Billy_T wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

Rapp 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.

I don’t have any special insights. From what I’ve seen and read he has everything you want in a player from an ability standpoint. I think he has a chance to become a very good safety. He has a higher ceiling than Rapp. He just lacks experience.

However, as you know having potential and achieving it are two different things. What he’s able to become depends on how far behind the learning curve he is, how fast he can pick things up, how much he wants it, injuries, luck, etc.

wv wrote:

Well, I hear we cant judge a draft until about two or three years later.

So, I’d say, my reaction to the 2017 draft, is, that Cooper Kupp was a damn good pick.
Gerald Everett? Enh.
John Johnson? Pretty good.
Josh Reynolds? Enh.
Ebukan? Not bad.
Tanzel Smart? I dunno.
Ejuan Price? I dunno.
Sam Rogers? Hall of Fame.

2017:https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2017/5/8/14199540/los-angeles-rams-2017-nfl-draft-grades

I think you’re being too hard on Everett and Reynolds. They’ve made positive contributions although we might have expected more. I think the verdict is still out but looks promising.

They’re more of a contemplative “Hmmm” then “Enh”, IMO.

And outside of the Chiefs game Ebukan has been a solid “wha”?

• This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by nittany ram.

Siri. Find me a headline that proves we’ve lost it. https://t.co/ux6q9jbRTO

— David Schneider (@davidschneider) April 20, 2019

How the human sense of good taste degrades over time.

I remember getting Football Digest in the late 70s and early 80s and they occasionally printed results from various best uniform polls. In every one of those polls I remember the Rams uniform was either 1st or 2nd.

Now, those exact same uniforms are only 6th?

Society is in a free fall; morally, ethically, aesthetically…

A good omen…

whew pic.twitter.com/COvUkQyA0f

— The Museum of English Rural Life (@TheMERL) April 10, 2019

zn wrote:

Not sure what you have against insects.

I know some are icky but insects are people too. Show them more respect.

I have nothing against them; I’m just tired of enabling them.

It’s about time they learned to stand on their own six feet.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by nittany ram.

zn wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

Basically the New Yorker article about the Tanis site has caused quite a controversy in scientific circles.

Apparently it was a no-no for the lead author of the study to collaborate with the New Yorker on an article on research that wasn’t published yet, or at least, not available to the scientific community. The paper is now available and was read by Dr Steve Brusette, who tweeted about it above. Apparently, the lead investigator (DePalma) has a reputation of making a discovery and then running to the press. I know he took some flack in the past for jumping the gun causing him to mistake turtle bones for Dakotaraptor, (a big velociraptor-like dinosaur).

Nobody questions that the site isn’t incredible, but the actual research paper doesn’t mention a lot of stuff in the article. The site is supposedly a dinosaur ‘graveyard’, but only one partial dinosaur bone is mentioned in the paper even though the New Yorker article says that feathers, eggs with embryos, and representatives of every dinosaur from the Hell Creek formation were found at the site. None of this is mentioned in the study. In fact, according to Brussette, the actual study wasn’t about dinosaurs at all.

So, he and a lot of others are asking, “what gives?”

Thanks. Yeah some of that stuff is a little odd.

…

Hopefully the things in the New Yorker article (feathers, dinosaur embryos, etc) from the first paper will be included in subsequent papers. That would be really cool and would probably make this the greatest paleontological discovery of all time.

Well, the greatest since they found Noah’s ark, anyway. Although technically that would be the greatest ‘arkeological’ find.

After the @NewYorker broke the 'dinosaur graveyard' story last week, the @PNASNews peer-reviewed research paper on the end-Cretaceous Tanis site is officially released today. These are my current thoughts:

— Steve Brusatte (@SteveBrusatte) April 1, 2019

The site is amazing. Potentially a discovery of enormous magnitude. The geology seems credible to me: it records a catastrophic event at or near the end-Cretaceous asteroid impact. The fish fossils are *astounding*. Congrats to the team!

— Steve Brusatte (@SteveBrusatte) April 1, 2019

I've had about 20 journalists ask me about the 'dinosaur graveyard.' I've done my best (in my free time and transit time on a research trip) to read the research paper and give my honest opinion on what is the biggest dinosaur story in quite some time.

— Steve Brusatte (@SteveBrusatte) April 1, 2019

It wasn't fair to anyone (the authors of the paper, other scientists, the general public) that a few random scientists like me were sent copies of the paper before it was published. But the genie could not go back into the bottle once the @NewYorker story came out.

— Steve Brusatte (@SteveBrusatte) April 1, 2019

But today everybody can finally read the paper, and I am very much looking forward to the crowd-sourced opinions of *everyone*. There is a real thrill and a real mystery around this discovery, and it is EXCITING! Let's see where the evidence leads…

— Steve Brusatte (@SteveBrusatte) April 1, 2019

“I expect my position to be fluid. I expect I’ll have a variety of roles,” Matthews said.

Not sure how he’s going to stop anyone if he’s fluid.
Although, I suppose tar is a fluid and it’s pretty sticky.

Ya think that’s what he meant?

Tar?

He’s going to play like tar?

That’s the only thing that makes sense.