I disagree. It’s ownership.

JT wrote the truth which is the one thing StanK hasn’t been able to buy.

I believe the repudiation of the Bush agenda is complete. The vestiges of that wing of the party will not support Trump. The Tea Party that Dick Armey co-opted from Ron Paul supporters years ago is now seeing its discontent with the status quo come to fruition. Trump isn’t really Tea Party but he has tapped into enough of that vein to get their support. That really seems to be Trump’s greatest strength. He isn’t a perfect fit within the party but that helps him outside the party with independents and democrats. Don’t be surprised when Trump garners more union support than the so called experts believe. Same for the black vote. All people that want to work will have a clear choice in Trump.

You mention Atwater/Rove but I see Trump innately qualified and wired and primed to go after the target rich resume of Hillary. I think Rove is close to being relegated to insignificance along with so many others in the establishment that actively opposed the outsider sentiment manifest in the Trump movement.

You describe Hillary well. What is interesting about Hillary is her lack of success in government at anything other than enriching herself. She’s been great at making money giving speeches and as a new generation will learn, Cattle Futures.

This is not going to be a low turnout election. I believe former Hillary supporters may well in large numbers not vote when her past is brought to the fore. Trump will draw record voters to the rapidly changing GOP and office holders better fall in line.

Alright though I take issue with your use of the word “win”.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

All along I’ve said it is on the guy. What the guy did. What was said about the guy. That is all that was ever mentioned. Anything about his dad was never said to be a part of the negatives any team assigned to the guy. The whole throwing the dad under the bus as a contributing factor is BS until a team owns up to it. Until then his dad had nothing to do with his downgrading in the draft.

Well no team “owned up to” the other stuff either. So as I said multiple times (at least once per post) they were looking at his character and a number of things got mentioned. And, when you look at the other things, no team is explicitly and directly “owning” that stuff either. It too has the same status—reporters hear things from NFL people, and write it up as “teams say” or “some NFL people say” etc. Its status is no different. How do we know some teams did not like the way he handled himself in interviews? Because, as reported, “some teams said” or “some NFL executives have let it be known” etc. That kind of thing is virtually never direct, at least when it comes to red-flagging draft picks.

But then on the mighty toxic dad issue, we will each believe what we want, which is fine.

…

OK good, we have gotten the issue out of the way that no NFL team has cited anything about this guy’s dad as being among the negative marks used in his downgrading. The downgrading was due to people who had dealt with him personally whether as a teammate or NFL draft interviewee. That is relevant and something I can believe. With that out of the way we can now address what I’ve wanted to address this entire time.

That being the ass clown writer’s personal objection to what the guy’s dad has written online. That ass clown writer does not have the right to not be offended. The guy took a big fall in the draft that cost him a lot of money and now he has to see some ass clown writer call his dad a “sh_thead” and claim he had a part in his son’s downgrading? Making the father the story and kicking the son while he is down? I hope the father successfully sues the ass clown writer.

Exactly what I thought. Not one example of a team saying the guys dad figured into their downgrading of the guy. Not one. The best you could do was a “perhaps” and a “national source”. Again I call BS. Don’t know why you would use the term “apologize” for a team that considered the dad among the negatives for the draftee. Everything thus far merely confirms that the guy fell in the draft due to his own actions.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

Remember, it’s not the reporters who are saying this stuff. It’s the teams. The reporters are just picking things up from teams.

The teams are the ones who dropped him to round 4.

And according to the reporter, NFL PERSONNEL PEOPLE felt his twitter-active dad was one of the detractions. This isn’t the first time teams have dropped players in their rankings because they come with family baggage.

None of this is the reporter. It’s the reporter reporting things NFL personnel people were considering.

And of course there were other things too, not just dad (who among other things knocked a fan unconscious in the stands during a game).

…

It is the reporters since the Detroit sports rag posited it about the NFL teams.

“Detroit Sports Rag posits that teams look at quarterbacks’ fathers when they evaluate their draft-worthiness, and what they found when they dug into Connor’s father Chris soured enough of them for Cook to fall to the fourth.”

The guy dropped in the draft due to his actions, not his dad’s.

No you are completely misreading. First, that was not the only article on this–it’s just the one I posted. There are several, including ones from Oakland. This is a widespread story. In every case it is made clear that the dad-on-twitter issue is ONE of the things that NFL personnel people considered a red flag. The issue the articles all raised is why NFL personnel people dropped Cook in their rankings. Loud dad was one of them. It’s just one of them.

It is actually quite normal for NFL personnel people to look into the family. It is also normal for them to red flag a guy with family distractions in his history. And it is equally normal for some teams then to leak issues like that to various reporters.

Remember—the actual issue being covered is this: why did Cook drop in the draft. The answer came from NFL people. Among other things, having a loud toxic social media dad was one of the things that NFL PEOPLE SAID dropped Cook in their assessments.

You’re just blaming the messanger.

..

No, all I’ve seen is what you posted and that didn’t say squat about the NFL downgrading the guy at all because of his dad. I would love to see an NFL team own up to it much less a reporter claiming to have an NFL team source.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

I call BS on the column. The ” teams questioned his behavior — off the field and toward teammates” is what made him drop and if he pans out in the NFL he may consider giving back with an eye towards what that sniping gossip cost him in cash lost.

It’s not sniping gossip if in fact, as was widely reported, he was basically an arrogant dick who offended his own teammates and was a prowling nightlifer on top of it. It’s the Jeff George profile.

It is sniping as the ass clown writer described it. Now to take what you say then why is the ass clown writer bringing his old man into it? And if his antics were widely known then why would anyone think he’d be first round material? Obviously the ass clown writer didn’t want to write about that since it would call into question his doing a column on the guys dad.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by bnw.

I call BS on the column. The ” teams questioned his behavior — off the field and toward teammates” is what made him drop and if he pans out in the NFL he may consider giving back with an eye towards what that sniping gossip cost him in cash lost.

Agamemnon wrote:

Yes I have the crabs but they’re the rich crabs.

So when I’m binging on peanut M&Ms I’m really replenishing my ego?

Agamemnon wrote:

What? Me lie?

wv wrote:

Why does Goff like 16 ?

w
v

He’s a Montanaphile.

Of course at the end he blames Trump! I was wondering why the guy, being Italian, would be so focused on his notebook while sitting next to a much younger blonde? Then he described his outfit as “simple elegance” and I knew.

I wish they would retire Warner’s 13.