Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantJust a rough guess. Most NFL linebackers are in the 4.7 range. A bunch run faster, in the 4.6 range. A smaller bunch in the 4.5s. Very rare to find them faster than 4.5.
Both Devins this year are in the 4.4 range. Doesn’t happen often. Pittsburgh drafted one of them to replace Shazier, who may have been the fastest linebacker in the NFL before his devastating injury.
In the 4.3s.
Another thing I’ve noticed about draft reports: They can be all over the map. I’ve forgotten their names, but I looked at some of the UDFAs online, and a few of them had comments ranging from “below average athleticism” to “freakishly athletic.”
As in, the same guy was described in wildly different ways.
I think that wide range is more frequent for the lesser known players. Another guess. The guys with the relatively consistent grades — Top 100, give or take — seem to provoke a more narrow subjective response.
Billy_TParticipantRapp is a pure baller if I may use the parlance of the day.
I like any Olineman from Wisconsin.
The kid from Penn State is a ST Ace and has huge upside.
Don’t like what I read somewhere about Henderson having poor vision and being easily knocked off his feet. Reminds me of another back with gaudy collegiate numbers…Lawrence Phillips.
Do you have any special insights about Scott? From the reports, he’s very athletic, and he tested that way as well. Fast, quick, agile. Apparently, not that good yet at reading plays as a safety, but he won’t have to worry about that as a special teams whiz.
Do you think he can end up being more than a special teams warrior? Again, it’s an excellent pick even if that’s all he ever does. But if he contributes as a DB too? It’s a steal.
Billy_TParticipantIn general, with all kinds of contingencies afoot and in play, your first three rounds should yield starters now or in the future. If you get that from your 4th rounder too, that’s a good draft. Beyond the fourth round? Tremendous draft.
Of course, the better a team is, the more difficult this becomes. The best teams in any given year may not get any starters from their drafts, period, and they may still draft really, really well.
The Rams are, as we all know, a really good team. But they do have holes. The draft still should bring them starters, upgrades, etc. etc.
I think they got a likely future starter in Rapp, Gaines (he might start sooner than later), Long (nickel) and Henderson (if Gurley falters). Evans and Edwards appear to offer solid O-line depth, which every team needs.
I’m betting Scott gives them an immediate “starter” on special teams, and will contribute heavily as a rookie. Finding someone like that in the 7th round is a coup. Dakota Allen, despite his awesome name, strikes me as a likely cut. We’ll see.
All in all, a pretty good draft, though I would have preferred a different safety instead of Rapp. If his forty was impacted by his hip injury, I feel better about the pick. But even then, I think the Rams had better options. He still should start for them when Weddle leaves, which is a good thing.
Overall, a solid B.
Billy_TParticipantMcVay called him a unique playmaker, and when asked, said this pick was about Henderson’s skills and not Todd Gurley’s knee.
not buying it. i like the pick, but at least part of it was about the knee.
i do think henderson will be fun to watch though. that highlight tape was something else.
i’m just worried about dline right now.
I think Gurley is hurt, and the Rams are worried about his future. At the same time, I like the pick of Henderson even with a healthy Gurley. He looks special. Fast, quick, “make ’em miss” running style.
He looks like he can add the proverbial new dimension to the Rams’ O. McVay is gonna love that.
(I just hope they also experiment with jumbo packages, especially goal line and 3rd downs. More linemen, TEs, perhaps replace a running back with a DT on top of that. Confuse the D, and protect Goff at the same time)
Billy_TParticipantI don’t remember seeing him play, but likely watched him a time or two without focusing, etc. As a Maryland fan, Michigan is in the picture.
He tested off the charts when it comes to the short shuttle and 3-cone, for whatever that’s worth, and his vert is excellent. Fast in the 40, too, at 4.45.
To the degree the testing tells us anything, he’s jitterbug quick. Should be excellent in the slot, and probably would have done a nice job on Edelman.
Had excellent grades in school as well, and is another young player. Just turned 21 this past February.
Billy_TParticipantI like this pick, but the round tells us they’re worried about Gurley. Which we kinda sorta already knew.
If it turns out that the Rams have to play a lot of Brown instead of Gurley, it may well be Henderson who offers a great change of pace.
On the first pick, Rapp. Just saw that he had an injury (hip flexor) and that may have contributed to his slow 40. If so, I feel a lot better about it, if he can heal, etc. etc.
And with Weddle, they can give him time to heal and work his way into the lineup over the course of the season. I also like that he doesn’t turn 22 until December. I think Henderson is young, too (2016 freshman). I pretty much always see that as a plus when drafting.
April 26, 2019 at 9:38 pm in reply to: All of that wheeling and dealing for an extremely slow, undersized safety? #100376Billy_TParticipantHope you’re right, ZN.
Seattle moved up to draft Metcalf immediately after the Rapp pick.
It will be interesting to see Rapp covering Metcalf twice a year. Obviously, I hope I’m waaaay wrong and Rapp and the rest of the Rams shut him down.
Billy_TParticipantWho do you guys want for the Rams?
I think they were wise to trade back, after the Clemson guys all came off the board, and the value for the rest of the D-line guys was no longer in the 1st Round range, basically — give or take.
I really wanted Burns or Lawrence, especially. But now, they have a shot at some DBs who do give them 1st Round value, and it’s a need. Don’t know enough about them to say who’s the best . . . but my preference generally starts with “best athlete” and youngest, all other things being equal.
Ideally — and this is, of course, all too rare — a big, seriously athletic DB. But I’ll take smaller players with speed and agility. They need to be tacklers too, though. Reports are that Greedy Williams fell because he’s not fond of tackling, and that’s not usually a helpful factor for a DB. Yes, he’s very fast, tall and athletic, and has excellent ball skills, but if a DB doesn’t like to tackle . . . . Umm, that’s not good.
;>)
Going a bit against the grain, I’d love to see the Rams draft Hakeem Butler later. 6’4″ and some change, with long arms and huge hands, he wins jump balls. Strong vert, sub-4.5 speed. Would be an excellent Red Zone/matchup nightmare.
Of course, the Rams are loaded at wideout. But they really don’t have a great jump ball guy. So it would further juice their offense. But the 2nd round probably belongs to DBs or guards this time.
Thoughts?
April 26, 2019 at 5:24 pm in reply to: A truly original and excellent book: Martin Hagglund's This Life. #100356Billy_TParticipantA key takeaway is his discussion of the realm of necessity versus the realm of freedom. In economic terms, “socially necessary labor time” versus “socially available free time.”
He reminds us that technological improvements — time-saving, labor-saving improvements — would convert into more socially available free time, if we were not under the thumb of capitalism. Using my own words/deductions, mixed with his ideas, this is because capitalism and capitalists convert those gains into profits instead. As in, we still work the same number of hours, if not more, even though socially necessary labor time has been reduced. Capitalists increase their profits when this happens. We the people don’t get to convert this into more time to become who we are, or find out who we ought to be.
Also, Hagglund isn’t talking just about leisure time, per se (or necessarily) when he talks about “socially available free time.” He’s far more concerned with increasing the time (and tools) available for people to discover what it is they should do with their lives. Not just how to put bread on the table and roof over our heads. But what it is . . . for lack of a better expression . . . finding our bliss (Campbell). Hagglund doesn’t word it thusly, but that’s basically the gist. And, by bliss, I mean our chosen life’s work, not “hobbies” or momentary passions.
Again, this is a truly important book, and in my not so humble opinion, a must-read for leftists, especially.
April 26, 2019 at 5:16 pm in reply to: A truly original and excellent book: Martin Hagglund's This Life. #100355Billy_TParticipantSince this is a work of non-fiction — of philosophy and political economy — I can safely cut to the end without spoiling it. Hagglund makes the case for democratic socialism, but defines it in a unique way. The journey to that point, however, is everything.
As mentioned above, I can’t remember another book that made me feel so much in sync with an author. I loved the way he gets to democratic socialism as a necessary foundation for the kind of society we all should want. I love that he takes us on a journey from Abraham and Isaac, through Augustine, all the way to Kierkegaard, Hegel, Marx, Proust and Hayek, plus a host of others.
His is primarily an immanent critique of both religion and capitalism, and why it’s necessary to critique both at the same time — borrowing a page from Marx who did this too. His main focus is on the finite nature of everyone’s life, and how this makes all life so precious, and how the quest for “eternal life” ironically goes against that sense of preciousness, diminishing the import of our one and only life in the Here and Now.
For him, and for me, capitalism is all too similar. While he doesn’t say this explicitly, he implies what I have long felt: That the faith we have in capitalism is religious, not rational, and the faith we have in the “invisible hand” and “the markets” is religious, not rational. Hagglund goes deeper by showing how incompatible it is with both democracy and personal emancipation, with developing our selves to the fullest extent, because we’re means to an end (profits), not ends in themselves.
Billy_TParticipantI think The Wildling, who was breast fed by a “giant”, wants to breed with Jaime the Knight…..
You mean, with Brienne the knight. Right?
Billy_TParticipantPossible spoiler here, but I don’t think it really “spoils” anything in the grand scheme, etc. etc.
___
___
___
___
___
I really liked seeing Jaime “knight” Brienne of Tarth, and perhaps her first true smile as a result. Much deserved and well played.
Billy_TParticipantI am. Liking it. Helped to rewatch all of last season before this one started.
Reminded me how good it is, from the standpoint of production values, writing, acting, drama. Seriously compelling. For TV, it’s top of the heap, IMO. Many scenes rate that for “film” too.
Trying to avoid spoilers, but, suffice it to say, next week (episode three) is gonna be the Biggie.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, Zooey, for the articles.
Peterson is apparently quite the rock star among righties, but from what I’ve seen, he’s either extremely ignorant of actual leftist ideas, philosophies, policies, etc. etc. or cynically seeks to manipulate the discussion around unfounded monoliths, obscuring the radical diversity among leftists on all of these topics. Perhaps both.
Basically, he wants everyone to associate Marx, Marxism, socialism and communism with Stalin and the USSR, rather than its much deeper tradition — nearly four centuries worth — of radical egalitarianism, real democracy, and the rejection of concentrations of wealth and power, including centralized states.
As in, the vast majority of leftists, including Russians directly involved in the Revolution, didn’t want the USSR Lenin forged, must less Stalin’s. They didn’t risk their lives overthrowing the Czar only to replace it with another oppressive ruling class. They wanted an end to ruling classes, period, and “all power to the Soviets,” which meant back to communities under the umbrella of real democracy.
Reading an excellent book by Martin Hagglund, This Life, which makes a brilliant case for Democratic Socialism, and, as a bi-product, shreds the idea of leftist monoliths. Will start another thread when I finish the book in a day or two. It’s a profoundly important work, IMO.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/248368/this-life-by-martin-hagglund/9781101870402/
Billy_TParticipantThat looks like a great list. Want to read several on it.
Have read just two. The Overstory and The Tangled Tree, which I’ve mentioned before. Both well worth reading.
Richard Powers recently won a Pulitzer for The Overstory. A brilliant, important book, that will last.
Billy_TParticipantI hate to be a pest and all. But this thread is rilly, rilly bugging me!!
Billy_TParticipantDo you think the Rep-Amerikunz and the Dem-Amerikunz are ever gonna…um….wake up?
I’ve never watched this show before, and don’t know the host, but he starts off with a howler, claiming Nicole Wallace is “from the left.” She’s a conservative Republican, worked for Dubya on his communications staff, and was a senior advisor to McCain in his campaign for president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolle_Wallace
Anyone who watches her show knows she’s conservative. Yes, she’s a Never-Trumper, but she hews to center-right positions politically.
Methinks the host assumed she was “from the left” because she’s on MSNBC. Not a good assumption.
Anyway, as for the discussion: I am worried about the heightened tensions in America. But I personally think “the left” makes a big mistake whenever it thinks this is a symmetrical issue. It’s not. The vast majority of the tension is generated by Republicans and the hard-right.
. . . Right-wing Dems are a part of it as well, especially those who stand in front of AIPAC and denounce Ilhan Omar — thus making her point for her. But in general, this is primarily on Republicans, IMO.
(Nothing in politics is symmetrical. The two parties aren’t equivalent on anything, really. They’re both rotten and need to go away. But they’re rotten to different degrees, for different reasons, and with different effects. And their “bases” are ever further apart.)
Billy_TParticipantIt’s true. People with ugly hearts are everywhere. And though I’d leave in a second if I could afford it, I don’t have any illusions about unicorns and rainbows overseas, either. I know there is no perfect place or place in time.
Psychologically, though, I think it would be healthier to live in a country that isn’t Hegemon. To live in a non-warmongering nation, where life is measured differently. Friendships, family, love, great food, intellectual pursuits, great art, etc. etc. That, as opposed to how much money we make, and how hard we work until we drop dead.
Politically, the best location for me would likely be Scandinavia, though the Nordic countries have had their share of right-of-center governments too, and aren’t “socialist,” as I’d wish. But the cold!! Brrrrr!!
So it’s probably the South of France for me. My tour of France in 2007 knocked me out. It’s a cultural candy store, and for that reason alone, it would be worth the move. No illusions about their war-filled, colonial past, and its remnants still. But compared to here, now? Would love to live in Nîmes, especially.
Billy_TParticipantHere’s an example. Trump tweeted this today:
Looks like Bob Mueller’s team of 13 Trump Haters & Angry Democrats are illegally leaking information to the press while the Fake News Media make up their own stories with or without sources – sources no longer matter to our corrupt & dishonest Mainstream Media, they are a Joke!
If Trump had just shut up about Russia from day one, the amount of news coverage would have plummeted.
Of course, if he hadn’t fired Comey in the first place, there never would have been a Mueller investigation.
Billy_TParticipantFinally — and, again, I hope my posts don’t stop others from voicing their opinions . . .
I wish Hedges, Greenwald and company would widen their eyes enough to note the main source of the discussion. They seemed obsessed with the Dems on that subject, but they need to look at the real source for coverage:
Trump. To me, it’s beyond obvious that no one keeps the story in the news more than Trump. He tweets about it daily. Often several times a day. He brings it up when no reporter has mentioned it. He even brings it up when the ostensible reason for the press gaggle is a foreign leader standing next to Trump.
And, there’s that rather inconvenient series of Republicans in charge of all phases of the investigation, before and after Trump took office.
“Context.” It’s missing from the arguments I’ve heard or read from the Greenwalds, Hedges and company.
Billy_TParticipantI also think the host overdid it by saying Venezuela and Syria are “Russian client states.” Isn’t that, in effect, lending ammunition to the idea of “the evil empire”?
I don’t see Russia that way. But it appears the host does — or is confused about his own argument against a charge that hasn’t really made sense for nearly 30 years now.
Billy_TParticipantI wish I could sit down and talk with Hedges about this. Greenwald too. It saddens me to note how quickly they embraced the three-page summary of the Mueller report, by Trump’s appointee, as some sort of “categorical” judgement.
(Hedges says “Mueller report” when no one has seen it. He should say the Barr summary, to be accurate.)
Doesn’t that contradict their (justifiable) skepticism of government in general? Why accept the word of a Trump appointee, who auditioned for the job with a 19-page (unsolicited) trashing of the investigation itself, with the added bonus (for Trump) of saying the president can’t “obstruct” justice?
In short, why this sudden about-face? And why the — to be overly generous — mischaracterization of even that summary as some kind of “categorical” refutation by way of Mueller himself?
Skepticism of the Powers that Be would also include Trump and his appointees, wouldn’t it?
Billy_TParticipantZN (or anyone else),
Do you have any draft preferences at the moment?
As already mentioned, I hope Dexter Lawrence is there for the Rams, but I don’t think he will be. I’d love for them to have a serious hogmolly in the middle, who also just so happens to be very athletic for his size.
Brian Burns, if Lawrence isn’t there. A high-potential edge player . . . and DK Metcalf, if he slips down. Would radically improve their Red Zone offense. A true size/speed guy with the ability to win jump balls, etc.
I’m having trouble gauging the players more likely than not to be there at #31, or in trade-down territory. But I get the sense that the Rams will go Safety if Front Seven players don’t fit the BPA model.
Thoughts?
Billy_TParticipantOn Russiagate: Trump will benefit twice from Comey’s intrusion on the election of 2016. The DoJ appears to finally want to adhere to their guidelines of not talking about people who haven’t been indicted, which Comey set aside when it came to Clinton.
Barr came into this with a bias against the investigation, and support for, basically, saying the president is above the law. That he can’t “obstruct.”
The DoJ says a sitting president can’t be indicted, so that all but means radio silence on what Trump has done. America may never find out, and this has apparently pissed off some on Mueller’s team, who recently said Barr ignored their own summaries for each section of the report — which they said they wrote for public consumption — and that the evidence points to considerable wrongdoing by Trump and his campaign.
“Can’t indict a sitting president” plus “can’t talk about people who aren’t indicted” stacks the deck against transparency. To me, this is something the America people should care about.
Billy_TParticipantThat was funny.
I’m worried, however, that Trump will be successful in loading up the various departments with his hand-picked CYA guys, and America won’t find out what really happened, or is happening under his regime.
He’s trying to put friendly hacks (Moore and Cain) at the Fed so they can cut rates again and artificially extend this (incredibly shallow) “recovery.” And, he put a budd at the IRS with McConnell’s hasty help, who will likely block the release of his tax returns. McConnell also broke decades of precedent to reduce the debate time for judges, so Trump can stack the courts.
Even if the Dems press on with subpoenas, it looks like Trump may have enough judges in his pocket to block them too. It’s basically a race to the bottom and Trump may win it.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
You’ve gotta read that book. I recently finished it and learned a ton. Was going to post about it here.
Really, really good history. Chomsky and Zinn would be proud of Immerwahr.
(I’ve switched things up recently. Used to buy my books. Now I’m checking them out of the library when I can, especially new stuff. But this book is worth purchasing.)
===================
Yeah i was thinking about ordering his book. Usually i wait awhile until books end up ‘used’ on the net and i can get them for two or three bux.
But then, lately I’ve refrained from buying political books. They tend to sit around my house for ages and i never get to them. Too many. Plus…as i enter the late-stages of my life I find it hard to find ‘reasons’ to cram more political details into my mind. I ask myself “whats the point” in me learning more ‘details’ about the corpor-o-tacracy (or whatever one wants to label it). It doesnt help me any to know more details, really. I already know the basic blueprint of how it works and how it has worked. So is it really the best use of my limited time to learn more ‘details’ of the disgusting biosphere-killing work of the corporotacracy? I mean, its like reading more about Hitler or Stalin. It wouldnt be a bad thing to learn more details of their butchery, but…what is the point? So…thats where I’m at with reading pol books. But watching short vids is different for me. I’ll do that. But a whole book? It doesnt seem worth my time anymore. Thats a job for young people. (I might buy the book just so i can give it to a young human)
As far as what the writer is doing? Great stuff. Zinn-level stuff. (which is high praise for me)
I have always known that I knew very very little about the ‘territories’. A much needed addition to general readership american ‘pol lit’.His name just appeared on the side of my youtube screen not long ago. Thats how i stumbled across him.
Mainly nowadays, when i want to read, at night, i find myself drawn more to stories, novels. I’m reading “A People’s Future Of The United States,” and an autobio by the ornery comedian Paul Mooney. Mooney was Richard Pryor’s mentor back in the day. He said Richard really spent a lot of time reading Malcolm X’s writings. He understood radicalism very well. But politics came second to cocaine for Richard Pryor. He loved drugs. Loved’em. Another leftist wrecked by drugs.
w
vw
vUnderstandable, WV. I get the idea of saturation points. I reach them too. Which is why I mostly read novels as well. But I like to mix things up and do non-fiction at times. Two really good books on evolution, which I’ve mentioned, and Immerwahr’s book . . . breaking up a bunch of novels and one short story collection.
Currently reading Wallace Stegner’s Crossing to Safety, which I love. I wish I had read him years and years ago. He’s a fantastic writer. A writer’s writer. And this is a beautiful novel.
More recent readings:
Highly recommend Sally Rooney’s Conversations With Friends, Ben Lerner’s Leaving the Atocha Station, Valeria Luiselli’s Lost Children Archive, and Jenny Offill’s Department of Speculation.
Loved all of them. But I think the book that’s moved me the most in recent months is The Overstory, by Richard Powers. About trees and people who love trees. I learned a ton about tree lives, their communities, families, communications, defenses, and the tragedy of our destruction of those trees.
Anyway . . . thanks for the tip about Mooney. I had not heard of him before. Makes me want to take another look at Pryor, too.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, ZN.
Much appreciated.
Still haven’t watched the video, so I don’t know if he mentioned Kipling. But he talks about him in the book.
The supreme arrogance and hubris of it all. For any center of power to believe it should rule over others, because of its supposed innate “superiority.”
Dangerous in all forms, but another level of dangerous if this is based on the biological fallacy.
Billy_TParticipantWould like to hear your take on the video, WV.
Will wait a bit before posting more on the book.
. . . I fear that my sudden onslaughts of posting in this forum tend to kill these threads. Not my intention at all. I honestly want to hear you and everyone else’s take on things. I don’t ever post to end discussions.
Billy_TParticipantAll kinds of takeaways for me — I haven’t watched your video yet, but will.
Too many to list. But his overall angle is really important. That all too many Americans (and Uncle Sam, of course) for far too long have ignored, forgotten about, or didn’t even realize that our far-flung empire includes millions of American citizens in its territories, and they’ve been abused, oppressed, used as human guinea pigs, etc. etc.
I felt ashamed, so many times, over the course of reading How to Hide an Empire. But it should be required reading in our schools, and all our reps need to read it too.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
You’ve gotta read that book. I recently finished it and learned a ton. Was going to post about it here.
Really, really good history. Chomsky and Zinn would be proud of Immerwahr.
(I’ve switched things up recently. Used to buy my books. Now I’m checking them out of the library when I can, especially new stuff. But this book is worth purchasing.)
-
AuthorPosts
