Peppers at 10, which seems low.
- Member for
- 6 years 47 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|15 hours 18 min ago||Yeah I was happy with||
Yeah I was happy with Magnusson all season. He wasn't a standout, but he was not a liability at all, despite a few negative scores against top players and lines.
He basically measures up to a long line of good but not great M RTs. You can win with him.
|5 days 12 hours ago||Eh, Hoke seemed to have an||
Eh, Hoke seemed to have an excellent eye for defensive talent. But, oh boy, did he have no idea about offense, from evaluation to coaching to teaching.
|2 weeks 12 hours ago||Depends. The the season could||
Depends. The the season could be a result of the mentality behind the quote, or the quote could be the result of a tough season. If we were to have a bad year this season, you couldn't blame Harbaugh for saying something similar in an effort to keep the team together and working.
Good news is I doubt we're in for many tough seasons.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||He's been fine. All ADs are||
He's been fine. All ADs are fine until they do something stupendous or stupid. Hackett hired Harbaugh, Brandon lied about a concussion and hung his coach out to dry for it. Manuel has just moved papers around his desk so far.
|4 weeks 16 hours ago||The car is a terrible analogy||
The car is a terrible analogy because there is no comparable method of going that distance in that time. I need a car to get to work 20 miles from home. No other option.
I don't need handstand pushups to build up my shoulders. There are comparable methods that do not involve the risk.
You've never seen anyone fall. That's great. That means the risk is small. Still too much for me and most people who are not in the cult. Again, no amount of zealotry can eliminate the risk, no matter how small.
I believe in my training methods, too. But I can't pretend there isn't risk. I can drop a weight on my foot. I haven't, but I could. I think that risk is worth it. I don't think falling on my head is.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||I don't have the data. But a||
I don't have the data. But a regimen that does not risk falling on your head is likely safer than one that does, no matter how small the risk.
And confidence does not protect you from broken necks. Not falling directly on top of your head does, though. Which is my point.
Hey man, it works for you. I'm genuinely glad. But you risk falling on your head, and no amount of zealotry or confidence can change that. You can claim that the risk is small, but then we're debating cost/benefit. To me, the risk isn't worth it when I can get just as much gains elseways.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||There is nothing inherently||
There is nothing inherently dangerous about a handstand pushup? Physics would like a word with you. You get tired, your hand slips, you fall on your head.
And I know that not every CrossFit trainer is doing them, and that the Games are just an exhibition. But the Games are a commercial for the program, and they show people doing handstand pushups and swinging chinups that are hell on joints, tendons, and ligaments. And those are just two really silly ones that stick out.
I don't doubt that CrossFit will lead to gains, but so would literally any other method, and almost all of those would be safer and likely more effective.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Pardon, but any training||
Pardon, but any training regimen that includes headstand pushups is highly dangerous and stupid. Before you claim CrossFit doesn't do that, I've seen it with my own eyes on national television.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Fantasy football. He has no||
Fantasy football. He has no one to block, which is kind of important in real football. This should not be lost on any Michigan fan who has watched the past 5 seasons.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Also, Tim and I are both||
Also, Tim and I are both telling you that we are saying the same thing. Why won't you believe us? Why do you want to tell us what we are saying?
|5 weeks 1 day ago||I'm not giving up. When I say||
I'm not giving up.
When I say name, I mean the male line. Which is why I brought up Joffrey; he had the name, but he wasn't of Roberts blood line.
Jon could do the same. That's not what I'm concerned with.
My post was about my sadness that the Stark line is dead forever. I wouldn't be sad about someone named Stark not being in Winterfell. I'm sad because Ned Stark, the first hero of the series, the most honorable man in Westeros, the guy whose eyes we saw the series through in its early stages, his male heirs are done. In truth, not in the eyes of other Westerosi.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Joffrey Baratheon.||
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah. I don't see how you can||
Yeah. I don't see how you can 'get around the issue' of every male heir (and thus name-carrier) being dead or Bran.
I don't think Benjen is having any sons. His hands are black from lack of circulation. There probably isn't a lot going down to the Mr. Torpedo area.
The Mormont thing is interesting and something I didn't think about, but doesn't change the fact that Ned's boys are fucked.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Even if Jon is legitimized,||
Even if Jon is legitimized, his name would be Targaryan, not Stark. You don't take your mother's maiden name.
And Sansa can stay a Stark, but her offspring would have to take their father's name.
The Stark name and house is dead in one generation. There will be Stark blood, but for the first time, no Stark in Winterfell.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||And with Rickon dying, the||
And with Rickon dying, the Stark house is utterly destroyed, forever and ever.
Jon isn't a Stark by law, and if the theories are correct, he has no claim to the Stark name anyways.
Sansa and Arya are women and so cannot pass on the Stark name.
Maybe Bran can knock Meera up and create a male heir, but the broken back might make it physically impossible and the Ravening might keep him too busy.
I don't know about the rest of you, but to me, that was the saddest episode ever, and no amount of catharsis from killing Ramsay can fix it.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Yeah, I was agreeing.||
Yeah, I was agreeing.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||My problem with legalizing||
My problem with legalizing weed is with respect to operating a vehicle. Smoke at home, that's cool. Smoke then drive, I'm not so cool with. I've seen enough high drivers to know it can be bad news.
Plus different strains give different highs, and different people react differently at similar levels of consumption. We've all seen someone totally freak out after one hit. I don't know how to regulate that.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Look at that. You learn||
Look at that. You learn something new every day.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||I speed all the time, because||
I speed all the time, because I do a cost/benefit analysis and the price of getting caught is outweighsed by the benefit of getting places faster, especially factoring in the risk of actually being seen by a cop.
But smoking weed as a ball player has a much higher cost. You don't get to play anymore, and you could lose your scholarship. And the chances of being caught are also pretty high. The team tests 2-3 times a year and the NCAA tests 1-2 more. To outweigh that, there has to be a pretty big benefit, and some of us don't think getting high is it.
That's the tangent though. I think we agree that the team rules should be followed, regardless of what we think about the law itself.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||They might be able to get you||
They might be able to get you on Possession if you fail a drug test, like the get students with MIPs if they are drunk. The body being a container of sorts.
I don't know why they would, and I don't know if there's any like precedent with weed. Other than that crazy theory, though, you're right on.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||I'll say it -- unless he||
I'll say it -- unless he starts getting out of his stance MUCH faster, he is not going to be a good offensive lineman.
Interestingly, his defensive tape shows some good get-off, so I don't know if the slow movement is because he is less comfortable on offense, if he has a bit of a disconnect on hearing the snap count to moving (as a 1-technique, he actually sees the snap), or if he was using offense as a bit of a breather. But he moves pretty well on D and is awfully slow on O.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||YMRMFSPA - Leo Henige That's||
YMRMFSPA - Leo Henige
That's going back a ways, but I don't think Braden is a good comparison. Body and movement wise, Henige is a great comparison, and he turned into a multiple-year starter, if I'm not mistaken.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I agree. But even that switch||
I agree. But even that switch is likely more successful than moving a CF to FB in his 20s on the International state. That's kinda my point, even if poorly made.
Especially with his skillset. I can see him as a box to box midfielder if he's paired with a ball controlling pivot man ala Pirlo or Xavi, where he doesn't handle the ball much and his job is basically to run a lot, hassle the other team, maybe chip a ball or two on.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I would argue that one of the||
I would argue that one of the most important skills for a full back is first touch. He doesn't need pinpoint control, you are right. But they have to be able to receive the ball under duress and keep it under control. I'm not asking him to be a good dribbler or even a good overall ball-chandler, but first touch is key because so many transitions start with the right or left backs.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Right. Modern fullbacks||
Right. Modern fullbacks simply have to be decent with the ball at their feet, particularly on the first touch. They don't have to be great dribblers, but they collect clearances and start attacks, they overlap in the final third to continue and finish attacks, etc. They will touch the ball an awful lot, and a lot of those touches come near their own goal. The last place for a guy like Zardes is at fullback.
Make him a wide midfielder if you insist on moving him back from attack, but do not move his ball-handling anywhere near our goal.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Putting him in charge of||
Putting him in charge of touching the ball only yards from our goal is a better idea? If this guy must play -- I don't think so, he's simply not an international-level player -- at least limit his damage.
This isn't football. You can't just move a WR with bad hands to DB.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||He also started Messi on the||
He also started Messi on the bench for every game of the 2006 World Cup, which is so insane no amount of U20 wins can make up for it. Yes, Messi was already a top-10 player in 2006.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Why on Earth would anyone||
Why on Earth would anyone think it is a good idea to place a guy with a famously bad first touch on defense?
Watch him bumblefuck around and lose the ball on the US's own third of the field, leading directly to a goal. At least when he bumblefucks as a forward he only costs the US goalscoring chances -- put him at the back and he will directly give up goals.
The idea that defenders don't have to be good ball handlers is old and stupid. It is the soccer equivalent of MANBALL, but with a much worse track record.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||I don't buy any of it, but it||
I don't buy any of it, but it was my first thought when the Tyrion as Targaryan theories started popping up.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Jamie and Cersei are||
Jamie and Cersei are Targaryans. The whole incest thing and the speculation about the liberties the Mad King took with Tywin's wife at the bedding ceremony.
Would be really ironic. Despite Tywin's claims, Tyron would have been his only son. Despite his focus always being on family and carrying on his name, the two kids he liked, including his heir, would have been bastards. And Jamie would have killed his own Dad.