there is Kaepernick’s poor understanding for why certain plays are called. Case in point: multiple times in recent years, the Niners have opened a game with a simple fullback flare pass to the flat. It’s a play you call to get your QB comfortable and to put yourself in at least second-down-and-medium right out of the gates. There isn’t a more basic concept in pro football. Unfortunately, Kaepernick, several times, has failed to pull the trigger on these throws, opting instead to kick off the game with a randomized, sandlot throw. That he’s repeated this mistake more than once is baffling, especially considering that he threw an interception in this scenario on the first play of the Raiders game two years ago. (The Niners went on to lose that one.)
If a nearly four-year starting quarterback can’t be trusted to even attempt—let alone complete—something like a fullback flare on the game’s first play, then he can’t be trusted. You can’t construct, let alone perfect, a passing attack with such instability.
All of these flaws speak to an ill understanding of basic progression reads and coverage diagnostics, as well. Because if Kaepernick consistently knew what he was looking at on his dropbacks, there’s no way his pocket poise and decision-making would be so erratic. Adding to this: when Kaepernick does play with patience, he has a tendency to be late with the ball or to flat-out leave open receivers untargeted.
Given their flaws, I believe it’s likely both Griffin and Kaepernick will be out of the league before either wins another 10 games.
Could Kelly adjust to accommodate Kaepernick? Perhaps. But that runs counter to the way Kelly historically has done business. Besides, Kelly could argue that his approach makes a QB an inherently quicker decision-maker. By getting to the line and snapping the ball so promptly, Kelly’s offense hinders an opponent’s ability to disguise coverages. The defense barely has time to get set. This creates predictable looks, aiding a quarterback’s sense of passing anticipation.
However, Part B of Kaepernick’s issues is that he has an elongated throwing motion. This isn’t necessarily the worst thing. After all, no one can argue that as a pure arm talent, Kaepernick, when he’s mechanically sound and decisive (which is not often enough), is as impressive as almost anyone in the league. But elongated motions jibe with slower-developing downfield plays, not with the quick-hitting, snap decision-making that Kelly’s scheme demands.
The Niners brass presumably does not believe the advantage from Kelly’s unique approach can offset Kaepernick’s weaknesses. Because why else would Kaepernick be asking for a trade? Unless his advisors are complete morons, Kaepernick’s only rationale for wanting out of the rare offense that caters to his mobility is if he believes he won’t be the one running that offense come September. Kaepernick’s camp is reading San Francisco’s writing on the wall.
Complicating matters is that Kaepernick is still recovering from surgeries on his shoulder, knee and thumb. What makes his contract team-friendly is that it can be voided without penalty any time before April 1. That is, unless he’s not healthy. Presumably, the Niners would love for doctors to clear Kaepernick now, putting the option of cutting him back on the table. And Kaepernick, presumably, would love to stay on the mend until after April 1, making his 2016 salary guaranteed.
But remember, the Niners most likely believe Kaepernick cannot be The Guy. Which means if he is on the roster in 2016, he could very well get the treatment that Washington gave RG3 in 2015. Once he was in Kirk Cousins’s rearview mirror, Griffin became nothing more than a liability. Had he suffered an injury that carried into this offseason, the NFL’s fifth-year option rule would have made his $16.15 million salary in ’16 fully guaranteed. So, Washington, playing it safe and smart, kept Griffin off the active roster.
Kaepernick’s shoulder injury could ultimately keep him—and his $15.9 million cap number—on the books in 2016. Rather than risk swallowing that bitter pill again in 2017, the Niners could entrench Kaepernick on the bench and out of harm’s way.
The RG3 OutlookLet’s keep some perspective here: if Griffin were a decent player, he would not have been ostracized in ’15. Griffin’s weakness showed up glaringly after he returned from his knee injury in 2013 and worsened as defenses saw more of him.
Headlining Griffin’s problems was that he had little to no pocket refinement (among other issues). It’s not enough to simply make throws from the pocket. In fact, in an offense as well-designed and as heavily predicated on play-action as Washington’s, throws from the pocket can be routine because so many of the reads are clearly defined. But straightforward passing designs and play-action tend to happen on first or second down, when the threat of a run is still there and the defense is in a vanilla coverage. Most NFL games, however, are decided by what happens on third down.
Robert Griffin III’s slight frame hasn’t been able to stand up to the hits he’s taken when straying outside the pocket.
It’s here where Griffin’s shortcomings really show up. Too often when he moves in the pocket, he covers too much ground, compromising his readiness to throw. This also hurts the pass protection, as the exaggerated movement can put him closer to pass rushers who wouldn’t have been factors. And it lengthens the time it takes to wind up and release the ball.
Adding to Griffin’s physical lack of pocket subtlety and nuance is his limited comprehension of how routes relate to certain coverages. Time and again in 2014, Griffin failed to identify some of football’s most basic route combinations. There were even cases of his defined reads—that is, plays that present just one obvious place for the ball to go—being ignored. Head coach Jay Gruden or offensive coordinator Sean McVay would call a pass and have no idea whether it would be executed correctly. Worse, neither would the receivers. How can you coach a dangerous but frankly emotionally unpredictable guy like DeSean Jackson if he’s getting open but not seeing the ball?
Tying into all of this was a lack of anticipation in Griffin’s passing. In the NFL, you don’t necessarily have to sense receivers being open before they are, but it makes a world of difference if you can. And, naturally, there are a handful of routine plays each game that call for a little bit of anticipation. But Griffin, with his limited understanding of coverage-and-route relationships, never had an opportunity to develop any anticipation. And if you can’t develop it on your own, you can’t develop it at all. Most coaches agree: anticipation is one of the few quarterbacking traits that cannot be taught.
Exacerbating matters for Griffin is that Gruden shied away from the zone-read game that had bolstered him as a rookie. Gruden felt the 6-foot-2, 223-pounder could not endure much beating. Defenses had always been extra physical against Griffin because he had no feel for protecting himself. Most the hits he took had a double-dip return: one from the hit itself, the other from when his body splattered to the ground. Griffin doesn’t have Cam Newton’s size or Russell Wilson’s compactness. He’s a gangly, exposed runner. This realization was the coup de grace to his NFL career.
* * *
In talking casually with dozens of coaches throughout combine week, there were two camps of ideology on Griffin and Kaepernick: in one camp were those who don’t think they can play in the NFL (more coaches felt this way about Griffin than Kaepernick); in the other were those who think they can play but don’t know in which system.
Of course, it only takes one team’s final decision-maker to roll the dice. Which is why we probably won’t see the last of either QB in 2016. But as far as RG3 or Kaepernick being a team’s clear-cut starting quarterback? We’ve absolutely seen the last of that.
I just can’t help myself. Honestly, this is just really a way for me to justify sitting in front of my pc every spring reading about these guys.
15: Vernon Hargreaves III, CB, Florida
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/2079755/vernon-hargreaves-iii
Player Overview
It isn’t often that a true freshman comes into the SEC and is an immediate standout, but that’s precisely what Hargreaves accomplished in 2013, earning first team All-SEC honors from the media and league coaches after tying Janoris Jenkins’ freshman record at Florida with 11 pass breakups and intercepting three passes.He was even better as a sophomore, leading the conference with 13 pass breakups and intercepting another three passes, including one in the end zone with just 1:20 remaining to seal Florida’s Birmingham Bowl win over East Carolina. A finalist for the Thorpe Award in 2015, Hargreaves earned All-SEC honors for a third straight season as a junior with a career-high four interceptions,
Strengths Weaknesses
STRENGTHS: It is hard not to gush about Hargreaves as he combines quickness, balance and route-recognition to excel in coverage with rare physicality and open-field tackling ability to be just as effective in run support and when blitzing off the corner. He possesses good size for the position with a compact, athletic frame.When lining up in press man coverage, Hargreaves gets a stiff initial punch in on the receiver at the snap and shows good balance and light feet dropping into coverage, fluidly changing direction and the acceleration to remain in the hip pocket of receivers. He’s equally effective in off coverage, reading the quarterback’s eyes and breaking quickly downhill to disrupt passes. Hargreaves’ lack of height is mitigated by impressive body control, timing and competitiveness in jump-ball situations. He possesses excellent hand-eye coordination to slap the ball away as it arrives as well as good hands for the interception (six in two seasons).
Scouts will also appreciate that unlike some of the other highly regarded defensive backs throughout the country, Hargreaves is far from just a cover corner. He’s very aggressive in run support, fighting his way through blocks and showing zero hesitation in taking on bigger ballcarriers. On most occasions, Hargreaves makes the effective stop, often significantly cutting short the yards gained in impressive fashion.
WEAKNESSES: An inch or two shorter than scouts would prefer, which shows up too often on film. Hargreaves can get himself in trouble by attacking ballcarriers too high, clawing at the football while ‘rassling opponents to the ground rather than wrapping up and driving them to the turf. He also takes such aggressive angles in pursuit that he can be forced to lunge at ballcarriers, occasionally missing as he swipes at their legs.
Needs to improve his cushion and spacing, allowing his eyes to spend too much time in the backfield.
IN OUR VIEW: Hargreaves plays with a decisive reactor to maintain proper positioning and make plays on the ball (38 career passes defended), but his timing and spacing have room for improvement. Although he has only ordinary size, Hargreaves is above average in three main areas for the position: play speed, instincts and competitive toughness.
NFL COMPARISON: Joe Haden, Cleveland Browns — More than just the Florida jersey, Hargreaves and Haden are similar in that they aren’t the biggest or fastest but both exhibit the instincts and competitive toughness needed for the NFL.
–Rob Rang & Dane Brugler (2/9/16)
43: Kevin Dodd – DE, Clemson
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1983517/kevin-dodd
Player Overview
With Shaq Lawson commanding most of the attention at right defensive end, Dodd was able to blossom at left defensive end in his first year as a starter. He finished the 2015 season with 23.5 tackles for loss and 12.0 sacks, which ranked second on the team behind Lawson. A relative unknown prior to the 2015 season, Dodd made the most of his starting opportunity and is an ascending NFL prospect.Strengths Weaknesses
STRENGTHS: Passes the eye test with the quickness and power blend to win the edge, showing development throughout last season with this hand technique and timing. Shows terrific initial quickness to beat tackles and guards, as well as the agility and balance to get skinny to penetrate the gap between them.His quick, strong hands allow him to rip his way through would-be blocks and he uses his long arms to lasso ballcarriers. Improved discipline and patience to hold back-side contain, stack the edge and cut off runs to the outside. High motor player and fights through the whistle, wearing down offensive linemen. Pushed himself in the film room and on the practice field to seize his opportunity to start in 2015.
WEAKNESSES: Not a twitched up rusher who can easily change speeds in his rush, lacking cat-like quickness. Needs to better keep his balance through gaps. Doesn’t consistently use his hands to convert speed to power and isn’t much of a bully.
Undeveloped pass rush repertoire and needs to add more to his bag of tricks to fool blockers. Tends to think too much and play overly patient at times. Lack of hand tactics will cause his rush to stall. Only one season of starting experience and productivity. Benefited from playing opposite Shaq Lawson, rarely facing double-teams.
COMPARES TO: Kony Ealy, Carolina Panthers – Similar to when Ealy entered the league two years ago, it will take some time for Dodd to adjust to the pro game, but all the skills are there for him to develop into a reliable starter.
IN OUR VIEW: Based on traits, Dodd checks several boxes for the NFL with the size, length, athleticism and strength potential to be effective in the NFL. He also improved his ball awareness and discipline as his reps increased last season, showing encouraging growth that indicates he isn’t near his football ceiling.
–Dane Brugler & Rob Rang (2/10/16
45: Braxton Miller – WR, Ohio State
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1824414/braxton-miller
Player Overview
Miller made the switch to wide receiver from quarterback over the 2015 offseason, and his athleticism and versatility paid off for the Buckeyes throughout the year. He finished fourth on the team with 26 catches for 341 yards and three touchdowns, added 260 yards and a touchdown on 42 carries and even completed his only pass – albeit for three yards.Miller told the Columbus Dispatch in June that he is the “best athlete” in all of college football, and he might be correct with that assessment. While he may not have had the traits to play quarterback at the next level, he is a very interesting prospect as a receiver.
In 2013 as a junior, he passed for 2,094 yards, 63.5 percent completions and a 24-to-7 touchdown-to-interception ratio, earning Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year honors. Miller showed improvements as a passer throughout the season, compelling scouts to take a “wait-and-see” approach as the Ohio State quarterback entered his senior year. But he missed the 2014 season with another injury to his throwing shoulder and J.T. Barrett and Cardale Jones helped lead the Buckeyes to last year’s College Football Playoff.
Many thought Miller would transfer to pursue playing quarterback elsewhere, but he chose to stay in Columbus and focus all of his energy on transitioning to wide receiver.
Strengths Weaknesses
STRENGTHS: Athletic body type and solidly-built for the position. Extraordinary athleticism and speed with sudden, explosive cutting ability. Tremendous balance and body control in all of his movements.Multiple gears to separate in his routes or as a ballcarrier. Understands hesitation in his patterns, setting up defenders before bursting in different directions. Vision to be a home-run threat whenever he touches the ball.
In his one season as a receiver, showed the locating ability to track and keep his focus through the catch. Capable of the acrobatic reception. Strong arm as a passer and spins a pretty ball. Deceiving body strength to squirm out of would-be tackles. Highly productive three-year quarterback and looked natural making the transition to a skill player in 2015 – versatile player who affected the game as a receiver and rusher.
Holds several school records and was a two-time Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year. Mature leader and determined individual who wants to be great.
WEAKNESSES: Raw route-runner and lacks experience at the receiver position. Needs work with his footwork, especially at the stem of patterns. Natural hands, but had some drops in 2015, especially with the fastball.
Still learning how to properly adjust to throws and attack at the highest point. Too much east-west and will get himself in trouble looking for the big play. Alligator arms and too concerned with what’s going on in the middle of the field – often braced himself for contact or showed tentativeness in space before securing the catch.
Willing blocker, but still very raw and needs technique work. Ball security needs tightened with 30 career fumbles (three fumbles in 2015 as a non-quarterback). Doesn’t have any special teams experience.
Health is a concern with his past medical issues – missed two games due a left knee sprain (Sept. 2013); injured his throwing (right) shoulder in the 2013 Orange Bowl that required surgery (Feb. 2014); re-injured the same shoulder that summer (Aug. 2014) and missed the 2014 season after labrum surgery; left game due to concussion symptoms (Nov. 2015).
IN OUR VIEW: After starting three seasons as Ohio State’s quarterback, Miller moved to a hybrid H-Back position in 2015 for his final season of eligibility and adapted well. He enters the NFL as a wide receiver or running back, not a quarterback and his 2014 shoulder surgery ended up being a blessing in disguise, allowing Miller to speed up the inevitable transition to a skill position for the next level.
Miller is a gifted and exciting open-field athlete with game-changing speed and the twitched-up ability to be elusive, not slowing down in his cuts. He showed signs of being able to translate his ability to read defenses as a passer to reading coverages in his routes, but is still unpolished in this area and will need time as he continues his development at wide receiver.
The No. 1 concern moving forward for Miller is durability – true competitor, but can he stay healthy? Overall, while still raw, Miller is a special athlete for his size with considerable upside, putting him in the top 50 overall range. He will likely be a gadget player as an NFL rookie before competing for a starting role in year two.
–Dane Brugler (1/25/16)
76: Sterling Shephard WR, Oklahoma
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1996786/sterling-shepard
Player Overview
Shepard finished his Sooners career with 223 receptions for 3,482 yards and 26 touchdowns and was a semifinalist for the Biletnikoff Award as a senior. He earned an invitation to the Senior Bowl, where he earned the Practice Player of the Week award among wide receivers.Shepard’s family connection with Oklahoma football is a heart-warming tale. He wore No. 3 for the Sooners in honor of his late father, Derrick Shepard, who was a receiver for OU from 1983-86.
“That’s been a lifelong goal of mine to play at Oklahoma,” Shepard told Texans TV at the Senior Bowl. “I’ve seen a lot of great receivers go through there and seen the mark they’ve made for themselves and I definitely wanted to be one of those top guys. Fortunately, I was able to do that with some great coaching and a lot of guys around me that are good.”
The Sooners’ pass catcher also has the talent that makes it more than simply a feel-good story.
He led Oklahoma in receiving as a junior in 2014 with 51 catches for 970 yards and five touchdowns, averaging a conference-best 19.0 yards per reception.
Strengths Weaknesses
STRENGTHS: Coordinated athlete with electric feet off the line of scrimmage and at the top of his route to gain separation and give his quarterback a target. He has quick eyes to make snap decision, tracking the ball well to make tough grabs look easy. Displays quick feet and movements at the line of scrimmage to avoid press and works well in tight spaces with his shifty moves and quick eyes.Shepard is a nightmare to cover because he possesses the straight-line speed to beat defenders over the top, as well as the quickness and balance to change directions in a flash. He shows soft, reliable hands to pluck the ball outside of his frame, as well as the awareness and toughness to “body catch” when necessary to protect the ball.
Brings additional value with punt return experience.
WEAKNESSES: Shepard has an undersized frame that makes him often out-matched vs. physical corners. Quicker than he is fast.
IN OUR VIEW: Shepard routinely proved to be a mismatch during one-on-one drills against cornerbacks at the Senior Bowl, using his short-area burst to create spacing and give his quarterback a clean target. If the corner doesn’t make contact with Shepard off the line of scrimmage, it’s too easy for the smallish, but talented receiver to make something happen.
Shepard has shown toughness throughout his career and frankly, he’ll need to continue to play with this chip on his shoulder to enjoy similar success at the next level.
–Dane Brugler/Rob Rang (2/1/16)
111: Tyler Higbee, TE Western Kentucky
Player Overview
Higbee signed with Western Kentucky as a wide receiver in 2011 and left in 2015 as a first-team All-Conference USA pick who tied for the nation’s best among tight ends with eight touchdowns.During his first fall at Western Kentucky, Higbee played in 11 games, starting one contest. He finished that season with two receptions but scored one time from 63 yards out.
In 2012, Higbee made the move fulltime to tight end and redshirted. In 2013, he played in seven games with three starts. He finished with 13 receptions for 169 yards and a touchdown.
In 2014, Higbee had 15 receptions for 230 yards and four scores as the backup. He enjoyed his finest season as a senior, playing in nine games, catching 38 passes for 563 yards and scoring eight times.
Strengths Weaknesses
STRENGTHS: Outstanding size and a terrific frame. Has length and above average straight-line speed. Can move for a 250-pounder.In terms of hands, Higbee gets the job done. He pretty much catches everything thrown his way and can make the tough grab in traffic. Can go high and get the ball as well as getting down low. Former wide receiver is a good route runner. A load to bring done and has shown the ability to break tackles after the reception and gain additional yardage.
Solid as a blocker; tough and physical at the point of attack and does his job. Doesn’t blow anybody off the ball but he will put his hat on a defender and stay in front of him.
WEAKNESSES: Good, solid, all-around player without being a standout in any one area. Could be a little more dominating in the run game. Limited production until his senior season, and the jump in the level of competition will be significant. One-year starter still learning nuances of position.
IN OUR VIEW: This is a nice looking tight end prospect who has worked hard to put himself in this position, especially after making the position change. Along the way, Higbee has added 60 pounds. He’s athletic and versatile and in the right offensive system Higbee could really be a nice weapon in the NFL because he’s a guy that can be good in the run game and evolve into a tight end that work the middle of the field in the passing game and become a real threat.
–Jamie Newberg (1/12/16)
193: Joe Schobert – OLB, Wisconsin
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/2001175/joe-schobert
Player Overview
Schobert was a semifinalist for both the Bednarik and Lombardi awards following a senior season in which he ranked fourth in the FBS with 14.5 tackles for loss and sixth with 9.5 sacks to go along with six forced fumbles and 12 pass breakups.That culminated a productive career in which Schobert started 24 of 41 games, compiling 149 tackles, 30.5 tackles for loss and 13.5 sacks. He also recorded six forced fumbles and 12 pass breakups.
Strengths Weaknesses
STRENGTHS: Despite a frame which appears better suited off the line of scrimmage, Schobert’s quickness, underrated strength and awareness make him a tough draw for offensive linemen at the point of attack. He frequently slips past blockers, showing terrific spatial awareness, balance and lateral agility to dance and disrupt, often “making the play” by forcing ballcarriers into the arms of his teammates, who get the credit in the stat book.While he lacks ideal bulk, Schobert doesn’t shy from contact, generating space from blockers (offensive linemen, tight ends and backs, alike) with an impressive punch. He attacks double-teams, ducking his head and squirming his way through the gap, showing terrific balance, determination and leverage in doing so. His quick, light feet allow him to close quickly on the ballcarrier and he’s a generally reliable open-field tackler, showing patience and sound technique.
Schobert plays with terrific instincts, latching onto backs to destroy screens and releasing from his primary downfield coverage responsibilities to attack once the ball has been delivered. He shows good vision and awareness to slice through traffic, taking calculated risks on his pursuit angles. Sells out to make the tackle, tripping up ball-carriers with extension and hand-eye coordination.
WEAKNESSES: While surprisingly stout for his size, Schobert is more pesky than powerful at the point of attack. His limited frame gets Schobert washed out too often in the running game, with a number of his tackles coming yards downfield only after he has spun away from blockers.
His lack of ideal length also shows up in pass coverage, where bigger tight ends were able to use their size advantage to win on contested throws. Schobert flirts with over-aggression, taking risky angles in pursuit and leaving his teammates in precarious positions.
IN OUR VIEW: More than the sum of his parts, Schobert is the kind of hyper-active, ultra-productive defender who can “surprise” at the next level despite his less-than-ideal size. He’s effective in a variety of roles, showing terrific quickness, balance and surprising strength to be a factor in run support, coverage and rushing the quarterback.
Though he played mostly outside linebacker and defensive end at Wisconsin, Schobert’s instincts and comfort in the pit could allow his future NFL team to experiment with him inside, as well.
–Rob Rang (@robrang) (2/13/16)
Neandertal–Human Trysts May Be Linked to Modern Depression, Heart Disease
Interbreeding may have influenced modern risks for depression, heart attacks, nicotine addiction, obesity and other health problems, researchers said
By Charles Q. Choi, LiveScience on February 12, 2016
Ancient trysts between Neanderthals and modern humans may have influenced modern risks for depression, heart attacks, nicotine addiction, obesity and other health problems, researchers said.
The Neanderthals were once the closest relatives of modern humans. Scientists recently discovered that Neanderthals and modern humans once interbred; nowadays, about 1.5 to 2.1 percent of DNA in people outside Africa is Neanderthal in origin.
“This raises several fascinating questions like, ‘What effect does the Neanderthal DNA that remains in modern humans have on our biology?'” said study senior author John Capra, an evolutionary geneticist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. [See Photos of Our Closest Human Ancestor]
Now, for the first time, researchers have directly compared Neanderthal DNA with the clinical records of a significant portion of adults of European ancestry. The scientists discovered that this archaic genetic legacy has had a subtle but significant impact on modern human biology, they said.
“Neanderthal DNA influences a broad range of traits relevant to disease risk in modern humans,” Capra told Live Science.Modern humans have inherited many physical traits from the Neanderthals. This material relates to a paper that appeared in the Feb. 12, 2016 issue of Science, published by AAAS. The paper, by C.N. Simonti at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, and colleagues was titled, “The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neandertals.”
Credit: Michael Smeltzer, Vanderbilt University
The researchers first identified about 135,000 Neanderthal genetic variations found in modern humans. Next, the scientists analyzed a database of more than 28,000 adults of European ancestry from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, a consortium of nine hospitals across the United States. This data linked patient genetic data with versions of those individuals’ electronic health records that were stripped of identifying details such as names and addresses.
The data helped the researchers determine if each person had ever been treated for medical conditions such as heart disease, arthritis and depression. It also helped the scientists determine what Neanderthal genetic variants each person carried.THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS NEANDERTHAL-INFLUENCED TRAITS.
CREDIT: DEBORAH BREWINGTON, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY
Ultimately, the researchers found that Neanderthal genetic variants were significantly linked to increased risk of 12 traits, including heart attack and artery thickening.
Surprisingly, the investigators also found a Neanderthal genetic variant that significantly increased the modern human risk for nicotine addiction, the researchers said. However, this does not mean that Neanderthals smoked tobacco, Capra said.
“Tobacco was found solely in the Western Hemisphere until Europeans brought it back from expeditions to the Americas,” Capra said. The Neanderthal DNA that boosts the risk of nicotine addiction may have had a completely different and potentially beneficial effect “that exhibited itself 50,000 years ago,” Capra said.
Some of the scientists’ discoveries confirm previous ideas. For example, earlier research suggested that Neanderthal DNA influenced skin cells known as keratinocytes that help protect the skin from environmental damage such as ultraviolet radiation and germs. The new findings suggest that Neanderthal genetic variants increase the risk of developing sun-triggered skin lesions known as keratoses, which are caused by abnormal keratinocytes.
“When we started this study, we expected that if we found anything at all, we would find an influence of Neanderthal DNA on bodily systems that are involved in interactions with the environment,” Capra said. “We hypothesized this because Neanderthals had been living in Central Asia and Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before our recent ancestors ever reached these areas—and thus had likely adapted to the distinct environmental aspects of these regions, compared to Africa, in terms of climate, plants and animals, and pathogens.”
Capra and his colleagues also found that a number of Neanderthal genetic variants influenced the risk for depression, with some variants increasing the risk and others reducing it.
“The brain is incredibly complex, so it’s reasonable to expect that introducing changes from a different evolutionary path might have negative consequences,” study lead author Corinne Simonti, a graduate student of human genetics at Vanderbilt University, said in a statement.”
The researchers suggest that some Neanderthal genetic variants might have provided benefits in modern human populations as they first moved out of Africa thousands of years ago. However, those variants may have later become detrimental in modern, Western environments, the scientists said. One example is Neanderthal DNA that increases blood clotting; while this can help seal wounds and prevent germs from entering the body, it can also increase the risk for stroke, miscarriage and other problems, Capra said.
The researchers suggest that Neanderthal DNA may not have contributed to differences in skin colors between modern humans, unlike what previous research has suggested. Instead, differences in modern human skin color probably developed very recently, Capra said. “Neanderthals may also have had a range of skin colors,” Capra added.
Future research can compare Neanderthal DNA with data gleaned from other sources of medical information, such as lab tests, doctors’ notes and medical images, the researchers said. “There is still much to learn about the effects of interbreeding on different populations in recent human history,” Capra said.
The scientists detailed their findings online today (Feb. 11) in the journal Science.
In Photos: New Human Ancestor Possibly Unearthed in Spanish Cave
Denisovan Gallery: Tracing the Genetics of Human Ancestors
In Photos: Neanderthal Burials Uncovered


