Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
znModeratorThat and 3 years in a row doing London.
Rams struck a devil’s deal apparently. LA for whatever little services the league requires.
March 22, 2016 at 10:24 pm in reply to: Keenum remains starter for now (there's controversy around this) #40936znModeratorBy adding to it, can you now be penalized 15 yards for piling on
My penalty was to find a relevant Wagoner article and post it in this thread. That’s not that easy because it’s not like Wagoner writes something on EVERY Rams topic that comes up.
===
Rams’ quarterback situation in holding pattern
Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/27818/rams-message-on-quarterbacks-hasnt-changed
BOCA RATON, Fla. — Let’s take a moment to clear up some confusion coming out of the owners meetings on Monday.
Before I even landed here Monday afternoon, Los Angeles Rams general manager Les Snead appeared on NFL Network to talk about all things Rams. At the top of that list: the ongoing game of “will they or won’t they?” when it comes to the starting quarterback position and Case Keenum.
Snead didn’t offer much new in that regard, echoing the comments coach Jeff Fisher made on Jan. 4 in which he said that Keenum is the team’s starter going into the offseason program but that there will be competition in place.
But, as social media often does, Snead’s answer was lacking some key words. Where it’s true that Snead said “Keenum will be the starter on opening day,” he actually said Keenum would be the starter on the opening day of organized team activities.
The Rams are set to begin the offseason program on April 18 and are tentatively scheduled to begin OTAs at the end of May. That’s a long way from the start of the regular season.
I ran into Snead early Monday evening and asked him to clarify something that he probably shouldn’t have had to.
“What I said this morning was when we come back for OTAs, Case Keenum will take the reps with the No. 1 offense,” Snead said. “He earned that. But you know what, there’s OTAs, there’s a preseason and there will be a lot of competition from point A to point Z until we start the season and go from there. But when we come for OTAs, Case will line up with the ones, and I think I was pretty strict in saying why he would do that because he came in and he helped us win three of four and was close to going 4-0.”
So let’s reset this once more, with feeling: The Rams know they need help at quarterback. They also don’t seem to believe that the signal callers on the free-agent market are obvious upgrades over what they have. They also know that draft isn’t likely to yield an instant starter, especially since they’re picking at No. 15 overall.
That doesn’t mean the Rams won’t bring in another quarterback. In fact, there’s a good chance they’ll find one in the draft. So yes, it’s fair to say that Keenum is a good bet to be the starting quarterback not only when the Rams open OTAs but also when they open the season.
But for now, they’re keeping their options open.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by
zn.
znModeratorhttp://www.rotoworld.com/player/cfb/130805/jeff-driskel
TFY Draft Insider’s Tony Pauline noted that “many felt [Louisiana Tech QB Jeff] Driskel could not have thrown the ball better” than he did during Tuesday’s Pro Day.
Pauline deemed Driskel’s performance “very successful,” then went on to write that he “threw about 60 passes and all but two (one short, one just out of the reach of the pass catcher) were on the mark.” Pauline also noted that the Bulldog gunslinger met with the Lions and Broncos on Tuesday and that the Cardinals are set to meet with him on Wednesday. The 6-foot-4, 234-pounder’s among the more interesting quarterback prospects set to fall in the creamy middle of the draft, with (according to Pauline in mid-February) multiple clubs assigning him a second-round grade. Driskel just missed out on making the cut in Chad Reuter’s fourth four-round mock draft of 2016, though Reuter does include him as a player who would be worthy of being drafted before the fourth round’s completed. Mar 22 – 8:31 PM
March 22, 2016 at 8:19 pm in reply to: Keenum remains starter for now (there's controversy around this) #40932znModeratorOr do they just believe that if Keenum is the official starter, that means that the Rams are not going to look for another QB as long as Keenum is alive?
Yes that’s it right there. It’s not being helped by the fact that some venues misreported what Snead said a couple of days ago. He said CK would be the starter going into OTAs, and it got reported as “going into the season.”
znModeratorRGIII owned up to mistakes during meetings with Browns
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/browns-hue-jackson-seems-love-141100917.html
Robert Griffin III knows what went wrong in Washington D.C. over his first four seasons in the NFL and so does Browns coach Hue Jackson and Jets coach Todd Bowles.
The coaches told reporters Tuesday during the league’s annual meeting that Griffin was candid in his meetings with both teams earlier this month although neither visit ended with a new contract.
“I heard the truth,” Jackson said. “He takes responsibility. He knows there’s things he could have did better and that’s where he is. To me, that showed me the humbleness. Because that’s what it’s all about. In this league, you don’t grow if you don’t admit that you made some mistakes, and that’s OK.”
MORE: Latest Mock Draft | Five theories on Goff’s magical hand growth
Added Bowles, “Things didn’t work out. He kept getting hurt. They played the other guy. He didn’t have any excuses. He didn’t badmouth anybody, have any excuses. He just wants to play and get better and move forward. He understood what happened, he took it in stride and he moved forward.”
Both coaches said they asked Griffin tough questions, including how the former NFL Offensive Player of the Year went from a rookie phenom to a benchwarmer behind Kirk Cousins.
“I don’t baby people,” Jackson said. “Sorry, it’s just not who I am. I ask the tough questions, and I expect to get the tough answers. He handled all that extremely well. At the same time, nothing is decided or anything, but I felt better about him because he answered some questions that I had. I think he represented himself the right way.”
The Browns may be considering bringing in Griffin or take a top quarterback in the draft at No. 2 overall? Why not both?
Jackson, a former Cal assistant, was one of many coaches in attendance Friday at Goff’s Pro Day and clearly came away impressed.
“The guy threw the ball tremendously,” Jackson said (via Cleveland.com). “He can make all the throws. For a big guy, he’s more athletic than people think. He has quick feet. He obviously has a quick release. What I’ve seen on videotape to go along with the workout is he has tremendous poise in the pocket.”
Jackson also said Goff would fit well in Cleveland’s offseason “reboot,” but where does that leave Griffin?
“I have told RGIII, whatever we decide to do is what we do,” Jackson said, just days after calling the former Redskins QB a ” tremendous talent.”
“If it did (happen), to me, he would have to compete and I don’t ever worry about that,” Jackson said. “The cream always rises to the top, and if a guy is afraid of competition, then you have the wrong guy anyway. We’ll be fine regardless of how it goes, whether it goes that way and we draft somebody else or it doesn’t go that way and we end up taking two quarterbacks. You never know.”
Though Cleveland isn’t expected to be much to look at on the field, the additions of both Goff and Griffin would make the Browns worth following during the offseason.
Along with the Browns, the Jets and Broncos are in the running for the 26-year-old QB, who hasn’t played a down since suffering a concussion in August.
March 22, 2016 at 1:05 am in reply to: Keenum remains starter for now (there's controversy around this) #40888znModeratoran earlier version[/sixe]
—
Les Snead says Rams have to look at every avenue for a QB
Darin Gantt on January 29, 2016
Les Snead says Rams have to look at every avenue for a QB
Rams General Manager Les Snead has already declared an open competition between quarterbacks Case Keenum and Nick Foles for next season.
And while that might underwhelm fans in Los Angeles who haven’t seen a pro quarterback in 21 years, Snead’s also doing his best to keep fans from thinking a first-round savior is on the way.
Snead told Gary Klein of the Los Angeles Times that he can’t rule out using a high pick on a quarterback, but was quick to point out some mid-rounders who have had success lately.
“You definitely have to prepare that you might do it,” Snead said. “Sometimes with QBs we’ve seen some very successful ones go in the second round, and the third round seems to be hot of late. I’m thinking of Russell Wilson. I’m thinking of Kirk Cousins [fourth round].
“So the thing about the draft is, because it’s become a nice entertainment segment, . . . there’s so much attention on the first round, especially at the QB position, that sometimes the third-round QB, it’s ‘Oh, he’s a third-round QB.’ But the long story short on all of that is we’ll definitely scout QBs, and we’ll definitely look at the trade market and free-agent market.”
As to the in-house options, Snead said that restricted free agent Keenum wasn’t leaving town: “We’re not going to let him go somewhere else.”
He also scuttled the notion that Foles was too expensive to hang onto as a backup, saying: “The answer from a salary standpoint is, yes, he’s easily keepable.”
But it’s clear that the Rams need an answer there, and they can’t rule out any possible avenue for finding one.
znModeratorIan Rapoport @RapSheet 11m11 minutes ago
Former #Giants WR Rueben Randle is on a plane, headed to visit the LA #Rams, source said. His first of several scheduled visitsNick Wagoner @nwagoner
Had some questions about WR Rueben Randle’s visit with Rams. I’m told team took a look but are unlikely to bring him aboard.
znModeratorHow dogs stole our hearts
By David Grimm
If you think of your dog as your “fur baby,” science has your back. New research shows that when our canine pals stare into our eyes, they activate the same hormonal response that bonds us to human infants. The study—the first to show this hormonal bonding effect between humans and another species—may help explain how dogs became our companions thousands of years ago.
“It’s an incredible finding that suggests that dogs have hijacked the human bonding system,” says Brian Hare, an expert on canine cognition at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved in the work. Hare says the discovery might lead to a better understanding of why service dogs are so helpful for people with autism and post-traumatic stress disorder. “A finding of this magnitude will need to be replicated because it potentially has such far-reaching implications.”
Dogs are already renowned for their ability to interact with humans. It’s not just the walks and the Frisbee catching; canines seem to understand us in a way that no other animal does. Point at an object, for example, and a dog will look at where you’re pointing—an intuitive reading of our intentions (“I’m trying to show you something”) that confounds our closest relatives: chimpanzees. People and dogs also look into each other’s eyes while interacting—a sign of understanding and affection that dogs’ closest relatives, wolves, interpret as hostility.
It was this mutual gazing that piqued the interest of Takefumi Kikusui, an animal behaviorist at Azabu University in Sagamihara, Japan. Kikusui’s lab studies oxytocin, a hormone that plays a role in maternal bonding, trust, and altruism. Other groups have shown that when a mother stares into her baby’s eyes, the baby’s oxytocin levels rise, which causes the infant to stare back into its mother’s eyes, which causes the mother to release more oxytocin, and so on. This positive feedback loop seems to create a strong emotional bond between mother and child during a time when the baby can’t express itself in other ways.
Kikusui—a dog owner for more than 15 years—wondered if the same held true for canines. “I love my dogs, and I always feel that they’re more of a partner than a pet,” he says. “So I started wondering, ‘Why are they so close to humans? Why are they connected so tightly to us?’ ”
Kikusui and his colleagues convinced 30 of their friends and neighbors to bring their pets into his lab. They also found and reached out to a few people who were raising wolves as pets. When each owner brought his or her animal into the lab, the researchers collected urine from both and then asked the owners to interact with their animal in a room together for 30 minutes. During this time, the owners typically petted their animals and talked to them. Dogs and their owners also gazed into each other’s eyes, some for a total of a couple of minutes, some for just a few seconds. (The wolves, not surprisingly, didn’t make much eye contact with their owners.) After the time was up, the team took urine samples again.
Mutual gazing had a profound effect on both the dogs and their owners. Of the duos that had spent the greatest amount of time looking into each other’s eyes, both male and female dogs experienced a 130% rise in oxytocin levels, and both male and female owners a 300% increase. (Kikusui was one of them, participating in the experiment himself with his two standard poodles, Anita and Jasmine.) The scientists saw no oxytocin increase in the dogs and owners who had spent little time gazing at each other, or in any of the wolf-owner duos.
In a second experiment, the team repeated the same essential procedure, except this time they gave the dogs a nasal spray of oxytocin before they interacted with their owners. There were also no wolves this time around. “It would be very, very dangerous to give a nasal spray to a wolf,” Kikusui laughs. Female dogs given the nasal spray spent 150% more time gazing into the eyes of their owners, who in turn saw a 300% spike in their oxytocin levels. No effect was seen in male dogs or in dogs given a nasal spray that contained only saline.
The results suggest that human-dog interactions elicit the same type of oxytocin positive feedback loop as seen between mothers and their infants, the team reports online today in Science. And that, in turn, may explain why we feel so close to our dogs, and vice versa. Kikusui says the nasal spray may have affected only female dogs because oxytocin plays a greater role in female reproduction, being important during labor and lactation.
This positive feedback loop, he says, may have played a critical role in dog domestication. As wolves were morphing into dogs, only those that could bond with humans would have received care and protection. And humans themselves may have evolved the ability to reciprocate, adapting the maternal bonding feedback loop to a new species. “That’s our biggest speculation,” says Kikusui, who suggests that because oxytocin decreases anxiety, the adaptation may have been important for human survival as well. “If human beings are less stressed out, it’s better for their health.”
“I definitely think oxytocin was involved in domestication,” says Jessica Oliva, a Ph.D. student at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, whose work recently showed that the hormone enhances the ability of dogs to understand human pointing. Still, she says, mutual gazing doesn’t happen in a vacuum; most of these dogs probably associate the behavior with food and playing, both of which can also boost oxytocin levels. So although we may view our dogs as our babies, they don’t necessarily view us as their mothers. We may just be cool friends who give them an occasional massage.
znModeratorFact is, human beings may not really exist, in some respects, in the nature/nurture continuum.
Genetically we are built to be culture-bearing animals. That means culture has a direct effect on what we are as individuals, and paradoxically, we’re that way because we are genetically predetermined to be that way.
——————–
What do you mean “humans may not exist in the nature/nurture continuum” ?w
vIt may be the wrong way of putting it.
That is, if we are genetically determined to be culture bearing animals, then, nature has decreed that much of what we are comes from culture.
So there’s no dichotomy, for one thing.
Anyway…to me, the question is this: what’s (A) hard-wired at the level of the brain, and what’s (B) absorbed through cultural/social values, practices, perceptions, norms, and taboos. Part of the issue is that many things on list “A” can be altered or re-shaped or transformed through list “B.”
March 21, 2016 at 12:08 pm in reply to: should Rams trade up for a qb? audio link, Colin Cowherd #40873znModeratorWho is Goff? I would just as soon have Brandon Allen.
His hands are bigger too. Aren’t they?
I like Brandon Allen and have since the senior bowl.
I don’t agree that they will have to trade up for him though.
Kidding.
Allen has the feel of a third round pick. Is my guess.
znModeratorFrom another thread…I put it here, too.
znModeratorNick Wagoner @nwagoner
Fairley has already visited with New Orleans and said he and Rams are still talking. Letting process play out.======================
Nick Fairley set to meet with Patriots
Josh Alper on March 21, 2016
Nick Fairley set to meet with Patriots
Defensive tackle Nick Fairley has drawn interest from a variety of teams since the start of free agency and that list is set to grow this week.
Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com was on a flight to the owners meetings in Florida on Monday when he saw Fairley, who told him he was on his way there as well. Fairley’s reason for heading to Boca is not for a condo board election, but for a visit with members of the Patriots organization.
Fairley has also been on the radar of the Jets, Eagles and Saints in the last couple of weeks. He told Wagoner that he is also still talking to the Rams about a possible return to the organization for a second season.
The Patriots have signed a pair of defensive linemen this offseason with Frank Kearse and Chris Long joining the team as free agents. Sealver Siliga and Akiem Hicks have moved on to Seattle and Chicago, respectively, while Chandler Jones was traded to Arizona.
znModeratorRelocation no longer a factor for Rams at owners meetings
Nick Wagoner
BOCA RATON, Fla. — And now, it’s time for something different.
For the better part of the past couple of years, NFL owners meetings have covered a variety of topics but none has been more of a hot-button issue than relocation to Los Angeles. There have been long discussions nestled into the itinerary on things like rule changes. There have even been special meetings called specifically to talk about Los Angeles.
At this week’s owners meetings here in Florida, Los Angeles will likely come up again, but after the league decided to send the Rams back to the City of Angels in January, it’s no longer of primary concern. It’s certainly a welcome respite from the contentious and tedious process required to gain the league’s approval to move.
Here’s a look at what to expect from this week’s owners meetings from a Rams perspective:
— As mentioned above, the Rams are moving to Los Angeles so there are no more battles to be fought on that front. There is, however, some more business that has to be taken care of. While the San Diego Chargers have until next year to decide on whether to stay or join the Rams in Inglewood, it’s safe to expect that both Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis will be asked about relocation this week. The Rams’ position remains the same as they wait to see if another team will join them. It’s important from a business standpoint because the Rams can’t start selling the Inglewood stadium until they know if they’re sharing it per the agreement made with the league. Relocation to other cities also figures to be a topic for Davis and Spanos as San Antonio, Las Vegas and even St. Louis have been brought up in connection to both teams.
— Rams coach Jeff Fisher announced at last month’s NFL scouting combine that he has taken a hiatus from the competition committee so he can focus on the team’s move. That means Fisher will have a far more relaxed week in Florida than he did at past owners meetings. Just like at the combine, the lack of those additional meetings means Fisher can kick back a little bit and continue to invest his attention on his football team. Of course, Fisher will keep an eye on proposed rule changes as they relate to his team, but he’ll no longer be front and center in such discussions.
— Fisher is scheduled to speak to the media at the NFC coaches breakfast on Wednesday morning. It will be the first time he’s talked since the new league year began, so we should be able to get his thoughts on the team’s moves so far, the players they lost and what’s still to come in terms of the roster. Also, the Rams plan to be out of St. Louis by the end of next week so we should get an update on how things are going with the move. One more thing: We’ll see if there’s been any progress on a contract extension for Fisher.
— Rams owner Stan Kroenke has been more open and willing to speak since he was awarded the right to move to Los Angeles. Does that mean he’ll be speaking in Boca? It could. If nothing else, it could be a good chance to hear from him about the state of his football team moving forward now that the relocation process is complete.
— Although the Rams haven’t added but two outside free agents, I’ll also try to seek scouting reports on cornerback Coty Sensabaugh and defensive end Quinton Coples from their former coaches. And I’m sure there will be some other news and notes that pop up along the way.
znModeratorBreaking down Cory Harkey’s contract with Rams
Nick Wagoner
BOCA RATON, Fla. — The Los Angeles Rams reached an agreement to bring tight end/fullback Cory Harkey back on a three-year deal last week.
Harkey, who went from undrafted free agent to one of the team’s emotional leaders, received $2.5 million in guaranteed money on a deal that pays him just shy of $2 million on average over the life of the deal.
Here’s a year-by-year breakdown of Harkey’s deal, courtesy of ESPN Stats & Info:
2016
Base salary: $1.5 million (fully guaranteed)
Roster bonus: $500,000 (fully guaranteed, paid on 10th day of league year)
Cap charge: $2 million
Cash: $2 million
Notes: Up to $250,000 in not-likely-to-be-earned for playing time, receptions and team achievements.2017
Base salary: $1.3 million
Roster bonus: $500,000 (fully guaranteed, paid on fifth day of 2017 league year)
Cap charge: $1.8 million
Cash: $1.8 million
Notes: Up to $250,000 in not-likely-to-be-earned incentives for playing time, receptions and team achievements.2018
Base salary: $1.65 million
Roster bonus: $250,000 (Paid on fifth day of 2018 league year)
Cap charge: $1.9 million
Cash: $1.9 million
Notes: Up to $250,000 in not-likely-to-be-earned for playing time, receptions and team achievements.March 21, 2016 at 9:30 am in reply to: should Rams trade up for a qb? audio link, Colin Cowherd #40861znModeratorI would take Lynch or Cook at 15, than any kind of trade up.
Even if it’s a trade-up to 4, 5, or 6 for Goff?
znModeratorAFC scout worries on Treadwell’s speed
Laquon Treadwell – WR – MS – Mar. 20 – 7:55 pm et
An AFC Northeastern scout voiced concern that Ole Miss WR Laquon Treadwell is “going to get beat up because he’s slow.”
The scout added that while he’s uneasy about Treadwell’s speed, he “likeeverything else he does.” Perhaps offering a bit of self-criticism, the scout went on to note that “[y]ou would think scouts would learn about overestimating speed and underestimating tape. He’ll go in the first but not sure how high.” Most mock drafts slot the 6-foot-2, 221-pounder into the mid-to-late first round, with the Los Angeles Rams acting as an easy sort of marker to judge his stock. The Rams hold the 15th pick, which figures to be around where Treadwell’s taken off the board. In a more optimistic assessment, CBS Sports’ Jared Dubin had the Giants selecting Treadwell at No. 10. We would be somewhat surprised if he reaches that high. It’s not out of the question that either Baylor WR Corey Coleman or TCU WR Josh Doctson (or both) will be taken ahead of Treadwell. Mar. 20 – 7:55 pm et
Source: NFL.comznModeratorIts really a mixed bag of nature and nuturing
That’s one argument. Another is that people tend to exaggerate the nature part. To me that’s the argument backed by the heaviest evidence. And yet another argument is that those are only 2 of the sources, and people tend to exaggerate individual parental nurturing. Many of the things we are talking about do not come from deliberate (or even accidental) nurturing influences, but from social/cultural influences way beyond any individuals control and often so deeply unconscious we are hardly aware of them. This kind of thing even has a direct effect on how we experience emotion. So for example if you grow up in a culture where shame and “losing face” matter more, you experience the entire world differently where the issue is more guilt-oriented behaviors than shame-oriented behaviors. And yet all human beings are capable of both emotions. How they play out in your life, though, depends on where and when you grow up.
Fact is, human beings may not really exist, in some respects, in the nature/nurture continuum. Genetically we are built to be culture-bearing animals. That means culture has a direct effect on what we are as individuals, and paradoxically, we’re that way because we are genetically predetermined to be that way.
…
March 20, 2016 at 7:18 pm in reply to: reportedly Green Bay tried to trade for Jared Cook last season #40847znModeratorCook offers a dimension otherwise absent from Green Bay’s tight-end group
What dimension would that be?
Inconsistency at a high cost.
And, attacking the qb on the sideline.
Having covered that ground…I think they just meant downfield speed.
…
March 20, 2016 at 6:36 pm in reply to: should Rams trade up for a qb? audio link, Colin Cowherd #40844znModeratorfrom off the net
—
merlin
The Rams unquestionably will love Wentz, but with Cleveland at 2 he is not going to be available. Moving to 1, as much as I’d like to see it, is probably too rich for them to consider. As you said, moving ahead of the whiners is much more affordable and while it’s risky (the whiners might move up), it’s a reasonable gamble.
Really the hope for us is that the Titans price themselves out of the market because they are set on adding their LT which is a huge benefit for their young QB. That means Wentz goes 2 and the concern is the Chargers at 3. If the Chargers become enamored with LB Jack as the rumors are insinuating, I think we are in business.
IMO if they move up it will be to 4 overall with Dallas and they’ll take Goff. It is not that much to pay, and it adds a guy to this offense who can be the face of the franchise in LA and lead this team back to respectability. The keys are picks 1 and 3 IMO.
znModeratorfrom [Journal of] Catholic Education/June 2007
Review of SAME DIFFERENCE: HOW GENDER MYTHS ARE HURTING OUR RELATIONSHIPS, OUR CHILDREN, AND OUR JOBS
ROSALIND BARNETT & CARYL RIVERSReviewed by Ruby T. Urbina
“People’s behavior today is determined more by situation than by gender” (p. 5). Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs explores how power makes the difference, not necessarily gender. The book is divided into three parts: relationships, work, and parenting.
The authors refute many myths, presumptions, and misconceptions about the differences between men and women. Part 1 of the book provides different examples that foster the view that the woman’s role is that of caretaker, responsible for answering to the needs of her husband and family. Starting in Genesis, we find the idea that a woman (Eve) was created to take care of the man (Adam). Using science and intellectual insight, the authors take on the most popular myths of gender difference. This book strongly recommends the improvement of relationships between men and women. Historically, men have been the breadwinners of the family. Today, due to the demands of society and the greater needs of families, both parents are forced to work to make ends meet. Since this shift, a drastic change in relationships has begun to surface within members of the family and the socalled harmony has begun to fade, probably because of pressures at work.
This book not only discusses relationships between adult males and females, but it also talks about young boys and girls as well. Researchers claim that boys are better in mathematics than girls. The influential journal, Science, published a study under the headline “Math and Sex: Are Girls Born with Less Ability?” Time presented it as the “Gender Factor in Math.” The study became a major national story, and many parents worried that their daughters would not be able to compete with their male peers in mathematics. According to the authors, the reporter who is responsible for this did not go over the significance of statistics and failed to emphasize that the key issue is not the size of the difference in the average scores of the boys and girls. What is really important is the difference in the range of scores in each group. The three studies conducted by these researchers concluded that girls’ and boys’ math scores are roughly equivalent. They also emphasized that women succeed not only in math but also in the field of science, engineering, and within the technology workforce. Excellence in women in these different fields was proven by different statistics cited in this book. The authors added, “this kind of progress won’t be widespread until we stop believing that males are innately superior at math just as we have stopped believing that the earth is flat” (p. 171).
Gradually, we have established social views about women and their role in a relationship. Our views are natural and we have grown up listening about these traditional outlooks. Many social commentators cite that men are better leaders. Among the reasons given are that women do not have the right hormones. Their brains are built for empathizing, which is only good for making friends, caring for the baby, and gossiping. Also, women lack the motivation for leadership and are violating their essential feminine natures when they try to lead. In short, these social commentators believe that women will never achieve as much as men in the work world. This reviewer commends the authors for pointing out that if we believe the myths about a woman’s inability to lead in the workforce, we will also harm the corporations for which they work.
The last part of this book talks about parenting. Both authors agree that there is no difference between the two sexes; they are equal in potential, but varied in behavior. This section shows that fathers are also capable of doing the day-to-day caring for children, such as fixing a daughter’s hair, playing with children, and interacting with them. Parenting behavior is neither inborn nor socially transferred to one sex, but is learned by caregiving in a specific situation.
The authors provide several examples to support their argument, refuting stereotypes and rationalizations about differences between the sexes. From mathematical aptitude to maternal intuition, the authors explore and take apart many generally accepted conceptions of male and female destiny. Each chapter in the book focuses on myths that are thoroughly misunderstood by our society.
Their conclusions provide a different point of view toward gender and diminish the already established notion of innate difference between the sexes. After extensive and quite exhaustive research, Barnett and Rivers demystify several myths and depict how society has influenced human thinking and behavior. As a result, people often make poor and sometimes incorrect decisions. Furthermore, the authors lay out a marvelous resource for educators that instills the notion of gender difference as irrelevant to education. It suggests getting rid of misconceptions and presumptions of gender.
Students, both male and female, should not consider themselves superior or inferior. They should perceive their fellow classmates and everyone around them to be equal in potential and in ability. Educators must help their students in this matter. Educators must accept that there is no academic difference between males and females. Education is optimistic; hence, educators should be optimistic, believing that both males and females have the potential to do anything they desire. The authors of this book tell their readers that there is no difference in gender. They insist that it is society that is setting the misconceptions and erroneous judgment.
znModeratorThere are most certainly some differences. At least in my wife’s opinion. Her non scientific observations are from years of being an educator from young children all the way through high school at both the teaching and administrative level and now as an advocate for parents who have children with special needs. One difference being-and its significant-is that young adolescent girls begin to mature earlier than boys in their own age groups.
Well see but we all have years of observation.
It is true that girls develop cognitively faster than boys at a certain age but there is no reason to believe that leads to or is part of other grand totalizing differences.
the problem with “observation” of course is…what is one “observing”? The effects of people internalizing social and culture norms together with the observer’s own tendency to see things in terms of those norms?
Or biology.
And that’s where you need actual evidence and the ability to analyze it.
What that evidence and analysis leads to is the argument that gender distinctions are not clearcut and admit of lots of gray areas. That’s the evidence.
Remember in the 19th century observation by whites supported the idea that blacks were inferior. It was just obvious. It was right in front of your eyes.
There is virtually no border between “observation” and “projection.”
That’s why actual studies of these things are so illuminating. And on that the evidence is in.
Which means, read the book. It ain’t solved because you read a blurb and leaped to an accustomed, habitual conclusion.
znModeratorfrom off the net
==
Rams Junkie
e: During Goff’s pro day on NFL Network Mayock compared Goff to Matt Ryan
Mayock on Goff: “The footwork is there the release, the quick release is there. I think the awareness of the game, the awareness presnap even, of defenses. I think it is a really good comp because he is tall, thin kid with good arm strength, probably not elite arm strength, but Buck I think it is a heck of a comp.”
Jeremiah: “Mike one of the things that I like about both of these quarterbacks, I have Wentz one spot over Goff but I have very similar grades on them. I think both of these quarterbacks are really really tough. You come in this offense and what he has had in front of him at Cal hasn’t been the best at times and you see this kid. He will stand in there and take it and didn’t miss a game either. That really speaks to his toughness.”
Mayock: “Keep in mind that when he got here with coach Dykes this was a massive rebuilding project. The kid has 37 consecutive starts since the day he set foot on this Berkeley campus. So even though he is a lean build he has answered the bell every single week. And Danny they were 1-11 the first year. They got better year two and this year they went to their first bowl game in several years with an 8-5 record. So this kid kind of put them his back and carried them to an 8-5 record. And I agree 37 consecutive starts, he is a tough kid and I also think he is probably, of all the quarterbacks, the most ready to step in on day one and be able to handle an NFL defense.”
Brooks: “I agree with you about being able to step in one day one.”
Bucky asked why Mayock in his mind felt Goff was the most NFL ready QB. Mayock went on to say (paraphrasing now) that Goff played on a team that usually did not have the talent to match up with the team that they were playing, he compared his 37 starts to Wentz’s 23. He cited 1600 pass attempts with a lot of pocket awareness and you can see that it translates well to the NFL. Mayock said Goff will be a little overwhelmed as every rookie is but he will understand the game and has the quick release to get the ball out, he has the footwork and enough arm strength to win in the NFL. He said Wentz has the upside of Luck but considerably more downside because he has not played anywhere near as much football and has not played it at the same level. We don’t know yet whether he has that intrinsic Luck timing awareness etc.
znModeratorSame Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs
by Rosalind Barnett (Author), Caryl Rivers (Author)http://www.amazon.com/Same-Difference-Hurting-Relationships-Children/dp/0465006132
Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs
by Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers.
A landmark demonstration of how groundless beliefs about “natural” differences between the sexes have harmed both women and men-with a hopeful vision based on up-to-the-minute research.
From respected academics like Carol Gilligan to pop-psych gurus like John Gray, the message has long been the same: Men and women are fundamentally different, and trying to bridge the gender gap can only lead to grief. Generations have bought into the idea that women are uniquely primed to be “relational,” men innately driven toward achievement-even when these “truths” are contradicted by what’s happening in our daily lives.
The time has come, argue the authors of this groundbreaking book, to liberate ourselves from biological determinism. Drawing on years of exhaustive research, Barnett and Rivers reveal how a toxic mix of junk science, pop psychology, and media hype has profoundly influenced our thinking and behavior, causing us to make poor decisions about how we choose our mates, raise our children, and manage our careers.
It is power, not gender, that makes a difference; in fact, there are more differences among women (or men) with varying degrees of power than there are between women and men. In this vitally important and life-changing book, Barnett and Rivers sound a clarion call: a plea to end sexual stereotyping so that women and men, girls and boys, may realize their destinies as full human beings.
Same Difference takes on the myths of “Mars and Venus”:
Myth…Men are genetically driven to seek out beautiful women. This may have been true in the stone age, but times change. Now, a significant number of men report that an attractive portfolio is even more alluring than a pretty face.
Myth…Women want to marry wealthy men who can protect them and their children. In fact, a surprising majority of today’s women put a higher price tag on empathy and nurturance.
Myth…Girls face an inevitable plunge in self-esteem at adolescence. Recent research finds no evidence of this. Yet parents, teachers, and girls themselves lower their expectations and balk at challenges, because of this pervasive belief.
Myth…Boys and girls learn differently. Teaching styles that emphasize different tactics for boys and girls are more often rooted in stereotypes than research or hard science, and can lead to a poorer-quality education for girls. Still, public funds are squandered on special curricula aimed at “female learning styles.”
Myth…Men and women speak “different languages”-they “Just Don’t Understand” each other. Wrong. Women talk “male” in the boardroom, and men easily master “motherese.”
Myth…Female leadership is kinder and gentler. Not so. Position is the key to behavior: female managers are not more democratic than males, though many of us might like to think so.
znModeratorwith Malcolm Brown coming back, there are no guarantees for Mason moving forward.
I keep forgetting about Malcolm Brown.
He did have a good buzz though coming out and showed some things in limited opportunities last year, summer and regular season.
.
znModeratorMike Groh charged with tough task in improving Rams’ pass game
Nick Wagoner
EARTH CITY, Mo. — The offseason is here for the Los Angeles Rams and now that we know where they’ll be playing their home games for the long term, things have settled down enough to spend our weekends answering a few of your Twitter questions.
As always, you can find me on Twitter @nwagoner and fire away with any Rams-related questions you might have. Please use hashtag #RamsMail so I can see them.
On to your questions.
Eric Litster @elitster
Q: how much influence can Groh have on the young WR group? Can he develop them more so than Sherman? Thanks@nwagoner: To be sure, Mike Groh is stepping into a difficult spot as he joins the Rams from the Bears. As the receivers coach and passing-game coordinator, Groh is charged with the tough task of elevating the Rams out of the basement in which they finished 2015 in most passing categories. The book on Groh is that he’s a smart coach who has the ability to relate to younger players (in part because he’s still fairly young himself at 44), and that will be welcome in the Rams receivers room. Whether that will translate into more production from the group goes beyond his ability to build those relationships. As the passing-game coordinator, it’s also Groh’s job to work with offensive coordinator Rob Boras to improve things schematically. That could mean simplifying things a bit further, as Boras attempted to do toward the end of last season. It also means trying to scheme receivers open in the passing game since none of the current wideouts have proved capable of creating separation on a consistent basis. Groh has a good reputation in league circles. It will be interesting to see what ideas he brings to the table.
Charles De La Rosa @De_La_Tweet
Q: any word on what the Rams will do with Tre Mason? Do his recent legal troubles leave his spot on the team at Risk?@nwagoner: Any time you do something that leads to the team sending out a release in which it expresses its disappointment in you, that’s probably not a good sign. Tre Mason already hadn’t done himself any favors last season when he missed the bus to the airport and was deactivated for the Baltimore game. On top of that, the second-year running back didn’t play all that well in his limited opportunities in 2015, struggling with ball-security issues. As I wrote earlier this offseason, the Rams seemed to be a bit down on him as it was and that was before the incident in Florida. The Rams tendered Benny Cunningham and would like to keep him. If that happens and with Malcolm Brown coming back, there are no guarantees for Mason moving forward. It’s worth seeing if he can get back on track, because he could be a pretty good complement to Todd Gurley. But it’s fair to say he’s got some proving to do moving forward.
znModerator—
—
—McShay’s top five takeaways from Jared Goff’s pro day
Todd McShay
Here’s the first thing you need to know about quarterback pro days: JaMarcus Russell was the best one I’ve ever seen, and we all know how that worked out. So for talent evaluators throughout the league, Jared Goff’s pro day on Friday won’t be a huge part of the grading process, but it was just another opportunity to see how he handles the little things. Is he working on it? That’s really what you want to answer.
I was on hand to see how the No. 2 QB on my board handled the spotlight. Here are my top five takeaways.
1. Testing his small hands. At the combine, Goff’s hands measured 9 inches, which is on the lower portion of the acceptable range. That’s a red flag for evaluators just because only 22 quarterbacks from 2008-15 — or less than 10 percent of those at the combine during that span — had hands that measured 9 inches or less. The two most notable QBs were Jimmy Clausen and Ryan Tannehill. Small hands, generally speaking, can equate to poor ball security.
On Friday, Goff’s hands stretched ever so slightly to 9 1/8 inches, and Pep Hamilton — the QB coach for the Cleveland Browns, who own the No. 2 overall pick — put them to the test. He had Goff throw about a half-dozen deep outs after dousing the ball with water. Goff looked great doing that. This will continue happening during the Cal QB’s individual workouts with teams, but evaluators will also factor in what they’re seen on tape. I watched Goff play in the rain against Oregon this season, and he didn’t have much trouble with ball security.
2. Looks comfortable in his drops. From the film that I’ve watched, Cal’s offense under Goff was almost 100 percent shotgun-based. Throughout the postseason process, Goff has worked on his five- and seven-step drops from under center. On Friday, he looked more comfortable with his timing and more at ease overall than he did at the combine. Goff’s foot quickness in his drops was really good, and on the vast majority of his throws, he got the ball out early. That’s a good sign for his development.
Marcus Mariota. The farther into this process we get, the more Goff reminds me of Mariota as a prospect. They both have terrific intangibles and football intelligence, both were groomed in spread offenses, both showed great accuracy and a smooth release on tape, both have skinnier frames, which raised durability concerns, and both were the No. 2 QB on my board. Yes, Goff needs to be developed, just like Mariota did coming out of Oregon, but he has the skill set to eventually develop into a good starter in this league.
4. Arm strength not an issue. I heard some people say that Goff doesn’t have the strongest arm, but after his performance Friday, there’s just no issue in my mind. Between how smooth and quick his release is and his ability to drive the ball outside the numbers, Goff has the physical tools to make all the throws at the next level. He showed really good zip on deep outs and heaved the ball 60-65 yards in the air on a couple of bombs. Tom Brady had less arm strength than Goff coming out, which is an important reminder that prospects on the skinnier side can continue to improve in this area as they increase their lower body strength.
5. He was all business. I’ve been to a lot of pro days, particularly with quarterbacks, where it seems like guys are just trying to build their brand. Goff took a very ho-hum approach, much like Andrew Luck a few years ago and Mariota last year. This was a no-frills environment, with the exception of the ESPN and NFL Network cameras there to capture it live. Teams are always looking to see how top prospects carry themselves. Some prefer to soak up the spotlight and turn their pro days into a scene, but Goff was all business, which was refreshing.
March 20, 2016 at 11:27 am in reply to: should Rams trade up for a qb? audio link, Colin Cowherd #40824znModeratorJust more national-media-fluff.
My feeling about this is that reportedly, this may not be a star draft at the top when it comes to qb, though there are good ones.
But it’s supposed to be an intriguing draft in terms of the next tier or 2 of qbs. There’s more of them, meaning more that look like they have a shot at making it. They’re just virtually all developmental.
So you can get a qb at 15 or in round 2.
If that’s true why trade up. Especially since we just heard that the Titans want a galactic emperor’s ransom to trade away the 1st pick. Though of course they could trade up to below the 2nd pick, and take the other qb. Maybe you only need a lesser Baron’s ransom to do that.
.
znModeratorwiki–
On July 13, 1972, Robert Irsay bought the Los Angeles Rams and transferred ownership to Carroll Rosenbloom, in exchange for ownership of the Baltimore Colts.
Lg Rank Offense 7
Lg Rank Defense 11Coach: Tommy Prothro
6-7-1, Finished 3rd in NFC West Division
In 1972, Roman Gabriel’s knee and shoulder injury problems got worse. After making 89 consecutive starts over eight seasons, he missed 2 games and lost playing time in all 12 others. Still, after a Monday night win in San Francisco in week 12, the Rams regained 1st place. But losses to the Cardinals and Lions in the final two weeks, in addition to a week 11 loss to the woeful Saints, doomed their season. The Rams finished 6-7-1 and Prothro was fired.
znModeratorI see you’re already breaking out the “moving” excuse.
Shouldn’t you save that until after they pick their traditional first round bust?
So true. lol
Well actually I was joking.
My real view is that I don’t see how the Rams can avoid going 16-0.
That’s mostly because I view Case Keenum as a cross between the best traits of Jamie Martin and Kenny Stabler.
To quote Harry Truman, this year when facing the Rams the league may expect a rain of ruin, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.
znModeratorBarring big moves, Seahawks again figure to have low-cost offensive line in 2016
Ten days into free agency, the Seahawks have less salary cap space devoted to their offensive line in 2016 than any other NFL team.
–
It’s a little risky to make sweeping judgments about an NFL team in March. There obviously remains lots of time for significant moves to still be made.
But so far, the Seahawks have not only not made the big splash-addition to the offensive line that some might have expected given some of the struggles of 2015, but have only further perpetuated their reputation for trying to assemble a line on the, well, inexpensive side.
Consider that as of Friday, with Russell Okung now officially gone to Denver, the Seahawks have just $8.7 million in salary cap dedicated to its offensive line, according to Overthecap.com. That is by far the lowest total in the NFL — the Titans are 31st at $13.9 million.
Here’s another way to look at it — as of today, the Seahawks have less salary cap space devoted to their offensive line in 2016 than the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have devoted to J.R. Sweezy alone ($9.5 million).
The New York Jets, at $39.4 million, which is telling because it’s the Jets who have agreed to big deals in the past few years two players the Seahawks declined to re-sign — right tackle Breno Giacomini and left guard James Carpenter.
As was well-noted yesterday, Okung leaving for Denver means none of the five offensive linemen who started the Super Bowl win over the Broncos two years ago remains with the Seahawks.
Giacomini was the first to depart, signing with the Jets after the 2013 season a four-year deal worth $18 million overall.
Two more departed after the 2014 season — Carpenter, who took a four-year, $19 million deal with the Jets, and then center Max Unger, who was traded to New Orleans as part of the Jimmy Graham deal.
Two more departed in the last two weeks — Sweezy and Okung. (In fact, unless Seattle re-signs free agent Lemuel Jeanpierre, then none of the nine linemen who were on the active roster for the Super Bowl will remain with the Seahawks in 2016.)
At the moment, the largest salary cap hit for a Seattle offensive linemen is the $2.52 million of newly-signed J’Marucs Webb. Every other Seattle linemen is either working on a tender, their original rookie contract, or a one or two-year essentially minimum deal.
Not only does Sweezy’s 2016 salary cap number dwarf that of any other Seahawk, but so too do those of most of the others that got away — Giacomini’s is $5.65 million, Carpenter’s is $5.75 million and Unger’s is $6.2 million.
Okung’s cap number has not yet been revealed, but the continuing revelation of details on his contract — specifically, that it doesn’t include a single dollar of guaranteed money — make clear that the Seahawks remain willing to make hard choices even when it comes to some of their most productive players (Seattle didn’t have an offer to Okung at the end of his negotiations).
Going thrifty on the offensive line is nothing new for the Seahawks, of course. They had a salary cap number for the line last year of $12.8 million, which ranked 30th in the NFL.
The salary cap (which this year is $155.2 million) forces all teams to make decisions, and Seattle for the past few years has been near the bottom in spending money on offensive linemen.
Seattle instead has spent the bulk of its money on defense — the Seahawks have almost $76 million in cap devoted to defense, currently sixth in the NFL; and select core players at other spots — Russell Wilson, Marshawn Lynch, Jimmy Graham to name three. (In fact, due to Lynch’s deal remaining on the books until he officially retires, the Seahawks have a higher cap at tailback, $12.9 million, than any other team.)
It’s probably something that more or less just happened then was part of any grand strategy. Seattle has simply decided that its core players that it couldn’t let get away were at other positions (it’s worth remembering the Seahawks re-signed Unger to a four-year $25.8 million deal in 2012, illustrating the team isn’t reluctant to spend on the offensive line when it feels it makes sense).
Seattle surely will make more additions to the offensive line, and if it pulls off a trade for a big-ticket veteran such as Cleveland’s Joe Thomas (whose 2016 cap hit of $9.5 million would more than double what the Seahawks currently have dedicated to their line) then the picture could change some.
But it’s also worth recalling what Seahawks general manager John Schneider said last month at the NFL combine when asked about the offensive line.
Essentially, Schneider said the team wouldn’t make a big move just to make a big move, comments that seemed to foreshadow that the team might not do anything drastic in the free agency period.
“In terms of our philosophy, we are going to keep attacking it the same way we always have,’’ Schneider said at the combine.
So far, they’ve stuck to their word.
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
