InvaderRam wrote:

there’s some hope. the closest comparison i could find is reggie white.

he retired after his age 37 season and came back one year later in his age 39 season.

1998 age 37 season he had 16 sacks.

2000 age 39 season he had 5.5 sacks.

so he actually retired at an older age with 216 games under his belt at the time. aaron donald retired at his age 32 season with 154 games under his belt. so donald retired at a significantly younger age with significantly less games played and you’d think less wear and tear. if he does come back, he will actually be younger than white was when he retired the first time by two years.

the only question is how much does the extra year off affect his body. does he lose the power and explosion and speed or does his body benefit the extra year of rest compared to white’s one year away from the game? and how long does it take to regain that with conditioning if it is possible?

another example although quite different is michael jordan. he took off nearly two years. and he had to completely change his body and skill set. but he did successfully make a comeback at a much less physically demanding sport. he was also significantly younger than donald retiring the first time at age 29.

sports science is more advanced now than it was back then so there’s that as well.

i would like to see donald come back. it wouldn’t necessarily color my view of what he was back then. maybe we could even see a different version of aaron donald who is equally compelling.

and to see myles garrett and aaron donald playing together… i never saw deacon jones and merlin olsen play together, but they could be this generation’s version of that duo.

I dunno. I think it will be very hard for him to come back. I’ve been 35. And 35 is not 33 🙂

I also agree with Albert Breer in the vid up above. He talks about the fact that unlike with Weddle, the Rams dont ‘need’ Donald to play that much. They have good interior DLinemen. They can give Donald a pitch-count. Ease him in slowly, or maybe dont even play him until November.

Breer said even if Donald is their best interior lineman, why risk him getting hurt early. Cause, again, 35 with two years off is a very tricky situation.

I remember a situation where Bill Walsh brought in an old Hall of Fame type DE (cant remember his name). Pass rush specialist. And the 49ers played him only when they needed a big play on third down. And he delivered. Who was that guy? Fred Dean, maybe?

w
v

Mina says the number one issue with the Rams ‘f them picks approach’ is Wide Receiver depth, and OLine depth.

w
v

zn wrote:

I would be interested in hearing what you saw.

..

The weird collection of nagging injuries he had last year just made him look like he was playing underwater or somethin. He looked confused, tentative, and slow. I mean he was always the most elusive QB in the NFL and he relied on that more than any other QB. He was getting run down by DLinemen every game. That had ‘never’ happened to him before. He lost his super-power and the Ravens were left with a very ordinary, frustrated, pocket-passer.

w
v

Saw a vid where they cited a recent survey of scouts, execs, and coaches. Ranking the top ten QBs:

1 Josh
2 Mahomes
3 Stafford
4 Burrow
5 Lamar
6 Dak
7 Herbert
8 Maye
9 Goff
10 Caleb.

Stafford used to always be below Burrow and Lamar in all the surveys in the media.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

.. And since they are junior partners in the corporate oligarchy, and hold all the cards, there is no reason to expect anything but the usual absorption of some of them, and the political destruction of anyone who holds out on them. We will not vote our way out of this mess.

Bash on, regardless.

A lot of people dont realize, Dr Frankenstein was a radical godless communist. He was trying to create monsters to overthrow our freedoms.

w
v
“When falsehood can look so like the truth, who can assure themselves of certain happiness?”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

apocalyptic humor

zn wrote:

RC deWinter@RCdeWinter

* A dangling participle walks into a bar. Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.

* A bar was walked into by the passive voice.

* An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.

* A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intents and purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.

* Papyrus and Comic Sans walk into a bar. The bartender says, “Get out — we don’t serve your type.”

* A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.

* A synonym strolls into a tavern.

* At the end of the day, a cliché walks into a bar — fresh as a daisy, cute as a button, and sharp as a tack.

* Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.

* A figure of speech literally walks into a bar and ends up getting figuratively hammered.

* An allusion walks into a bar, despite the fact that alcohol is its Achilles heel.

* A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned by a man with a glass eye named Ralph.

* The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.

* A dyslexic walks into a bra.

* A verb walks into a bar, sees a beautiful noun, and suggests they conjugate. The noun declines.

* A simile walks into a bar, as parched as a desert.

* A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to forget.

– Jill Thomas Doyle

—————–

I had never heard of CHIASMUS.

w
v
wiki
Chiasmus vs. Antimetabole
These two terms sound very similar and are often used to mean the same thing. However, there is a small difference:
Antimetabole: The exact same words are flipped (like the Kennedy quote).
Chiasmus: The grammar structure or ideas are flipped, but the exact words do not have to be repeated