Maithanet

Members
  • Content count

    8,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Maithanet

  • Rank
    Inoffensive, but mostly useless
  • Birthday 08/17/1982

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington, DC

Recent Profile Visitors

9,300 profile views
  1. I was personally surprised that there were only two Saints around to make the play. There were only two real danger areas of the field: the sideline ~25-30 yards down the field. Why wasn't there any backup for Williams if he misses the tackle? This SB Nation article indicates that there were two Vikings essentially covering the middle of the field (for no good reason). The article also highlights that Diggs was pretty close to going down even without contact. He had to contort himself to catch it, and was off balance on the landing. Even a crappy tackle attempt would have done it.
  2. Diggs caught the ball at the 34 yard line. Marcus Williams is playing deep, making sure Diggs cannot get behind him. Then when the ball is in the air, he closes to make the tackle and win the game. The only explanation I've heard that made even a lick of sense is that the Saints had called timeout right before this play and cautioned all players to avoid PI. IF Williams (for whatever reason) thought that he had mistimed it, he MUST avoid PI. Pass interference there means the clock stops and the Vikings get a shot at a game winning 51 yard field goal. It looks like at the last second Williams is worried that he's early, so he contorts himself to avoid hitting Diggs. Now, is it reasonable for Williams to be worried about PI? Yes. But he completely loses all situational awareness in his desire to avoid PI. He don't need perfect timing, just let Diggs catch it and tackle him. Or hit him right when he catches it and try and dislodge. It is a really really bad play. But I think that the hyperbole of "worst error in NFL history" is overstating it. NFL players complete 20 yard sideline routes semi-regularly.
  3. I personally think that if the Chargers and Ravens (the #1 and #2 seeds in 2006) had reverse opponents that the Chargers would have defeated the Colts and the Ravens would have beaten the Patriots. And I expect the Chargers would have won the SB that year if they had. Alas, that is not what happened. It is really hard to say that any team that loses in the playoffs "deserved" to win. But the 2006 Chargers, 2007 Patriots and 2012 Broncos are all teams that strike me as huge failures, where they were obviously the best team in the regular season but just couldn't get it done. Both the Patriots and the Broncos would later have good fortune smile on them a few years later to win a SB. The Chargers cannot claim such luck.
  4. The closest analogy to me is safety Rahim Moore in the Ravens vs Broncos game. For those who don't remember, it was a windy day in Denver, and the Broncos held a 35-28 lead over the Ravens with 44 second left. On 3rd and 4, the Broncos rush only 3, and still Miller gets pressure relatively quickly. But Flacco uses his one elite NFL skill and throws the ball really far. So far in fact, that it goes over Rahim Moore's head, allowing Jacoby Jones to get behind him for an uncontested catch and run touchdown. Ravens win in overtime and go on to be SB champs. Now, Rahim Moore's mistake is a little more forgiveable, although as the deep man he really should have known better. But watching it live both plays just left me dumbfounded about what the safeties were doing. Just inexplicably bad.
  5. This is what is so frustrating, is this pattern seems to be playing out over and over again. Republicans threaten or take away some vital government function like CHIP, debt ceiling, net neutrality, etc. Democrats and their constituents are pissed because they like that program and want it back. Then Republicans want to "negotiate" to get that program reinstated. WTF? Why Republican constituents don't care about things like CHIP or net neutrality makes no sense to me. It's like they prefer a government that is actively hostile to them.
  6. I agree, that would have been better. I think that perhaps what pisses me off the more than anything in the prequel trilogy was just what an incredible missed opportunity they were. There are just enough glimmers of a great story there (particularly in Ep. 3), but they are just overwhelmed by strange plot decisions, bad dialogue and quickly outdated CGI. Great ideas they hint at and could have explored: - The Jedi Council and Yoda were a failure. They failed to identify the threat to the Republic and their insistence on repressing your emotions pushed Anakin to the dark side. - The Jedi Council (perhaps with the best intentions) had become political players in the Republic. Windu wanted to assassinate the elected leader of the Republic because he didn't trust the institutions in place to try him fairly. That's...not acceptable, and Anakin killing Windu was not the "moral event horizon" it is portrayed. - This could give the confrontation between Obi-Wan and Anakin actual meat, instead of a boring good vs evil showdown. Anakin's line "from my perspective the jedi are evil!" is SOOO bad, but that sentiment could have made ep. 3 great if they'd executed it well.
  7. Lucas brought out the worst in his actors with constant greenscreens, terrible dialogue and poor characterization. Jackson, Lee and Portman do the best they can, and are mostly unsuccessful in bringing their characters to life. McGregor was the most successful of any of them, he was at least having fun most of the time, which brought a certain humanity to Obi-Wan. But Christensen still stands out as particularly terrible. Anytime he's talking with Portman or McGregor, he has no chemistry and every conversation is a chore. But I believe Lucas deserves most of the blame for why the prequels are so poorly acted. A better actor might have improved Anakin from terrible to so-so, but no better than that.
  8. Is the takeaway from that that Moltke doesn't know what he's talking about? Because many commanders would have done very well to apply the lessons of the US Civil War in World War I. "fine tactically" is pretty unimpressive considering he always had at least parity and often a numerically superior force. And being easily fooled into believing that the enemy's force is superior is a huge shortcoming in a battle commander. McClellan probably could have crushed the Army of Northern Virginia in the peninsular campaign, and again at Antietam, but McClellan lacked the fighting spirit to do so. Likewise he retreated away from a superior position after Malvern Hill, embracing failure when success was as simple as staying put. McClellan gets a little bit of a bad reputation becuase his memoirs are actually honest rather than self serving puffery, and this opened him up for greater criticism than other generals. But he undermined his considerable organizational and logistical talents with poor battlefield decisions, and thus his mediocre record.
  9. What about this story makes you think that it will be a problem for Trump? No one, including social conservatives, believe that Trump has been faithful to his wives. I mean, he was caught on tape bragging about trying to have an affair back in 2005.
  10. I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense that voting would be a lagging indicator. After all, that's the whole point of polling most of the time, is to get an idea of how people feel about politics and how those feelings will impact their vote. Basically what I am seeing is that since the tax cut was passed, a few Republicans who were unhappy with Trump have come back into the fold. It is easy to believe that these aren't the kind of people who vote in special elections anyway. Special elections of state legislature seats are for high intensity voters. Right now the Democrats have a big advantage there. Nonetheless, this improvement of standing helps Trump further bully Congress, and if it persists will help him in 2020.
  11. Don't delude yourself that this is just biased pollsters. Ipsos is a good pollster, and they've have 4 weekly polls in a row with Trump at or above 40%. Prior to that, he hadn't been able to manage 40% since September with them. The YouGov poll has Trump at 42%, you have to go all the way back to April before he got a result that good with them. Zogby has him at 46%, his highest poll since February. Sure, he's still only around 40%, and some quality pollsters have found recent results below that, but it's pretty inarguable that he's been getting better polling in January than he has for many months.
  12. I agree. The only thing that made the shithole thing unique was the responses from countries around the world, and that was still like a one-day thing. I have no idea why the media ate this story up to such an extent. There is plenty of really important stuff happening right now wrt the budget negotiations, DACA, CHIP, etc. But those stories are much more complicated than "Trump is a racist OMG!"
  13. Trump's approval over 40% on 538 for the first time since the middle of May. Nothing particularly good for Trump has happened in January. It feels to me just like it did in the campaign, where if Trump manages to not have a huge gaffe/screwup for a couple weeks, his popularity increases several points. (Note: I do not consider "shithole" to be a problem for him at all). It almost feels like in today's hyperpartisan society, it takes real work for Trump to stay as unpopular as he's been. Looks like Republicans and Republican leaning independents are clearly becoming inoculated to his many outrages, and it has become normal for them. Trump is going to be hard to defeat in 2020.
  14. They are still the only fanbase that threw batteries at santa. Ok apparently this is either me misremembering or someone conflating two incidents. Eagles fans booed and threw snowballs at Santa. And Eagles fans booed and threw D batteries at players, such as Doug Peterson. I guess that's a little better?
  15. That is good news, although I don't know how strong Pawlenty's brand is anymore. He took a lot of heat for the bridge collapse.