NFL: The Politics of Superb Owls or Trumping the Fail-Cons

[Rockroi]

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And DVOA has them 1st with a 53% in passing, and 7th with a 1.7% in rushing.

The passing game is ferocious and the running game is not really when to fear the RBs; I fear the RBs in the passing game.  They do a two-back set and they can unfurl those RBs into those killer wheel routes to destroy the Pats along the sidelines where an under-athletic LB will ahve to cover one of those guys.  

 

Quote

A big worry for NE is that they're 20th against #1 WRs. That is probably going to suck a bit.  

That scares me a little, but I think that stat is misleading.  

The Pats have been fantastic in limiting huge plays and scheme great against good offenses. Sometimes that means letting a major player do what they always go.  Also, some teams are playing catch up- which was the case with Landry in Week 2 v. Miami where he had 135 yards where the Pats dominated until Jimmy G went out, but 0 TDs.  Antonio Brown had 106 but no TDs; the Jets got Enunwa 100+ yards, but #1 WR Brandon Marshall was held to under 70; Enunwa was also the Jets #1 WR when the teams met again in week 16... with 1 catch for 30 yards .  The Broncos' Thomas had 90+ yards but, again, not TDs.  

Hmmm... that 0 TDs seems relevant... 

I would also be a lot more concerned with this stat if the Pats didn't just neutralize Antonio Brown.  Brown had a very pedestrian 77 yards passing (v. his 106 with Landry Jones throwing to him earlier in the season) (and, again, 0 TDs).  

I'm just not sure they can do that again.  Sanu is probably one of the best #2 WRs in the NFL; Gabriel will keep the Pats in fits.  But worst of all- I cannot fathom the Pats being able to constantly doubling Julio Jones given what the RBs can do out of the backfield.  FO did this spread on the Pats D v. the Steelers and how it cannot possibly work consistently v. the Falcons specifically because of the RBs.  .  They will need to scheme more against him and not just rely on Logan Ryan + Duron Harmon = 6 catches 68 yards for Jones.  

The major major MAJOR weakness the Pats have is their anemic pass rush.  They did not stop slow footed fat blob, Ben Rothlesberger.  Ryan has a GREAT line in front of him and the Pats best pass rushers do not get there consistently; that means Flowers, Sheard Van Noy etc will have to scheme and stunt to get to RYan and- SPOILER ALERT - he can handle all that.  That means this all has to fall on Harmon, Butler, Ryan and Chung and I don't like the sound of that.  

Also, sort of lost in all this has been that the Pats... were penalized TWICE v. the Steelers.... that's usually the amount of penalties the Bills get on a single set of downs.  Can they get away with it in the Super Bowl?  Ah... gonna say 'no.'  

Right now, I feel fantastic about the Pats' chances; as others have said, the Pats can exploit a terrible Atlanta Pass D and the Pats' D itself is probably good enough to stop the Falcons cold when they need to.  Also, Belichick and Brady can scheme a plan that sees loads of check-downs to Amendola, Mitchell, Bennett and White out of the backfield.  Also, Edleman has come up HUGE in the AFC Championship and in the prior Superbowl.  He may very well be money. Finally, guess which team had the worst red-zone defense in the NFL?  I'll give you a hint, the team was in the NFC South and wasn't the Saints, Panthers or Bucs...

And with all that said... I can absolutely see Atlanta down by 6 with 8 minutes to go in the half that has been dominated by the Pats, have Ryan hit Jones for a 56 yard catch (44 of it YAC) because Harmon took a crap angle, then hit a Gabriel streaking underneath and sneak into the end zone.  Then the Pats go 3-and-out to lead the Falcons to hit Freeman, Jones, Sanu, Sanu and Gabriel on 5 consecutive passes before Ryan hits Freeman on a 13 yard screen to go into the half up by 1.  And then the same thing happens in the second half.  

That's the thing with Atlanta - they can turn your lights out out of nowhere.  They can just blow it all up.  That's how they win.  

I feel like its going to be a roller coaster before and during the game; I will likely talk myself in and out of this multiple times before game time but, for now, I am thinking Pats by 8. 

That will change to Falcons by 18 at least 700,000 times between now and next Sunday.  

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, Rockroi said:

For starters I am not outraged that you ever watched the WWE. 

In all seriousness, now that "you put it that way" (namely that the Trump love only makes it easier not sup[port the NFL is easier to swallow.  Because in that same vein having the NFL do the domestic violence shit, the BS with the "support the troops", but most especially with the concussion issues, etc makes it harder to support the league.  

In all honesty, this is almost all I cared about here.  I don't like "othering" people because they think differently.  Even if I think their thinking is unevolved.  

The issue I had with what you said was that- whether you intended to or not - you tied together rejecting the NFL with voting for Trump.  The quote is what it is.  

And again, I never said 'voted for Trump'. Read my first post on it. I'm sorry that you misread my statement or implied intent I didn't have, but that wasn't the issue. I very specifically chose the words I did for a reason.

7 hours ago, Rockroi said:

My problem here is what if Trump is your friend?  I mean, we all have friends who are assholes.  Trump is an asshole... and maybe a rapist.  But if I had stop being friends with everyone because of things they said in 2005?  Or because, you know, they hated Democrats?  

I have a whole lot of friends who are conservative. I even have a few who have voted for Trump. I have none who actively supported him and think he was a great guy. Trump is a bit more than just a garden-variety asshole. 

If I had friends who behaved like Trump, I would cut them out of my life. I've cut friends out for far less. If you don't, that's cool for you, but the idea that you shouldn't is entirely lost on me. Those are precisely the sorts of people that, IMO, you should call out. I really hope that you don't have any friends that you think raped someone and you've not called them to the carpet about that.

7 hours ago, Rockroi said:

But I will say Trump is not a Fascist; he may be authoritarian, but he does not want the Government to have all the power which is the central tenant of Fascism.  He wants the government to slip out of the way, get weaker and weaker and allow private companies and people to do whatever they want, even if it means trampling on the rights of their fellow citizens.  

No, see, that's wrong. That is what the implied viewpoint is of the conservative ethos in general. Trump is not that. Trump supports torture. Trump wants the government to have massive power. He wants to be able to single out one company and punish them, and single out another company and give them benefits. He wants all communication to come from and be approved by his office, including all scientific publications. He threatened to go into Chicago with 'the feds' a couple days ago - this is not someone who wants the government's power to be weaker. There is nothing he has said or done either in the campaign or after his inauguration that indicates he wants government power to be weaker. Every single executive order has been used to increase the government's power and control so far. 

I would agree with  you if, say, it was Romney. This isn't Romney. 

Anyway, I don't want to pollute this thread more with political stuff, but really Rockroi - come read some of the stuff in US Politics. 

 

[Rockroi]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Anyway, I don't want to pollute this thread more with political stuff, but really Rockroi - come read some of the stuff in US Politics. 

 

I'm not going to comment on anything else because we have been over it a few times.  Only on new items:

I disagree very much on him being a Fascist; he does not want government to be the epitome of our society; he does not want to funnel all of our collective energies into the state.  He wants a government that can't regulate anything.  As for rewarding some companies and punish others, that's incentive-based fiscal policy and its been done by LOTS of people, including FDR who specifically utilized it to keep Fascism from evolving in the US.  As for torture... ah, MANY people support torture.  But even here, Trump stated that if his nominees for Sec of Defense and NS Adviser go against torture he won;t do it (not EXACTLY the ravings of a Fascist) and both have, so far, denounced it.  

He threatened to go into Chicago with the Feds.  Fascism?  When JFK did it in Alabama it was called heroic.  (It was also called Fascist by Wallace but was he right?).  

Fascism has a very specific definition and Trump does not fit the mold; he does not want people to be beholden to the state; he does not want the state to be the centerpiece of our lives.  That is Fascism (from the Italian word that means "To Bind Up Loose Sticks").  Him wanting to build a Wall is not at all Fascist (in fact, its an historically Liberal idea [because Liberals want lots of 'safety nets' we can't have them if we allow tons of people into the country- and full disclosure- I'm a Liberal and I do not support the Wall]).  

Finally on your call to go into the US Politics forum- I have not done that in a few years; its too much.  It sucks up too much time and energy that I need to use elsewhere (like here or in my long reviews of Game of Thrones or my ... fuck I have kids... I hope they're okay?)./  I also find it a barrage where you have to answer 50 things at once.  Maybe I'll do it again at some point but I like coming into this part of the sandbox and chill here.  

 

[l2 0 5 5]

On January 26, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Pony Queen Jace said:

The way he's been sold by the NFL media has disturbed me beyond reconciliation, what with the 'classy' franchise nonsense. They can't let their franchise QB go for nothing, I get that. I really do. At the end of the day he was not convicted of a crime and we have no footage, I understand not being willing to send a $100 million moneymaker out the door (don't agree, but I understand). But I have been treated to the better part of a decade now of puff pieces about how he's a family man and the bestest role model in the world playing for the organization of bestest role models!

Then the HC interferes in a kick return.

Then that piece of shit Joey Porter puts himself back into my life by inexplicably being on the field after a penalty jawing with actual current players.

Then Joey Porter gets arrested and the HC (who I want so desperately to like, and about whom I hear nothing but good things) says he will be dealt with 'harshly'. Porter is reinstated to the team later that week.

Then Antonio Brown takes a selfie in the locker room and you would have thought that Brown's selfieshness was the story of the month! Not the bullshit around the Porter situation, but all anyone can talk about is how selfiesh Antonio Brown is for mimicking the complete lack of accountability in that franchise.

And that's just the stuff off the top of my head.

Oh and that fat piece of fuck is such an attention seeking crybaby, when I tore my ACL I walked off the court so everyone else could keep playing. And I damn sure didn't squeal like a stuck pig. (Talking about when he got a knee sprain vs the Rams and you would have thought someone was murdering a basket of puppies)

I loathe the Steelers, absolutely to my core. It's not a 'sportshate', it's actual venomous dislike at everything about their franchise. I feel bad for decent football fans of the club for having to watch such talented players as Bell and Brown play for such a disreputable organization.

And it's not that their sins are magnitudes worse than those of other NFL teams, it's that they're treated as a gold standard in spite of them.

I can assure you that no one in Pittsburgh requires your sentiments. Everyone who watches the games enjoys it. Your thoughts are appreciated though. In regards to Ben, ha well I'm not getting into this again. Yeah, the guy is a slob whom has acted no worse than other guys in the league. I don't know where you're getting the stuff about him being a family man. Yeah, I've heard a few times that he has a wife and kid(s) but christ who the hell cares. I can't tell you the last time I've heard anything about his family on national airwaves. Where are you hearing that he's this Joel Osteen family man? I mean I guess if it serves your story then make up whatever you want but I don't recall seeing any BS ESPN story about Ben transforming from Bathroom bachelor to husband of the year.  Surely he takes a back seat to the actions of your precious Marvin Harrison. Joey Porter is a d-bag, no doubt. He acts like a coach much as he did as a player. If you watch this game expecting moral greatness than you're confused. It's never been that way. As for Tomlin, yeah the Jacoby Jones sideline thing was childish and embarrassing. Not sure what else to say about it. As for the team being a disreputable organization, I don't get that. I know my opinion is biased but the Rooney's appear to be good people. They implement the Rooney Rule into the league to give minorities a better chance of getting a job, and even apply it themselves as they hire Tomlin. I think that is something to credit them for. Haven't been too up to date with pills-in-the-duffel-bag Irsay, but I think he could take a note from their book. 

[JonSnow4President]

2 hours ago, Rockroi said:

 

The major major MAJOR weakness the Pats have is their anemic pass rush.  They did not stop slow footed fat blob, Ben Rothlesberger.  Ryan has a GREAT line in front of him and the Pats best pass rushers do not get there consistently; that means Flowers, Sheard Van Noy etc will have to scheme and stunt to get to RYan and- SPOILER ALERT - he can handle all that.  

Fwiw, pff grades the Steelers o line better (slightly) than Atlanta. One is top 10%, one is top 20%

[Rhom]

Saw an interesting Hoodie stat just now.

Parcell's record without Bellichick as DC : 78-81-1. 3-5 playoff record.  Parcel’s record with Bellichick as DC : 94-49. 9-3 playoff record, 2 SBs.

The original poster made the argument that Parcells doesn't sniff the HOF without him.

[sperry]

This has got to be the hardest Super Bowl to predict in recent memory. Pats are always good, but they have played what has to be the weakest 18 game path to a Super Bowl. I just don't think there's any way to tell how they'll do against the Falcons offense, which is flat out scary. The Pats shouldn't have a problem scoring points, but they need to hold the falcons relatively in check (I'd say 31 or less) to win.

[Rockroi]

22 minutes ago, sperry said:

This has got to be the hardest Super Bowl to predict in recent memory. Pats are always good, but they have played what has to be the weakest 18 game path to a Super Bowl. I just don't think there's any way to tell how they'll do against the Falcons offense, which is flat out scary. The Pats shouldn't have a problem scoring points, but they need to hold the falcons relatively in check (I'd say 31 or less) to win.

I agree with the Pats weakness of schedule; the combo of the NFC West and the AFC East x2 (combined with a depleted AFC North) gave Pats the weakest schedule in the NFL this season (Looking backwards).  The Pats did this in 2011 and they made it to the SB while playing a soft schedule. However, the major difference there is that the Pats in 2011 BARELY defeated a tough Ravens team in the AFC Championship game while in 2016 the Pats dominated a talented and tough Steelers team.  To me, that is a gigantic dividing rod between the Pats in 2016 and other teams; that AFC Championship win was not close and the Steelers were, supposedly, a tough team.  

Now, this does not automatically mean the Pats are going to be fine in the Superbowl.  The Falcons O is legit and does not complement what the Pats can actually stop.  The lack of a pass rush puts more pressure on a solid (but not great) secondary and I do not think the Pats have enough bodies to go around- If Gabriel has a big day... Pats lose.  

But given what we know about these teams, I am far more confident in 2016 than I was in 2011.  

[Maithanet]

30 minutes ago, sperry said:

This has got to be the hardest Super Bowl to predict in recent memory. Pats are always good, but they have played what has to be the weakest 18 game path to a Super Bowl. I just don't think there's any way to tell how they'll do against the Falcons offense, which is flat out scary. The Pats shouldn't have a problem scoring points, but they need to hold the falcons relatively in check (I'd say 31 or less) to win.

I can't agree at all.  I think that plenty of recent Super Bowls have been closer/harder to predict that this one.  At the very least Seahawks-Patriots and Ravens-Niners were much closer matchups, and I thought the Pathers D would dominate the horrible Broncos O last year.   

To me, it's pretty obvious the Patriots are going to win.  They are the more balanced team, with more experience and better coaching.  Don't overthink it. 

[sperry]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I can't agree at all.  I think that plenty of recent Super Bowls have been closer/harder to predict that this one.  At the very least Seahawks-Patriots and Ravens-Niners were much closer matchups, and I thought the Pathers D would dominate the horrible Broncos O last year.   

To me, it's pretty obvious the Patriots are going to win.  They are the more balanced team, with more experience and better coaching.  Don't overthink it. 

 

They have weaknesses that weren't exploited due to the weakness of the schedule. Falcons are one of the better offensive teams in recent memory.  It's going to be a close, high scoring game.

[Reny of Storms End]

11 hours ago, l2 0 5 5 said:

I can assure you that no one in Pittsburgh requires your sentiments. Everyone who watches the games enjoys it. Your thoughts are appreciated though. In regards to Ben, ha well I'm not getting into this again. Yeah, the guy is a slob whom has acted no worse than other guys in the league. I don't know where you're getting the stuff about him being a family man. Yeah, I've heard a few times that he has a wife and kid(s) but christ who the hell cares. I can't tell you the last time I've heard anything about his family on national airwaves. Where are you hearing that he's this Joel Osteen family man? I mean I guess if it serves your story then make up whatever you want but I don't recall seeing any BS ESPN story about Ben transforming from Bathroom bachelor to husband of the year.  Surely he takes a back seat to the actions of your precious Marvin Harrison. Joey Porter is a d-bag, no doubt. He acts like a coach much as he did as a player. If you watch this game expecting moral greatness than you're confused. It's never been that way. As for Tomlin, yeah the Jacoby Jones sideline thing was childish and embarrassing. Not sure what else to say about it. As for the team being a disreputable organization, I don't get that. I know my opinion is biased but the Rooney's appear to be good people. They implement the Rooney Rule into the league to give minorities a better chance of getting a job, and even apply it themselves as they hire Tomlin. I think that is something to credit them for. Haven't been too up to date with pills-in-the-duffel-bag Irsay, but I think he could take a note from their book. 

I asked PQJ to describe why she was so wroth at the idea of Watson going to the Steelers. So I don't think this is the appropriate time to take pot shots at the teams she likes. I was very specifically asking for her opinion on the franchise. We should be able to post our honest opinions, when asked, and not be subjected to needless attempts at antagonizing each other. 

 

ETA: Obviously anyone is free to comment how they want, but your post struck me as someone thinking PQJ was just attacking the Steelers without cause and I wanted to clear that up. 

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

To me, it's pretty obvious the Patriots are going to win.  They are the more balanced team, with more experience and better coaching.  Don't overthink it.

They are more likely to win (and the betting line reflects that), but I don't think it's anywhere close to a sure thing. It's possible that enough things go Atlanta's way to turn the tide. They basically need the same sort of luck as they had with Green Bay: the opponent's kicker missed a 40-yard field goal, the opponent's running back fumbled just short of a touchdown, Ryan's two risky passes weren't caught by the opponent (one where the defender misjudged when he should jump and another where it went off a defender's hands) and so on. Alternatively, if the Patriots play as badly as they did against Houston, Atlanta would also win.

[Jaime L]

8 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I can't agree at all.  I think that plenty of recent Super Bowls have been closer/harder to predict that this one.  At the very least Seahawks-Patriots and Ravens-Niners were much closer matchups, and I thought the Pathers D would dominate the horrible Broncos O last year.   

To me, it's pretty obvious the Patriots are going to win.  They are the more balanced team, with more experience and better coaching.  Don't overthink it. 

It really isn't obvious. I think the only actual clear edge the Patriots have over the Falcons is Superbowl experience. You know they'll handle the distractions well where with the Falcons who knows. That's worth the -3 line for the Patriots IMO, but otherwise they'd be even. 

These were the two best teams in point differential all season - there's no pretender in this game.  Sure the Patriots' point differential is higher but they also had the softest schedule in football whereas the Falcons had to prove themselves against all the best defenses. 

The Falcons average win in the playoffs is 40-20. Why shouldn't we be taking them seriously?

[Altherion]

The average playoff point differentials are actually almost identical: 40 - 20.5 = 19.5 for the Falcons and 35 - 16.5 = 18.5 for the Patriots. However, they are kind of misleading because when Darth Hoodie is up by 20+ points in the 4th quarter, his strategy is usually to be absolutely sure that he wins even if it means sacrificing a small fraction of that lead. He does this in two ways: first, he runs the ball a lot more to run out the clock. Second, he allows the opponent to make short-yardage plays outside of the red zone because they spend a lot of time doing so. It didn't quite work out with the Steelers because the Patriot defense made a mistake and allowed a touchdown, but usually, he's perfectly happy to trade 5-7 minutes of time for 3 points.

[Jace, Extat]

7 hours ago, Reny of Storms End said:

I asked PQJ to describe why she was so wroth at the idea of Watson going to the Steelers. So I don't think this is the appropriate time to take pot shots at the teams she likes. I was very specifically asking for her opinion on the franchise. We should be able to post our honest opinions, when asked, and not be subjected to needless attempts at antagonizing each other. 

 

ETA: Obviously anyone is free to comment how they want, but your post struck me as someone thinking PQJ was just attacking the Steelers without cause and I wanted to clear that up. 

Thank you Renly, I was hesitant to get drawn into further conversation. All I will say is that I tried to make a point that the Steelers are no worse than basically every other franchise, I simply get bombarded with how great they are past the point of tolerance. I will allow these to be my last words on the subject.

Meanwhile, rumor has it that Chris Ballard (of Kansas) is the most likely candidate to replace Grigson but he is adamant about getting his own coach. The information I've seen indicates he wants that coach to be Dave Toub, the KC special teams coach.

If Ballard's intention is to fire Pagano to get Toub, I'd rather not see him get the job. Why get rid of known mediocrity this year in favor of an unknown damn special teams coach? If Pagano doesn't get the team back to the AFC Championship in 2017, that's it let's find a hot new hire. But Toub? That's 2-4 more years of wasted Luck.

There's another thing to watch here, I think, in that Ballard seems to be The Guy but Irsay doesn't plan to make any hire for the next 7-10 days. That timeline is important, because it brings us to after the superbowl. My dream, which seems at least to be on life support with this information, is that if Irsay is going to hire Ballard then he's going to let him get a coach. But he wants Shannahan or McDaniels and will see if they want the job after the superbowl.

If they aren't interested then it's easy to see him promoting Jimmy Rae III and keeping Pagano for another year.

My absolute worst nightmare is Ballard coming in with no McDaniels or Shannahan. Even if he weren't to bring in Toub immediately, I would be left in fear of such a thing all year.

 

[D_P]

i'm sure that it doesn't mean as much as i'm about to make it out to mean...but i just looked at NE's schedule and though there is a bright spot or two, i'm certain that IMG Academy in florida finishes above .500 playing that schedule

 

in all seriousness, i expect a good game...

[Maithanet]

10 hours ago, sperry said:

 

They have weaknesses that weren't exploited due to the weakness of the schedule. Falcons are one of the better offensive teams in recent memory.  It's going to be a close, high scoring game.

 

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

They are more likely to win (and the betting line reflects that), but I don't think it's anywhere close to a sure thing. It's possible that enough things go Atlanta's way to turn the tide. 

I didn't say I think it will be a blowout.  While that is possible, I think something more like 38-31 is more likely.  

3 hours ago, Jaime L said:

It really isn't obvious. I think the only actual clear edge the Patriots have over the Falcons is Superbowl experience. You know they'll handle the distractions well where with the Falcons who knows. That's worth the -3 line for the Patriots IMO, but otherwise they'd be even. 

These were the two best teams in point differential all season - there's no pretender in this game.  Sure the Patriots' point differential is higher but they also had the softest schedule in football whereas the Falcons had to prove themselves against all the best defenses. 

The Falcons average win in the playoffs is 40-20. Why shouldn't we be taking them seriously?

The Falcons aren't pretenders, although I think it's quite possible the Falcons defense is.  They have been playing better of late, but I'm anticipating a lot of that falling apart once B&B have two weeks to prepare for them.  I know that the much ballyhooed "Patriots #1 scoring defense" is largely due to playing a very weak schedule, but even still their defense is a lot better than Atlanta's.  Better coach, better quarterback, better defense, more experience, that's all I need to hear.  

Now, the Falcons are underdogs but hardly overmatched.  If their defense can get a few stops the offense could take it home.  But I think this game is far from a toss up - the Pats are clear favorites.  

[Altherion]

So, looking at the schedules in more detail, it's true that New England had an easier path, but it doesn't seem like Atlanta only struggled against truly great teams. Both the Patriots and the Falcons lost to the Seahawks which, before any significant injuries, were a really good team. In addition, the Falcons lost to the Chiefs (which were another really good team), but they also lost to the Buccaneers (9-7), Chargers (5-11) and Eagles (7-9). The Patriots are exceptional in that they actually beat all of the weak and mediocre teams they were supposed to beat with the solitary exception being the Buffalo Bills... but that was a sort of unique situation since the Patriots were playing with an injured third-string quarterback.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

On 1/27/2017 at 10:04 PM, Rockroi said:

I'm not going to comment on anything else because we have been over it a few times.  Only on new items:

I disagree very much on him being a Fascist; he does not want government to be the epitome of our society; he does not want to funnel all of our collective energies into the state.  He wants a government that can't regulate anything.  As for rewarding some companies and punish others, that's incentive-based fiscal policy and its been done by LOTS of people, including FDR who specifically utilized it to keep Fascism from evolving in the US.  As for torture... ah, MANY people support torture.  But even here, Trump stated that if his nominees for Sec of Defense and NS Adviser go against torture he won;t do it (not EXACTLY the ravings of a Fascist) and both have, so far, denounced it.  

He threatened to go into Chicago with the Feds.  Fascism?  When JFK did it in Alabama it was called heroic.  (It was also called Fascist by Wallace but was he right?).  

Fascism has a very specific definition and Trump does not fit the mold; he does not want people to be beholden to the state; he does not want the state to be the centerpiece of our lives.  That is Fascism (from the Italian word that means "To Bind Up Loose Sticks").  Him wanting to build a Wall is not at all Fascist (in fact, its an historically Liberal idea [because Liberals want lots of 'safety nets' we can't have them if we allow tons of people into the country- and full disclosure- I'm a Liberal and I do not support the Wall]).  

Finally on your call to go into the US Politics forum- I have not done that in a few years; its too much.  It sucks up too much time and energy that I need to use elsewhere (like here or in my long reviews of Game of Thrones or my ... fuck I have kids... I hope they're okay?)./  I also find it a barrage where you have to answer 50 things at once.  Maybe I'll do it again at some point but I like coming into this part of the sandbox and chill here.  

 I get wanting to stay out of it. It's pretty exhausting and depressing. That said, in light of his EO's over the last couple of days, I'm surprised you would bother to defend him in any meaningful way. This might not be fascism yet, but it's as close as I care to get to it, and we're not even two weeks into this clowns' term.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

On 1/28/2017 at 9:08 AM, sperry said:

 

They have weaknesses that weren't exploited due to the weakness of the schedule. Falcons are one of the better offensive teams in recent memory.  It's going to be a close, high scoring game.

I'm going to go with 34-30 Falcons. Of course this is shaded by my Pats hate. I think if the Falcons can avoid the big mistake, they can boatrace this Pats squad.