Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 11, 2022 at 7:19 am in reply to: Are millennial leftists aging into right-wingers? by J.J #138839
Billy_TParticipantFollow-up to the WaPo article.
As most of you likely already saw, DeSantis signed yet another law mandating his preferred form of indoctrination in Florida schools. This time, “honoring the victims of communism.” Now, what could possibly go wrong there, with the far-right in charge of such a story?
Here’s an article listing some of the education mandates and bans imposed on Americans by the GOP and far-right.
Here’s the Long List of Topics Republicans Want Banned From the Classroom
By Sarah Schwartz & Eesha Pendharkar — February 02, 2022Republicans this year have drastically broadened their legislative efforts to censor what’s taught in the classroom, according to an Education Week analysis of active state bills.
What started in early 2021 as a conservative effort to prohibit teachers from talking about diversity and inequality in so-called “divisive” ways or taking sides on “controversial” issues has now expanded to include proposed restrictions on teaching that the United States is a racist country, that certain economic or political systems are racist, or that multiple gender identities exist, according to an Education Week analysis of 61 new bills and other state-level actions.
In Florida, a bill would ban teachers from saying “racial colorblindness” is racist. In South Carolina, a bill would ban teaching that “equity is a concept that is superior to or supplants the concept of equality.” In New Hampshire, “promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America” could become illegal, if a bill were to pass.
In at least 10 states, legislators have proposed bills that would require administrators to list every book, reading, and activity that teachers use in their lessons, a process that educators argue would be cumbersome and expensive. Some of these bills also require districts to give parents prior right of review for new curriculum adoptions or library additions.
Since January 2021, 14 states have passed into law what’s popularly referred to as “anti-critical race theory” legislation. These laws and orders, combined with local actions to restrict certain types of instruction, now impact more than one out of every three children in the country, according to a recent study from UCLA.
Similar to legislation passed last year, many of these new bills propose withholding funding from school districts that don’t comply with these regulations. Some, though, would allow parents to sue individual educators who provide banned material to students, potentially collecting thousands of dollars.
In interviews with Education Week, state representatives said these new bills are designed to prevent teachers from telling children what to think, encouraging them to see divisions, or asking them to adopt perspectives that are different from those of their parents on issues like policing, Black Lives Matter, gender identity, and human sexuality.
Doug Richey, a Missouri Republican who introduced a Parents’ Bill of Rights in that state, said that families are upset that schools have turned to a “quasi-activist approach.”
“I filed this bill because there has been an obvious erosion of trust, and I want that trust to be rebuilt,” he said.
But opponents of these bills argue that the legislation is aimed at stifling conversation about racism and oppression. Heather Fleming, the founder of the Missouri Equity Education Partnership, an advocacy organization that supports anti-bias and anti-racist education, said the bills are designed to privilege the desires of white parents over others.
“They’re packaging some of these laws as ‘parents’ bill of rights.’ What parents? Because my daughter is entitled to see her culture and her heroes, people who look like her, in the curriculum, too,” said Fleming, who is Black.
Both the bills’ supporters and critics agree that providing students’ families with more avenues to challenge materials would fuel the ongoing battles on local school boards, where heated debates have already erupted over instruction that addresses racism, oppression, and gender identity.
Local pressures against “critical race theory” have led to educators self-censoring, districts abandoning equity initiatives, and equity officers receiving threats, according to the UCLA study. A lot of the 900 districts were in states with no ban on lessons about race or gender, researchers found.
Legislators expand lists of ‘divisive concepts’“Parents’ rights” has taken off as an issue for Republican legislators over the past year, as communities have fought school boards over pandemic-era policies like students masking, and remote learning has given many families up-close access to teachers’ lessons.
During the 2021 legislative session, though, only a handful of state bills concerned curriculum transparency or parents’ rights to object to classroom materials. Instead, most prohibited teaching a list of “divisive concepts,” which originally appeared in an executive order signed by then-President Donald Trump in fall 2020.
The order banned certain types of diversity training in federal agencies, preventing trainers from saying, for example, that one race or sex is inherently better than another, that all people of a certain race have unconscious bias, or that the United States is a fundamentally racist or sexist country.
Other conservative advocacy groups, some with ties to Trump, developed model legislation that would ban public schools from teaching these concepts—in some cases labeling them as “critical race theory.” The term refers to the academic theory that racism is perpetuated by structural forces like laws and policies rather than individual acts of bias, but proponents of these bills have used the term to refer to a broad swath of lessons about racism, oppression, and other social issues.
Thirty-six bills introduced this year still include this list of prohibited concepts, and 30 ban the teaching of “critical race theory” outright. But more legislators have broadened the scope of banned topics, beyond the original list in Trump’s executive order.
In several states, teachers are not allowed to teach that America is fundamentally or irredeemably racist.
A Virginia bill would prevent teachers from saying that “market-based economics is inherently racist,” while several Mississippi bills would ban teaching that “the concepts of capitalism, free markets, or working for a private party in exchange for wages are racist and sexist.”
In Indiana, lawmakers are trying to ban “race-based scapegoating.”
Robert May, a Republican representative who introduced a South Carolina bill, said schools should make clear that the American judicial system is based on equality under the law, rather than equity of outcome. “The idea that the entire jurisprudence system is based on systematic racism is ridiculous,” he said.
More bills also include language about “controversial” social and political issues, preventing schools from asking teachers to discuss these topics, and requiring that if teachers do, they evenly present both sides.
More bills target lessons on gender and sexual identityStill, a number of bills banning certain instructional topics don’t mention race at all. Instead, they’re focused on gender and sexuality.
In Arizona, Florida, and Indiana, students have to seek permission from parents before being taught about “human sexuality” and districts have to disclose to parents what those lessons would entail.
One proposed bill from Indiana requires parent permission before students learn about topics such as abortion, “transgenderism,” and gender identity.
Students also need written permission from parents before receiving counseling or medical attention related to abortion, gender-transitioning, hormone blockers, gender-reassignment surgery and “pronoun selection.”
The same bill also requires that students “must receive instruction that socialism, Marxism, communism, totalitarianism, or similar political systems are incompatible with and in conflict with the principles of freedom upon which the United States was founded.”
The author of the bill, Republican State Rep. John Prescott, did not respond to requests for comment.
Another bill, introduced in Oklahoma, would ban school libraries from housing, and teachers from using, “books that make as their primary subject the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues or recreational sexualization.” The bill clarifies that recreational sexualization means “any form of non-procreative sex.”
A similar Oklahoma bill would prohibit school libraries from having books “that make as their primary subject the study of sex, sexual preferences, sexual activity, sexual perversion, sex-based classifications, sexual identity, or gender identity or books that are of a sexual nature that a reasonable parent or legal guardian would want to know of or approve of prior to their child being exposed to it.”
The author of this second Oklahoma bill, Republican Sen. Rob Standridge, did not respond to requests for an interview. But in a Facebook post from December, he claimed that the availability of books on gender identity, sexual orientation, drag, and consent in school libraries contributed to “oversexualization of children in our public schools,” calling it “grooming.”
“Public school libraries are not the appropriate place to provide and promote such sexual material; this is exclusively the role of parents and guardians unless a parent or guardian explicitly gives informed permission for such sexual training,” he wrote.
Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, the executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group, GLSEN, sees these bills as evidence that LGTBQ students are the newest target in the fight against “critical race theory.”
The proposed legislation is a backlash to the increased visibility and rights the community has gained over the past decade, she said, noting that the Black Lives Matter movement following George Floyd’s murder in 2020 also was met with similar pushback.
“It’s about the advancement of the recognition and the representation of these distinct minority communities,” Willingham-Jaggers said. “Both of these communities have long been silenced, marginalized … kept out of power and positive representation, and I think that there is a coming together for both of these communities.”
‘Parents’ Bills of Rights’ enable curriculum review, book challengesUnlike bills that restrict teaching around race and gender, “parents’ rights” bills don’t generally name specific topics that families might object to. But some of these bills’ sponsors have drawn a link between anti-critical race theory legislation and the parents’ rights push.
All share the common aim of directing “more focus on core academic concepts and less of a focus on cultural factors,” said Dave LaRock, a Virginia Republican who introduced a parents’ rights bill in the state.
Many of these “parents’ bills of rights” share language with a Florida law of the same name, signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in June 2021.
The law states that school districts cannot withhold information from parents related to minor children’s “health, well-being, and education.” It also requires schools to develop a procedure for parents to object to instructional materials, based on concerns about “morality, sex, and religion or the belief that such materials are harmful.”
Texas’s governor, Republican Greg Abbott, introduced a similar proposal last month.
There’s also model legislation on the issue: The American Legislative Exchange Council, a free-market, limited-government group, has a model bill that proposes involving parents in pre-approval of all instructional material used in social studies courses and posting lists of all those materials online.
But some experts say parents already have options for questioning instruction or materials that they feel emphasize the wrong lessons.
“Teachers do hand out syllabi, libraries do have open access to the catalogs. This is assuming that there is an adverse relationship when there isn’t one,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom.
Most school libraries also have a procedure in place for parents who want certain materials reconsidered, she said. The ALA recommends that libraries put such a policy in place, she added, and provides a toolkit that can help them craft one.
When it comes to in-class readings, teachers usually share the outlines of a course, but they’re less likely to post a list of every worksheet a student might do or every in-class reading they might assign, said Marc Turner, the president-elect of the South Carolina Council for the Social Studies, and a high school teacher. But, he added, there’s a reason why this isn’t common practice.
Most teachers aren’t just using a textbook, instead pulling from a lot of different sources to craft their lessons. And these plans often change day to day and week to week, especially during the pandemic when school schedules are so often disrupted.
A requirement that teachers post all of the materials they use could encourage district leaders to standardize teachers’ lessons out of caution, potentially sacrificing the opportunities for critical thinking that students gain when they can compare the perspective of multiple sources, Turner said. “It would just push people back to things like textbooks.”
Anti-racism advocates worry that ‘outrage motivates’In interviews with Education Week, representatives who introduced these bills said it’s necessary to codify parents’ rights to review curriculum into law, even if they might place administrative burdens on educators.
“What we’re asking for is not to do new paperwork, but simply to provide us with the lesson plans that we have now, the paperwork that we have now,” said Rep. John Wiemann, a Missouri Republican who introduced a parents’ rights bill. “We just want to make sure that’s transparent to parents.”
Some bills, including ones in Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia, go farther, giving parents prior right of review before new materials are added to the library or new curriculum is selected. LaRock said these provisions are necessary to filter out books that don’t have “any value to children.”
Caldwell-Stone said that ignores the professional training and judgment of librarians and educators, who have detailed protocols for selecting resources. This kind of policy would also be an “administrative nightmare,” she added.
But, more importantly, she said, one parent shouldn’t have the right to make decisions for school libraries that serve entire, diverse communities.
“School libraries do more than support the curriculum,” Caldwell-Stone continued. “For many students, they may be the only library that students have access to. … They provide entertainment, artistic expression, access to literature that may not be part of the curriculum.”
In some cases, these bills would allow parents to challenge school districts and individual educators directly in court and collect damages.
A bill in Oklahoma would require individual educators to personally pay up to $10,000 in damages if parents find them to be teaching “critical race theory.” Under proposed legislation in Missouri, parents could collect up to $5,000 from a school district per violation, if the district doesn’t provide lists of all materials used and honor parents’ requests to review materials or opt out their children.
Richey, the Missouri representative who filed this bill, said it includes safeguards against parental overreach—parents can lodge a complaint with the school board, which has the power to reject it. Schools shouldn’t have to “chase after every frivolous interest or concern that a parent might be able to come up with,” he said.
Even so, Fleming, of the Missouri Equity Education Partnership, worries that this bill and others like it could have a chilling effect on teachers if signed into law. The proposed legislation suggests that teachers are spreading messages in public schools that families should object to, she said.
“When we look at the general public, outrage motivates.”
May 11, 2022 at 6:48 am in reply to: Are millennial leftists aging into right-wingers? by J.J #138838Billy_TParticipantHi BT. I had to clean that article up because it copied so much code with it. I am finding that often to post whole articles you should “clean” them first before posting here. The way I do that is just to pull up a simple word processing program you already use like word or word perfect. Paste into that, then immediately copy it and then paste it here. The word processing program “cleans it up.” That’s better than trying to edit all the code from an article you didn’t clean up–sometimes it’s way too much work to do it that way.
Thanks. Appreciate your efforts. I know about cleaning up the code — and that it really shouldn’t be necessary to this degree. I’ve been the webmaster, editor and publisher of my own site since 2008. I handle everything there, including the software, html and php coding (I know enough to be dangerous, and/or the right places to find help), uploads, and updates, and have moved the site four or five times to new hosts all by meself. :>)
I think all of this could very easily be fixed with updates and new software.
That said, I did try to clean it up using notepad++, but gave up on the idea for two reasons: wanted the internal links to function (without having to reconfigure them by hand again); figured the censor would reject it anyway.
Also, is the Chat app no longer viable as a way to reach the mods? I tried yesterday and didn’t get a response. It hasn’t seemed to work for me in months.
Regardless, looking forward to responses to the article, including from you.
Hope all is well . . .
Billy_TParticipantChristmas came early.
F*ck. F*ck. F*ck. F*ck. F*ck. I knew it. As soon as I saw the headline that the NFL was scheduling games on Christmas, I knew that the Rams would be selected to play. This is not going to go well in my house. My wife HATES sports on Christmas. Kickoff better be very late, or I’m not watching this until the replay becomes available. And she has a point. Christmas Day? Really? It’s like drilling for natural gas in Yellowstone. Can we just…not?
The silver lining is that Christmas falls on a Sunday this time. It would be far worse if it were a short-week scenario. Now, it’s just like a normal week’s home-game, celebrating the Winter Solstice a coupla days later, cuz once, centuries ago, UPS, made a late delivery in Rome, or maybe Antioch, or was it Ephesus?, and that just screwed up the entire calendar for everyone else.
(I think folks on the West Coast get this one at 1:30pm)
Billy_TParticipantThe focus on the D this draft might be a direct indication that Morris is far more in control this season. That’s it’s going to be his D now. And while I still wish they had gone for the freakish athletes when they were still on the board, I do like that they look for smart players, “mature,” whether via age or just hard-wired. Their “type” now seems to be guys with Masters degrees, often in the 24-25 year range, team captains, when possible. I don’t think they want to have to back-fill missed years of solid training, if it can be helped.
This also might be in part playing the cards they’ve been dealt. The absence of early picks can often mean that the numbers of players who check all of these boxes are all but gone:
Freakish athletes
Mature wiring, regardless of chronological time
Post-grad accomplishments
Team Captains
Noted history of We not Me ethosThe further the Draft goes, the fewer players remain who have that entire enchilada, etc. But it appears the Rams currently value some of those metrics much more than others. I don’t think they care as much about the athleticism aspect, though that may change as their own reigning super-athletes retire.
Finally, I’m also thinking the advanced age thing may be temporary too. More of a Covid related blip. Having 25-year-old rookies may soon become less common, though the introduction of the Transfer Portal mixes things up further. If I had my druthers, I’d prefer drafting as many mature and self-assured kids in the 21-22 range as possible, who didn’t need extra physical years to “get it together” (like I did!)
. . . . .
Oh, and I think the 2001 team was better than the 1999 team, as incredible and glorious as it was. By all rights, that should have been their second SB win, and they should have trounced NE.
Billy_TParticipantTreating players right on the way out likely has the 2nd order effect of helping convince FAs to sign in the first place.
Agreed. It’s very important. But letting Woods choose his destination is only one very small aspect among many. It’s not the standard measure for respect or disrespect, fair treatment or foul. There were countless other things the Rams could have done to show respect, treat him well, make it clear how much they cared about him — and still receive decent compensation. I doubt Woods thought that Tennessee or bust was the ONLY way the Rams could do all of that.
If I’m the GM, I definitely listen to the player’s wishes, with compassion and respect. But I’m going to weigh and balance them with the best interests of the team. I’m going to field offers from every team, and get the most comp possible. If the interests of the player and my team sync up, great. That’s fantastic. And I’ll work to make that happen. If they diverge, I’m gonna go with my team first. I’ll find other ways to send him off in style.
Billy_TParticipantI just took the Woods trade as the Rams letting RW pick the team he went to (out of possible trade partners). The Titans were his pick, they only offered a 6th, Rams said okay out of respect to Woods. They are drafting so well so far in the lower rounds that they can constantly surround their cap-heavy, paid-for stars with a solid cast. That’s all they need to do to keep winning, as long as they have their handful of stars.
I understand that take. But I doubt Woods had only one team on his list, and it’s actually an insult to him that he went for a 6th. That doesn’t speak well of the way the Titans valued him, either.
To me, a far better way to go would have been to keep him — he didn’t want to leave the Rams — if they couldn’t get decent compensation. Keep him on board. That shows him a great deal more respect than giving him away to another team for peanuts.
Main thing for me is this: The Rams should put the best interests of the team first, even above the wishes of individual players, especially when it’s a matter of 31 possible choices for a new destination. That doesn’t strike me as anything that actually boils down to “respect.” That’s an address, not an issue of morality, ethics, or the humane. There were 30 other possibilities, and Woods was born and raised in Cali. Does Woods really see Tennessee as the only other possible choice? And if he did, does that mean the Rams should have handicapped themselves, hurt their own compensation returns, just to go with geographical wishes?
IMO, no. No way. The Rams actually owe the remaining players on the team and their fans better. Max out on the trade — for the Rams. Or just keep Woods.
My take, anyway.
May 3, 2022 at 1:20 pm in reply to: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows #138737Billy_TParticipant<p dir=”ltr” lang=”en”>The women’s march of 2017, which could have been the beginning of a new political resistance movement, was quickly snuffed out by the fatuous Russiagate obsession, which was a movement that was just as reactionary as the president it sought to overturn. The real life-and-death — Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch (@JeffreyStClair3) May 3, 2022</p>
Just my take: It wasn’t snuffed out by Russiagate. At all. It was snuffed out by internal fighting, accusations of antisemitism between the leaders, major disagreements about focus and goals.
Playing the Russiagate card is tiresome, IMO, and there’s nothing “reactionary” about investigating a far-right president’s collusion with the far-right Putin — by definition. It’s actually “reactionary” to obsessively defend them.
In short, I think Mr. St. Clair is off his rocker.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantHey, Troy. Robert Woods went for a 6th. But – you know – go play your ass off.
And that pissed me off.
Super Bowl victory, etc. etc. Amazingly kewl, and so on. But the Rams really are bad when it comes to draft compensation for their players. They tend to offer far too much for others, and accept far too little for the guys they trade.
That really needs to stop. Cuz their “window” for victory will disappear quickly if it doesn’t, and I want them to have a shot at it all for many years to come. That’s not likely if they continue to throw away their picks.
Billy_TParticipantI know it’s a personal bias, but I think it’s based on sound thinking.
good point about troy hill. i am also in favor of high ceiling players. which is why hardy was one of my favorite picks. and i wish they had picked at least one high ceiling player at defensive back too. i guess we’ll see. the one thing that gives me comfort is that they seem adept at picking secondary players in the lower rounds so those high ceiling players must not have ticked enough boxes to be selected over the more polished players.
More good sense from you. Ya gotta stop that!!
;>)
We agree on going for the high ceiling guys when possible.
Listening to some of “11 personnel” this morning. So far, roughly 25 minutes in, it sounds like Jordan is pretty satisfied with the draft, and I respect her. I’m guessing they’ll go into more details later.
As always, I hope I’m flat out wrong and this is the Best Draft Class evah. But, right now, I can’t help but disappointed on the athletic front. Not just cuz of what the Rams lose, but for what other teams gain. I think it’s a double whammy, not just a loss for the Rams. As in, the Rams will have to face a lot of these freakish athletes down the road, and I wish that were just in their own practices.
Speed kills, etc. Size/speed destroys whole civilizations.
;>)
Billy_TParticipantInvader,
You make a lot of good points. It was a different draft for the Rams, on a lot of fronts. That drafting for the future is one of them. Not as much of that this time, possibly.
However, trading for Hill seems to be saying they still drafted those DBs for the future. Hill will start now. The rookies will be bench players. So, if we’re just dealing with DBs for a moment, I’m still thinking it was a mistake to let freakish athletes (like Woolen and McCollum) go to other teams, while picking so-so athletes and trading for Hill.
I may be reading all of this wrong by miles, but the Hill trade tells me that they don’t really trust the new picks back there either, or Rochell or Long. Rochell, of course, fits the profile I like the most. Crazy good athlete, but a bit “raw.” Again, I think a good coaching staff can work with “raw.” But no coach can make a poor or middling athlete into a freak. Boiled down, made overly simplistic, that’s why I prefer drafting for the great athletes, when possible, especially late.
It’s really all “taking a flier.” I want them to take those on rare athletes and coach them up. Not small, rather slow guys they still have to coach up.
I know it’s a personal bias, but I think it’s based on sound thinking.
Billy_TParticipantBT, do me a favor and move that article to this thread (or post it both places): media responses to the Rams 2022 draft Thanks.
In case you couldn’t tell, the comments were all mine. No excerpt from the article. I just linked to it and the software did its thing with the pic, etc.
It was intended as my response to the draft, with the article as kinda support.
Should that still be in the media response thread?
Billy_TParticipantAn article that tries to slot the eight picks versus where some draft services had them slotted pre-draft.
* https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lists/rams-draft-rankings-prospects-picks-big-board/
I know the Rams have their own board, and it’s often as idiosyncratic as New England’s, which is kind of why the Rams left-handed compliment regarding the Pats’ pick surprised me. So, yeah, they’re gonna do what they want to do (and should), not what those various media scouts and services say they should. And I also know, after researching the rankings pre-draft, that this was one of the strangest drafts, evah, after the first coupla rounds, when it comes to consistent slotting. Not a lot of consensus after the top 100 or so. Maybe even earlier. So many of them were all over the map, and the article indicates that too.
Why does any of this matter to me? Mostly cuz of this: I’m good with the Rams sticking to their guns, and not even trying to make Daniel Jeremiah and Mel Kiper happy. Not. Their. Job. But I don’t think they’re good at maximizing their picks by drafting in the general area that most outfits slot them. If, for instance, there’s a great chance they can draft player X in the 6th or 7th, they shouldn’t draft him in the 4th or earlier. Pick someone else on their board more likely to be gone if they don’t. And if it’s a pretty good bet the player is in the UDFA realm, aside from “priority” players, wait. If he’s not even ranked? Wait.
If they can’t wait, trade down, grab more picks, and then take him, if they find a willing partner.
The Rams did get a couple a round or two after their usual slotting, and that’s always good as far as “value.” The other way around generally isn’t. Not talking about within the round, cuz that can lead to a Bobby Wagner mistake. But a coupla rounds early? IMO, that’s not good draft-day chess.
Hoping I’m wrong, obviously, about this draft, and that the players, coaches, and staff prove me 100% wrong. Plus, of course, we won’t know one way or another for a year, or two, or three. It’s just on paper at this point. It’s not “real” yet.
Billy_TParticipantLogan Bruss and Daniel Hardy are the only two players in the Rams’ class who scored above an 8.50, making them the most athletic of Los Angeles’ class.
and probably my two favorite picks. although i do like the williams pick. i’m rooting for him hard. but more athleticism and potential would have been nice too.
My favorite picks as well.
It’s almost as if they passed on freakish athletes on purpose. That they have something against them this year. And this draft was loaded with crazy-good athletes. Deeper in that area than I can ever remember. Size/speed demons all over the place, but especially at DB, a position they obviously cared about.
One would think picking them would fit right into the Rams overall strategy of — mostly — drafting for the future (next man up), not for rookies necessarily starting, etc. That means they have time to coach up “potential.” When the pick is less than average athletically, that can’t be coached up. They’re not going to win most matchups with the superior athletes around the league. But a freakish athlete, under Ram tutelage for a year or two?
It kinda baffles me. Common sense says that in a game of inches and split seconds, the fastest, quickest, longest, strongest athletes will win the down more often than not. If a QB has 2.4 or whatever seconds to get rid of the pass, who do you want rushing him? The 4.9 guy, with the 1.75 split? Or the the 4.55 guy with the 1.52 split?
Same thing with DBs, going up against the growing array of speedster receivers. I want the DB who can run a 4.3, and has a 1.47 split, defending a Metcalf or a Chase, etc.
And, yeah, I know. Playing speed, in pads, is what counts. But, generally speaking, it translates pretty well to pads-on speed too. Not always. But usually.
Anyway, I’m bummed in general about the draft. Still high from the Super Bowl. But I wanted them to get faster, stronger, etc. etc. I’m a greedy old fan.
Billy_TParticipantRams finished with the least athletic draft class of 2022
* https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lists/nfl-draft-2022-athletic-rams-score-least/
The Los Angeles Rams began the 2022 NFL draft with eight draft picks, and they finished with that same amount after making two trades: one up and one down. They filled most of their top needs, selecting four defensive backs, two linemen, one running back and an edge rusher.
What they didn’t do is put together a very athletic draft class. In fact, it was the least athletic in the NFL based on a number of measurables that go into Kent Lee Platte’s “Relative Athletic Score.” It accounts for height, weight, 40-yard dash time, broad jump and other combine drills, giving fans an idea of how athletic a player is compared to his peers.
According to average RAS, the Rams’ draft class ranks 32nd out of 32 teams for 2022. It was weighed down heavily by Derion Kendrick and Kyren Williams, who both had an RAS below 4.00.
Logan Bruss and Daniel Hardy are the only two players in the Rams’ class who scored above an 8.50, making them the most athletic of Los Angeles’ class.
Below are the Relative Athletic Scores of each player from the Rams’ class, though Quentin Lake’s was not available due to a lack of testing numbers from the combine and his pro day.
Bruss’ position was also changed from offensive tackle to guard to give a better idea of how he compares to players at the position he’ll play for the Rams.
Billy_TParticipantOverall, not happy with the Draft. I think they bypassed a lot of talent and went seriously idiosyncratic. They seemed to draft mostly below average athletes, with the exception of Daniel Hardy. To me, when you draft late, you go for superior athletes you can coach up. Small school gems. Guys wh0 weren’t given a chance on loaded teams, but have speed, explosion, strength, etc. You can’t coach slow kids into being fast, but you can coach up poor technique, and make up for lack of experience, etc. You can coach/correct for “lesser” competition, but you can’t turn a below average athlete into someone who consistently wins matchups, in general.
Boiled down, football is a game of speed, quickness, explosion, and strength. The side with the best athletes will win more often than the side with average athletes. Yeah, ya got your “intangibles” and drive and want-to and all of that. But, speed kills, strength kills, suddenness makes ya miss, etc.
This was one of the deepest and most athletic drafts I can remember, just chalked full of RAS freaks, and the Rams basically grabbed just one of them.
Hoping they can make up for that, at least somewhat, via UDFAs.
Billy_TParticipantUm, I should add this to a previous comment. :>) If the Rams get back to the Super Bowl after the 2022 season, I won’t really care about Durant’s age. I’ll be too busy celebratin’ their return, obviously.
Billy_TParticipantThe sea chickens picked a cb that’s 6’4″ and ran a legit 4.26 at 152 hmmm
Both the big/speedy corners are off the board now. Rams shoulda drafted one of them. McCollum or Woolen. I was pulling for the former.
Billy_TParticipantNot a fan of this pick. Too small. And if the Rams go back to the Super Bowl, he’ll turn 25 before the game.
It makes even less sense after the Hill trade, IMO. They can find tiny corners among the UDFAs.
Helps them with depth at the slot. But I was hoping they’d go bigger at corner.
Billy_TParticipantSolid pick, but I think they could have maxed out their choices better at #104. I would have taken Zyon McCollum first, and then Bruss at #142. He very likely would have still been there, but the reverse is not likely to be the case. McCollum will be gone. You just don’t find too many 6’2″ corners with 4.3 speed, and the rest of the measurables. Three Cone and 20-yard shuttle times show he has elite quickness to go along with elite long-speed. You can’t teach that. You can coach him up, though, on technique, etc.
40 Yard Dash
4.33
Bench Press
—
Vertical Jump
39.5
Broad Jump
132
3 Cone Drill
6.48
20 Yd Shuttle
3.94___
Want the Rams to get faster and more athletic through this draft. Amare Barno is the Edge guy to do that. Sub-4.4 speed, at 6’5″. Would be a great 6th Round pick.
Billy_TParticipantHoping Rams take Zyon McCollum (CB) at 104, if he’s there. If Nick Cross (S) falls into their lap, I’d take him instead. McCollum is more likely to be there than Cross, though.
I really want the Rams to get faster and more athletic on D. Everywhere, really. But especially at D. McCollum is one of those athletic “freaks,” with excellent size for a corner. Cross has 4.3 speed as well. And they need a corner, safety, edge this draft. Guard, center, too. DT is also a need. Noah Ellis should be there late. Hogmolly. Space-eater. Should help free up Donald and the linebackers to do more. He’s in the 360 pound range. Bigger than the Rams typical like to go.
Seventh round: Isaiah Weston is intriguing, as a size/speed receiver. Raw, though.
“Punt God” Matt Araiza has been slotted anywhere from the 3rd round to UDFA, but if he’s still there in the 6th, I’d been fine with the Rams drafting him.
Rams should come out of this draft with improved depth, and perhaps a starter at corner or safety. Might also be able to find them at guard and punter. I do wish they had 1st and 2nds this year!
Billy_TParticipantThe First Amendment limits the government’s ability to “abridge” speech. There are no such restriction on what Corporations can do. They can do whatever they want.
Yep.
I find this to be the case especially with people on the political right. They often confuse the right to free speech with the right to access vehicles and platforms for communication. Even within the limited realm of “Congress can not legislate,” there has never been a “right” to access those platforms or vehicles of communication. And it would be impossible to enforce such a “right” even if it existed.
That would mean every person turned down for a book deal, a radio show, a TV show, a part in the movie, etc. etc. . . . could sue on the basis of denial of free speech.
Platforms and vehicles for speech aren’t speech. When a university turns down a speaker, for example, that is not a violation of their “free speech.” That is a choice they obviously, logically have to make every time they choose this or that speaker over dozens or hundreds of others. Same thing with books, records, movies, newspaper columns, etc. etc.
Billy_TParticipantAnother key thing that goes unsaid all too often, even by leftists:
Our participation in social media extends (and makes far easier) the era of free content pillaging by capitalists. It’s yet another innovation in getting consumers to both buy stuff and work for free. We willingly provide intellectual property to capitalists for nada, and they add insult to injury by also plundering all the stuff we don’t volunteer: our personal meta-info. It’s yet another evolutionary step well beyond self-service gas-stations, etc.
As Jason Hickel describes so well in Less is More, capitalism was built on endless pillaging of formerly free externals, follows that with forced and artificial scarcity, and must continue this, world without end. It must always take far more than it gives. Social media provides one of its easiest routes to plunder, evah.
In short, leftists, IMO, should be investing in our own, democratically controlled media — to the extent possible. Thinking we can “democratize” Twitter is . . . . um, well, absurd. It’s not gonna happen. And until that happens, we need to find ways to use it, instead of being used by it.
I know. Easier said than done.
Billy_TParticipantI think the main problem is that too many Americans don’t get that democracy and capitalism are in direct opposition, and always will be. They’re permanently incompatible. Far too many seem to believe the two are natural fits, while some even believe the former can thrive when the latter is in place.
Economic apartheid (capitalism) will never support political democracy. It can’t. True democracy, if it were in place, would rightfully obliterate capitalism, and it’s hard to imagine that capitalists don’t get that, especially rich creeps like Musk. When capitalism is in place, democracy exists in name only, as a gadfly of sorts, with occasional victories and measures, here and there, but that’s it. Some nations, with Scandinavia likely leading the way, extend the range of the gadfly more than others, but in most cases the range is all too narrow and always precarious. With the exception of the all too brief Keynesian period (FDR thru LBJ, roughly), it’s been far worse than just precarious.
Social media allows “free speech” only to the extent that it helps generate capital accumulation. As in, only under its own rules, which means it doesn’t really exist there.
Another issue, of course, is the meaning of “free speech” itself. That is yet another scene of grotesque misunderstanding, even beyond the absurdities of assuming we’ll ever have “democratic rights” under capitalism.
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
Thanks for asking. Yeah, doing okay, all things considered. Hope you and yours are well too.
Jason Hickel is well worth reading. Both books, as mentioned. Less is More makes the case for what is to me all too obvious: We need rapid degrowth, not more growth, if we’re to avert ecological catastrophe. “Green capitalism” won’t do it, for a host of reasons, but especially cuz it keeps capitalism’s Prime Directive in place, which is exponential GDP growth, year after year. That growth will wipe out the gains (net) that we can make even if we do the necessary thing and go “green.” Species and resource extinction, climate, forever chemicals, the nine plus tipping points, etc.
I like Hickel’s truly holistic analysis and his ability to put things in plain terms, even with the facts galore. He’s also excellent when it comes to pointing out the obscenely unequal repercussions/fault lines when it comes to disasters . . . The Global north generating the vast majority of pollution and climate degradation and the Global south receiving the vast majority of the pain for this. Throw in his spot-on historical review of what got us here, and umpteen directions for further reading in the notes, and you have a great spur to thought and (hopefully) action.
Colonization and enclosure, for roughly five centuries, and it’s still ongoing. The Divide is excellent for setting the table for Less is More, especially on the world finance/global inequality front. But you don’t need to read it first. Another important voice along similar lines is Jason W. Moore.
I’m gonna concentrate on this topic in the near-term. Basically, global inequality, ecology, degrowth, ecosocialism. Hickel very briefly suggests — so far, at least — that the latter needs to include the degrowth movement within socialist practices. If it is in fact missing, he’s right.
We can’t sustain life on earth under capitalism . . . but even under socialism, which gives us a fighting chance, we can’t do it if “growth” remains the norm.
Billy_TParticipantA thread.
“People often assume that capitalism is defined by “markets and trade”. But markets and trade existed for thousands of years before capitalism. Capitalism is only 500 years old. So what is distinctive about this economic system? Three things (well, more, but three for now):” — Jason Hickel (@jasonhickel) April 18, 2022</p>
I’m reading Hickel’s Less is More right now, and it’s excellent. His The Divide is as well. Must-reads, both. I’m roughly 40% of the way through.
He deals with Climate Change, ecological destruction overall, global inequality, and the history of capitalism — and it’s very accessible, comprehensive, and concise.
Will likely start a thread on it once I’ve finished. Reading it via my public library/ebook.
Billy_TParticipantGood work, Zooey, getting the context, etc.
Seeing the name Jack Posobiec was enough for me to know it was a bogus ploy. He’s a well-known alt-right lunatic, and a truly despicable con man. Hopefully, you haven’t had a run in with him on Twitter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec
John Michael Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOH-bik; born December 14, 1985)[1] is an American alt-right[7] and alt-lite[2][8] political activist, television correspondent and presenter,[9] conspiracy theorist,[10] and provocateur.[11][12][13] Posobiec is known for his pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter, as well as using white supremacist and antisemitic symbols and talking points, including the white genocide conspiracy theory.[14][15][16][17] He has repeatedly planted false and derogatory claims about political figures in an effort to damage his opponents. He has promoted fake news, including the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring.[18] From 2018 to 2021, Posobiec was employed by One America News Network (OANN), a far-right cable news television channel, as a political correspondent and on-air presenter.[9] He left OANN in May 2021 to begin hosting a show for the conservative student organization Turning Point USA, and to join conservative news site Human Events as a senior editor.[19]
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
I don’t trust any of it off hand, including photos about photos about photos. They can be doctored too. Paranoia has no end, etc.
No attempted defense of the Centrist News Network, but I’d have to see the actual TV feed myself to believe they were faking their Ukraine coverage from . . . would that be (Edmonton) Canada? I’m betting the picture of the feed is itself a fake.
Why would CNN do that? It’s not as if they have to pretend stuff is on fire during a war. It’s not like wars don’t provide a ton of horrors to film. Why would they need to invent any of that and film the war in Ukraine from somewhere else?
All kinds of propaganda out there, from all kinds of different places, including the kind that tries to make us doubt all Western media.
Billy_TParticipantReading the Ramswire article makes it just that much more . . . baffling. Poor clock-management. Cost them nearly 4 million net, just because of timing.
The FO gets a lot of slack because of the Super Bowl, of course. But still. This trade was just flat out botched. And it looks worse to me after the Tyreek Hill trade. I’d rather have Woods on my team than Hill. A thousand times over, even with his crazy speed. Woods’ intangibles versus Hill’s? With his past and recent violence? Come on. So Woods nets a 6th rounder in next year’s draft — which has the value of a 7th this year — and Hill brings in a 1st round plus?
I do think they got a steal with Robinson, his talent, his contract. But they could have Robinson and Woods . . . or Woods in return for a lot more. Woods was just worth a lot more to the Rams than a 6th and a few million off the cap.
Depressing
Billy_TParticipantLooking at the compensation for the Wentz and Ryan trades — two 3rds, and one 3rd, respectively — it makes the 6th rounder for Woods all the more absurd. Wentz is basically a bust. Ryan is the better player, but he’s 37. Woods deserves at least similar returns. Worst case scenario: a 4th this year. At worst. If we’re comparing his overall game, and his intangibles, to Davante Adams . . . I’m thinking the Rams should have gotten at least a 2nd.
Woods is actually a 1st round receiver, and proven many times over. But, yeah, the age and injury thing kick in too. So I get that.
Billy_TParticipantI haven’t seen anything in the media yet on another aspect to Woods’ game, but I think it’s important:
Kupp learned a hell of a lot from him. I don’t think Kupp is the player he is now if Woods isn’t a teammate. Several key elements, IMO, but I’d say his blocking and his sneaky run-after-the-catch are most obviously influenced by Woods. Deceptive speed, quickness, and the ability to utilize that, weave his way through traffic, etc. Incredibly efficient in his movements, picking and choosing, finding the flow, the right gear, and so on. Woods is a master at all of that.
Kupp and the Rams are really going to miss him.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
