HighPlainsDrifter wrote:

Raiders just grabbed the Browns’ second pick in the 4th and took Connor Cook. Cook’s gotta be bummed. He has to know that he likely isn’t competing for a starting gig.

What the hell?

They don’t need both of them, do they?

bnw wrote:

Prince 1, Scalia 0

Yeah, but Prince was important.

Commitment made:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25570100/raiders-commit-to-vegas-offer-500-million-for-stadium-4-things-to-know

bnw wrote:

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Hillary will have to pardon herself to not be president in federal prison.

Well, if they are going to indict her, I hope it’s sooner than later. Like in the next couple of weeks. And I hope they DO indict her because we are past the two minute warning on the environment, wealth disparity, and democracy.

There’s slam dunk evidence against her and it is all Gov. 101 stuff.

I’ll just wait for the FBI, if you don’t mind. There are people who believe Benghazi and Vince Foster etc were all slam dunk crimes, too.

I don’t care anymore.

Originally, I was for Wentz. Then I moved towards Goff.

But then I moved towards “why be emotionally invested in this pick when I don’t know the first thing about it, and basically nobody knows how this will turn out anyway?”

Go #1 pick!

zn wrote:

Actually the gambling issue doesn’t interest me at all. The moving issue does though.

Sorry I moved the post, Z, I just thought it was a separate topic and that one or the other topic would get buried as a result. Do you want me to move it back here? Not a problem if so.

I couldn’t possibly care less.

It’s slow around here, so I decided to complain recreationally. Had fun doing it, too.

waterfield wrote:

Well I pretty much disagree with every thing you wrote-and I have no inclination to debate the issue point by point. So I give you that. However, following both her and her husband throughout their careers it is my belief that these issues have a far better chance of moving forward in a progressive manner with her than the lockstep republican naysayers based solely on ideology. IMO Sanders and Trump are from the same cloth-bluster w/o any sort of road map.

And for the life of my I truly do not understand one saying they can sleep well at night with either Trump or Cruz as president. Oh well-I’m done here-I do not do well in never-never land.

I don’t know what Clinton supporters are thinking of when you say she will move forward in a progressive manner. You mean she may support letting transgender people go pee in a public restroom?

She is a neo-con in foreign policy. She supported the assassination of Qadaffi, creating yet another vacuum for ISIS to fill, and she wants to keep spending trillions on dropping bombs all over the Middle East – which we have a good 13 years of recent evidence of proving does not result in anything good. And that is all money taken away from Universal Health Care which she says in unrealistic even though plenty of countries much poorer than ours can afford it.

This entire primary season has proven that she is all about consolidating her power, not about the principle of democracy. There is no reason to believe she will work to reform our decidedly undemocratic democracy which disenfranchises voters (even when it is working properly which it isn’t), or lift a finger to roll back the influence of big money in politics.

I could go on. I mean…name one issue she is progressive on.

And the argument that Sanders is all bluster without a plan is plan old crap. The man has a long, accomplished record of getting things done. A better record than Hillary.

Finally, the condescending attitude of Clinton to Sanders supporters – echoed in your classification of us as being children in “never-never land,” just goes to show how completely out of touch with Main Street she and her supporters within the establishment are.

I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. It is not acceptable to me to be limited by that choice any longer. For 36 years we have been told to be patient, and our turn will come. It’s obviously not going to come until the Democrat establishment is blown the hell up, and people take over the party, and insist on progressive policies.

As horrendous as the possibility of 4 Trump years is, the prospect of 8 years of Hillary is potentially worse for progressives because she won’t do anything, and the natural pendulum swing in the White House suggests Hillary’s successor will be a Republican. A vote for Hillary is a vote to punt with only a minute left in the game, and no timeouts left.

The seas are rising, the bombs keep falling, we have a worse child mortality rate than CUBA, and the corporations are not going to stop trying to strangle net neutrality precisely because the free net allowed Sanders to make as much headway as he did. Without a neutral net, the game will be over.

nittany ram wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Oh, and San Diego is ALSO looking at stadiums, but that probably deserves its own thread.

Good.

It’s looking more and more like the Rams will be the only show in town. I hate the idea of them sharing a stadium.

I do too. Which – to me – was what was most significant about the Las Vegas story: that the Raiders could very well stay away from LA.

And that is why I posted the blurb about the San Diego stadium proposal in this thread as a response. But the next time I visited the board, the San Diego post had been excised from this thread, and placed all by itself in a new thread with an ungodly question mark in the title.

So I figured that maniac zn (probably, since he started this thread) was more interested in the Las Vegas/gambling issue, and found San Diego to be an unholy diversion from his crusade to discuss gambling issues. Being the nice guy I am, I obliged. Being the demon spawn that I am, I fired off that last line to let him know that I know what he’s up to, just so he watches his behavior in the future. (And now I have diabolically succeeded in distracting from Las Vegas).

sdram wrote:

14 Million per season can’t buy Sam’s happiness… apparently.

Never did a QB earn so much for producing so little.

The Rams should trade the #1 pick for him.

Well, I thought Williams was doing a good job, but I always admired Bud, so I’m okay with them bringing him back.

canadaram wrote:

Oh well. I’m still Team Wentz, but have become more accepting of Goff. I realize that good QBs come in various shapes and sizes, but I have to admit that I favour the size of both Wentz and Paxton Lynch. Goff’s slight frame will have me nervous for quite some time. I state this concern knowing that it was the bigger Wentz, not Goff, who missed time due to injury last year. The cannon arms of Wentz and Lynch also intrigue me.

Prior to the trade I’d been warming to the idea of the Rams drafting Lynch. So giving up so much to move up seems to carry so many obvious risks when holding still at 15 might have brought success. In the end there’s a good chance that Lynch will go before 15 anyway, but obviously the price to move up to get him would not have been as steep as the what the Rams paid to move to one. Of course, if the pundits are right and Goff will be ready to play sooner than either Lynch or Wentz I can see why the Rams would prefer Goff.

Anyway, over the coming weeks and months I may need people to reassure me lots and tell me that everything is going to be ok.

I was warm to Lynch as well.

But I have to say, Lynch’s wonderlic of 18 compared to Goff’s 34 and Wentz’s 40 has me decidedly cool on Lynch. We do not have to roam far afield in modern football to cite examples of QBs who had the physical set, but not the mental set, for learning playbooks.

It matters.

I hope it doesn’t happen to the next Rams’ QB, but look how many systems Bradford was asked to learn. I think each of his first four years he had to learn a new playbook, iirc. He was able to do it. Lynch probably not so much. That also extends to reading defenses and making adjustments. Lynch is not in the same category. He may be “football” smart, though. That kind of intelligence may actually exist as a separate thing from whatever wonderlic measures, I don’t know. But the Rams didn’t trade up to take Lynch, that’s for sure, so if the wonderlic thing doesn’t work for you, just look at the guy’s ‘stache. That will reassure you.

wv wrote:

Well he doesn’t seem to think either QB
is a slam-dunk.

I swear, there are so many different views
on these QBs this year. I dont remember
this much variance in the opinions on
a qb class.

w
v

Yeah, I hear ya on that. Just read Prisco, and he thinks Wentz has accuracy issues….

I wasn’t so sure what he was as a player, but I spent two days this week studying his tape, his All-22 tape. What I saw was a big, raw, athletic prospect with a good arm.

There were things about his game that concerned me though. His accuracy wasn’t great. There were throws behind receivers, in front of receivers and just off-target. That’s one of the major flaws for NFL passers who don’t make it in the league…Wentz also has a tendency to pre-determine where he is going with the football. In other words, he locks on. I hate that. It’s a curse for any quarterback, and a habit he has to break.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pete-prisco/25561354/why-trading-up-for-carson-wentz-could-be-a-huge-risk-for-the-eagles

joemad wrote:

Zooey wrote:

snowman wrote:

I think they take Goff. California QB for the LA market. Can you imagine the the LA fans getting excited about a QB from North Dakota? No way.

Nobody cares where the QB went to college. And if they did, southern california isn’t friendly to UC Berkeley. So Goff gets zero points for that no matter how you slice it.

Smart kids go to Cal and Cal has a history of solid pro QBs, From Craig Morton to Bartkowski, to Ferragamo and A-Rod…

I think people should care where a kid played QB in college……I think the college the QB attends does matter…. e.g., name one pro QB worth a damn from Ohio State…. or for that matter from N. Dakota…….. you can’t

I was saying that I doubt LA Rams fans are going to be more excited by Goff than Wentz just because Goff went to college in the state of California. To the extent that any Rams fans care about college football in the first place, they are likely – especially in the absence of pro ball in LA for 20 years – to be fans of USC or UCLA…and Cal is a rival team to those teams (though not much of one since Cal has never been much of a factor in the conference).