Zooey wrote:

zn wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

I’m no longer voting for the lesser of two evils. I see the logic behind it but ultimately it results in no progress being made towards the type of country I want.

Just tossing in my pennies to the informal poll.

Everyone has to decide for themselves and I don’t figure I will persuade anyone.

But my thinking is, it’s NOW and the prospect of Trump, who really is worse, in there nominating SC and federal judges (among other things) is positively dystopian. I’ve seen worse and worse is worse (Maine had a 3 candidate governors race and a Trump-style guy won with 37% of the vote. People I know said enh, what harm can he do…and, he then showed them what harm he can do).

I will register third party after the election.

Not the kind of thing I want to fight about because no one will convince anyone and no one has to justify their choice.

That’s my motto. Worse IS worse.

….

I watched a 5-minute video on that guy, your governor. There is no denying that he is a colossal dickhead. Just an ignorant, selfish, boorish, POS. When do you get rid of him?

Any day.

Well unless you mean by means within the law.

(Note for our NSA monitors: that was just a joke. No one is proposing anything, just indulging dark humor.)

nittany ram wrote:

I’m no longer voting for the lesser of two evils. I see the logic behind it but ultimately it results in no progress being made towards the type of country I want.

Just tossing in my pennies to the informal poll.

Everyone has to decide for themselves and I don’t figure I will persuade anyone.

But my thinking is, it’s NOW and the prospect of Trump, who really is worse, in there nominating SC and federal judges (among other things) is positively dystopian. I’ve seen worse and worse is worse (Maine had a 3 candidate governors race and a Trump-style guy won with 37% of the vote. People I know said enh, what harm can he do…and, he then showed them what harm he can do).

I will register third party after the election.

Not the kind of thing I want to fight about because no one will convince anyone and no one has to justify their choice.

That’s my motto. Worse IS worse.

….

TSRF wrote:

There is nothing free about Freeport…

That;s a few minutes up the road from me.

Enjoy. Freeport in July is crowd-dedd.

TSRF wrote:

Driving to Phippsburg, ME tomorrow for the family vacation

I like something in the garden that “takes care of” the pests, and/or trespassers.

Billy_T wrote:

I hear ya, WV, about his being alone.

I’ve been there, done that, too.

Just saying, I don’t like being called a liar. And I think it’s important to say so. Prior to that, I was trying to go the ignore route. It didn’t work so well.

And, ZN,

I understand what you’re saying as well, and will adhere to board policies. I also would understand if you thought my comments were over the line — Maginot or otherwise — and deserved a board time out. I wouldn’t argue against that, and it’s perhaps even “deserved,” given their content.

You guys decide, and I’ll abide. Btw, whatever happened to the poster with “the Dude” as his avatar?

No time outs, just move ons.

If we timed out everyone who crossed the line, I would have to time myself out sometimes, which I think would be a physics paradox.

So, pie for everyone, and just write posts about Stuff.

Billy_T wrote:

It is inbounds. His post wasn’t about proof. It was about baiting. Neverland is kid glove by comparison.

I missed this the first go round.

bnw, let’s clear the air. You and I don’t agree on political stuff. Our views clash. And that’s okay. That’s fine. It’s even fine if you hate my views or even me. That doesn’t bother me in the slightest. However, what I won’t tolerate is someone calling me a liar. Which you pretty much have from the start, though you used “nicer” language, like “insincerity” and now, “baiting.”

I don’t lie, bnw. When I say Obama has governed as a real conservative, that he’s governed from the center-right, I absolutely mean that. I am 100% speaking the truth as I see it — and I supplied all kinds of evidence to back that up. When I say what I say about Trump? It’s not to bait anyone. I actually feel that way about him. It’s my sincerest take on the issue. In fact, I was trying to suppress the anger he provokes in me, but was only partially successful.

As for “proof.” Please. You have never supplied any of that here, but you demand it in others. You make assertions and don’t back them up. Ever. And if someone counters that, you make it personal and call them a liar.

Again, let’s clear the air. If you don’t believe I’m telling the truth here, ignore me. Just ignore me. Or keep your suspicions to yourself. But if this were my site — it’s not, of course — next time you called someone a liar, you’d be banned.

That’s personal. I;ve already deleted things like that in this thread.

The rules deliberately included these provisions:

* If a poster crosses the line and becomes insulting or antagonistic, do not respond in kind–…let mods handle it.

* Mods quell conflict, they do not judge who is “right” or “who started it.”

* If a mod asks posters to move on from a volatile exchange, please do so without comment.

That was all based on experience from the last go-round with a huddle public forum. The old Iraq war one.

I have already asked people to move on in this thread. From this point on, I just have to keep deleting.

And/or close the thread, which will make it the 3rd closed thread in a month, after only 1 or 2 in nearly 2 years.

I want the experiment of allowing political discussion on a football board to work. It didn’t last time.

…

zackneruda@gmail.com

…

Billy_T wrote:

ZN,

In my view, there is a huge difference between expressing opinions about public figures, and insulting posters here. I did the former. Bnw keeps doing the latter.

BT, the rules say try to control antagonistic language. They don’t just say don’t attack posters.

–

Board Rules & Policies

…avoid, in tone and language, being antagonistic, confrontational, or argumentative…. If a poster crosses the line and becomes insulting or antagonistic, do not respond in kind–politely remind that poster of the rules and let mods handle it. Mods quell conflict, they do not judge who is “right” or “who started it.” If a mod asks posters to move on from a volatile exchange, please do so without comment.

The same rules apply to The Public House board. Controversial topics are welcome on that board, but avoid name-calling, insults, and derisive language. Act like a respected debate partner, not like an argumentative board warrior.

As I said there’s a fine line. As it happens, on this forum, where political discussion is prevalent, saying something that is equivalent to “green party politics is for the stupid” will be attacking someone here, because people identify with their candidates. Actually, the experience on the first huddle board politics forum led to the rules being written that way. So no it’s not just direct attacks on posters.

You know I can only think of one other Rams board (out of the 6 I read) which allows political discussion at all. That’s because it can be inherently volatile, as we all know. So we all have to find some way to keep it more like honest debate and less like board wars, to the degree that is possible.

I certainly don’t know quite where the line is because this all involves strong emotions. I do know it tends to mitigate it some, for some reason, if people say “I think” or “I believe.” But that’s just a spontaneous suggestion, not a rule. Certainly calling one candidate “garbage” is bound to antagonize someone who identifies with that candidate.

Let’s leave it at this. My initial post wasn’t a warning as much as a reminder. I just have a feeling that there will be this constant give and take, with the line being pushed a little, friendly reminders showing up now and then…but it’s easier for everyone if we all try to figure out where the line is.

I am certainly not going to discuss each example. So yeah…IF posters get into a “but he said, but he said” thing that too violates the rules…and the rules were written very deliberately to include that point.

So as per the rules, I am asking people to move on and lower the anatagonism.

Agent’s Take: How Andrew Luck’s mega-deal sets the table for these 7 QBs
Or how Matthew Stafford could become the NFL’s highest-paid player in 2017

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-how-andrew-lucks-mega-deal-sets-the-table-for-these-7-qbs/

Here’s a look at the quarterbacks who could reap the benefit from Luck’s new contract in the next couple of years.

Drew Brees QB / New Orleans Saints

Conventional wisdom suggested that the Saints would sign Brees to an extension before free agency started on March 9 to lower his league-high $30 million 2016 cap number since he is entering the final year of his five-year, $100 million contract. That deal signed in 2012 made him the NFL’s first $20 million man and re-set the league’s pay scale. A new deal would have given the Saints more flexibility to improve the team and its porous defense.

An agreement would have already been reached if Brees was willing to give the Saints some sort of hometown discount. Luck’s deal gives Tom Condon, Brees’ agent, more ammunition for a healthy increase over his existing deal. It will probably take making Brees the NFL’s second-highest paid player, pushing him closer to Luck’s $24.594 million average yearly salary than Flacco’s $22,133,333 per year on a front-loaded deal with player friendly guarantees in order for him to sign an extension.

The Saints taking a wait-and-see approach at this late stage of the offseason, where the 37-year-old stays at his $30 million cap number may make more sense. But using a franchise tag on him in 2017 would be cost prohibitive as Brees’ franchise tag number will be $43.09 million, which is based on 144 percent of his 2016 cap number.

Kirk Cousins QB / Washington Redskins

Kirk Cousins is playing the 2016 season on a $19.953 million non-exclusive franchise tag unless a long-term deal is reached prior to the July 15 deadline for franchise players to sign multi-year contracts, which seems unlikely.

The 2012 fourth-round pick has more to gain than lose by playing under the franchise tag. Given there are more NFL teams than competent starting quarterbacks, Cousins could still be line for a contract similar to Sam Bradford’s even with a slight regression or mediocre 2016 season.

Bradford remained with the Philadelphia Eagles on a two-year deal averaging $17.5 million per year, which has $22 million fully guaranteed. The Redskinscould be forced to franchise Cousins again next year for $23,943,600 if he demonstrates he is an ascending player in 2016. This would put Cousins in position to command a long-term deal averaging a minimum of $24 million per year where he’s in the same ballpark as Luck in other key contract metrics.

Matthew Stafford QB / Detroit Lions

As crazy as it may sound, there is a plausible scenario where Stafford, who is under contract through the 2017 season, becomes the NFL’s highest-paid player next offseason. Stafford hasn’t consistently performed at the same level he did during his 2011 breakout season in which he threw for 5,038 yards and 41 touchdown passes.

There were rumblings that Stafford’s days in Detroit could be numbered with the Lions beginning last season 0-5, which put head coach Jim Caldwell’s job in jeopardy. Stafford had the best eight-game stretch of his career over the second half of the season after Jim Bob Cooter was promoted from quarterbacks coach to replace Joe Lombardi as offensive coordinator. The 28-year-old threw for 2,179 yards with 19 touchdowns and two interceptions while completing 70 percent of his passes on a 110.1 passer rating.

Matthew Stafford as the NFL’s highest-paid player? Yeah, it could happen. USATSI
Stafford lost his security blanket, six-time Pro Bowl wide receiver Calvin Johnson, to a premature retirement. If Stafford thrives without Johnson, his agent, Condon, will drive an extremely hard bargain in any negotiations for an extension.

Aaron Rodgers QB / Green Bay Packers

The Packers gave Rodgers a five-year, $110 million extension that made him the NFL’s highest-paid player in 2013 when he had two years remaining on his contract. Adhering to this same timetable would put Rodgers in line for a new deal after the 2017 season when he is 34 years old.

The two-time league MVP is still widely regarded as the NFL’s best quarterback despite a subpar 2015 season by his standards. Rodgers had his lowest completion percentage (60.7) and quarterback rating (92.7) since becoming a starter in 2008 while his favorite target, Jordy Nelson, was sidelined for the year with a torn ACL in his right knee. As long as 2015 is an anomaly for Rodgers, the Packers shouldn’t have an issue putting him back at the top of the NFL’s salary hierarchy on his next contract, presumably in 2018.

2014 Quarterback Draft Class

The 2014 draft class becomes eligible to sign extensions at the conclusion of the 2016 regular season on New Year’s Day. Oakland Raiders’ second-round pick Derek Carr could get the first new deal because 2017 is his contract year. First-round picks Blake Bortles and Teddy Bridgewater won’t be in contract years until 2018 since they are subject to fifth year options.

Carr and Bortles showed more improvement from their rookie years than Bridgewater during their sophomore campaigns. Bridgewater is in more of a need of a breakout season than Carr and Bortles because of the Minnesota Vikings’ run-oriented offense despite having more team success.

Carr developed instant rapport with his new wideouts, 2015 fourth overall pick Amari Cooper and free agent pick up Michael Crabtree last season. The connection is only going to get better with another year together. The Raiders getting to playoffs for the first time in 14 years with Carr continuing to progress will allow him to become one of the league’s highest-paid players. It will be interesting to see what type of effect, if any, 2014 fifth overall pick Khalil Mack’s future contract, which should make him the NFL’s highest-paid non-quarterback, will have on Carr’s deal.

Derek Carr will likely be the first QB from the 2014 class to cash in. USATSI
Bortles set Jaguars single-season franchise records for touchdown passes (35), passing yards (4,428), pass attempts (606) and completions (355) in 2015. He was tied for second in the NFL in touchdown passes. Cutting down on a league-leading 18 interceptions is a part of the next step in Bortles’ development.

The Jaguars are willing to pay productive players near the top of their respective markets. When Julius Thomas signed as an unrestricted free agent in 2015, he became the NFL’s second highest-paid tight end with a five-year, $46 million contract containing $24 million in guarantees. Allen Hurns’ recent four-year, $40.05 million extension (worth up to $44.05 million through salary escalators) makes him the NFL’s highest-paid No. 2 wide receiver. This bodes well for Bortles potentially setting the market with his next contract.

bnw wrote:

Do you feel the same about protesters who go into the Trump rally to disrupt it for their own political end? Outside fine but inside no. But wait he’s male, white, rich, heterosexual and republican. Never mind.

I do share with you the belief that non-poor american male, white, heterosexuals are the most oppressed people on the planet. I just walk around constantly feeling sorry for us. I find strength in our shared self-pity.

That’s just me resorting to ugly quip political sloganing. Why? Cause. Either way, I don’t mean to claim you actually directly said what I am making fun of.

Andrew Luck got paid, but he should have held out for more

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/16621472/andrew-luck-indianapolis-colts-87-million-guaranteed-contract-letdown-future-quarterbacks

The numbers are eye-popping at first, sure. But within the context of the NFL quarterback market, Andrew Luck’s new deal is a pretty big letdown.

This is a deal that has been anticipated for more than a year now by people around the NFL. Agents have been drooling in anticipation of a contract they believed would set new benchmarks and really drive the top of the quarterback market upward for the first time in years. Team executives have been watching to see how much of his considerable leverage Luck would wield against the Colts.

The answer? Not that much.

Look, there’s no crying for Luck here. The numbers set several records. The $87 million in injury guarantees ($47 million of which is guaranteed at signing) far surpasses the $65 million that Eli Manning got last year. The $23.3 million a year surpasses Aaron Rodgers’ $22 million and Joe Flacco’s $22.133 million. The $140 million total surpasses Jay Cutler’s $126.7 million.

But it’s not as great as it was supposed to be. The average salary is less than the $25 million many were predicting. The $47 million at signing is $13 million less than Ndamukong Suh got. Pushing off $27 million of the guarantee into the third and fourth years is seen by people around the league as too risky to the player. It’s a nice deal, not a great one.

In fact, it helps keep a surprisingly stagnant portion of the NFL marketplace stagnant.

The quarterback position really hasn’t kept pace with recent salary-cap growth. Since Rodgers signed his contract in 2013, the NFL’s salary cap has risen from $123 million to $155.27 million — an increase of 26.2 percent. Even counting Luck’s new deal, over that same time period, the top quarterback salary has risen 5.9 percent.

Why? Well, I’ve been asking agents and executives that question over the past few weeks in anticipation of a Luck deal, and they all say the same thing. Quarterback is the ultimate leadership position. How does it look in the locker room if you insist on setting records and eating up all the cap space? Remember last year, when Manning got so upset about a report that he wanted to make more than Rodgers made? He didn’t, a source said, and he hated that someone would suggest he did. This is the way these guys think — especially those like Manning and Ben Roethlisberger, who have won their Super Bowls and made their big second-contract money already.

But Luck should have been different. Luck should have raked the Colts over the coals. If ever a player were going to take a stand and demand the league’s first fully guaranteed veteran deal, this was the guy to do it. He didn’t even come close.

No time soon will any player wield the kind of leverage Luck had over the Colts. He’s universally recognized as a unique all-around talent — a respected leader with a brilliant brain, a huge arm and swift feet. He’s exactly the humble, half-goofy, badly bearded face of the franchise that the Colts want him to be. They’d be toast without him, and while yes, they could have franchised him next year for something in the low $20 million range, at some point he would have been able to threaten to leave.

Instead, like so many of his quarterback brethren before him, Luck chose to take the very pretty bird in the hand over the potentially historic bonanza in the bush. Tough to blame him, but if you’re a quarterback looking for a big deal in the coming years, he did kind of let you down.

Drew Brees has one year left on his Saints deal. He could conceivably ask for more than Luck, but it would have been far sweeter for him if Luck were sitting at $25 million a year than $23.3 million. Kirk Cousins could be in for a big payday if he plays out 2016 on his franchise tag number and has a big season. But how will he be able to argue for more than Luck next March? He was looking forward to drafting and slotting in behind Luck’s number the way guys like Manning, Roethlisberger and Russell Wilson were slotting in behind Rodgers not long ago. That slot was supposed to be more stratospheric than this.

We don’t know who from the group of very young, promising quarterbacks on their first contracts will end up looking for top-of-the-market deals. Jameis Winston? Blake Bortles? Derek Carr? Marcus Mariota? Jared Goff? One of them, maybe a few of them. But whoever they are, when their time comes, it appears they’ll be stuck in a quarterback market that doesn’t seem to want to skyrocket. And if Luck plays the way the Colts and the rest of the world think he can, then those players’ teams can hold Luck out as an outlier to whom they don’t have the right to compare themselves.

If anybody was going to blast through the ceiling of the NFL quarterback market, it was going to be Andrew Luck. Instead, he settled for just nudging it upward a bit