Jump to content

Groundhog

Members
  • Content Count

    1,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Groundhog

  1. Groundhog

    Unwinnable Arguments

    When fresh water becomes increasingly scarce in like 40 years, and climate change starts to kill farmland in the U.S., the U.S. will turn its eyes northward and see all the possibilities that could be ours. We just need a convenient excuse to go invade.
  2. Groundhog

    Amy Coney Barrett

    If we didn't have a raging pandemic, I don't think Democrats would have argued in favor of mail-in ballots en masse. As for Hilary, I wish she would simply stop talking because she's infuriating. I do think her call to not cede the 2020 election revolves around waiting until all the ballots have been counted (since many of those ballots won't be getting counted on election night), but I could be wrong. I have to read those links you included about James Baker et al., as I'm not familiar with them. Thanks. Though wasn't the Iowa caucus debacle a result of using a brand new computer system and not testing it beforehand? It's like they took O'Hare airport's tower control system, set up a whole bunch of new machines overnight for the air traffic controllers to use, and said 'have at it!' at 8am and just hoped for the best. I know CNN is trying to spin me, but so is Fox, and Drudge, and the Washington Post. I read all of them anyway. Seeking out disparate points of view is important to me.
  3. Groundhog

    Amy Coney Barrett

    A monarch doesn't have elections. But what about an incumbent president who is setting the stage for simply overturning election results, if needed? How different is that? https://theweek.com/speedreads/939191/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-plans-bypass-election-results So if Trump wins the electoral college vote, he's good to go. And if he loses the electoral college vote, we can simply ignore that vote as fraudulent. Why is it fraudulent? Because Trump says it is. The guy who invented fake news - which, if you think about it, is sort of brilliant even if it's a lazy argument, you can just dismiss any inconvenient fact as fake - raises the stakes and says that the election results are teeming with illegal votes and therefore can't be trusted. Ultimately, Trump cannot conceive of losing an election fair and square. If he loses, it must be because of shenanigans. On that front, the state of Nevada (a swing state this year) just said recently that Trump's goal of eliminating mail-in ballots cannot stand. https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/judge-dismisses-trump-campaign-lawsuit-challenging-nevada-mail-voting-law Trump helped reduce the unemployment rate below 4%, at least before the pandemic arrived. His policies have left me with more money in my wallet because of lower taxes. Those are good things (although the deficit was rising before the pandemic and now it's spiking because of it). I don't agree with the radical left, the stupid idea of tearing down statues, the ridiculous idea of defunding police. A would rather have a centrist in office and I view Biden as the most centrist-like of all of the candidates that were seriously in contention. I think mismanagement of the pandemic in this country is a far, far bigger deal than alleged Russian interference. But I also think it's just whistling past the graveyard to think that Trump is going to be accept any result that doesn't render at least 270 electoral votes for him, and I think we are hurtling towards a constitutional crisis.
  4. Groundhog

    Amy Coney Barrett

    Barrett's credentials look impeccable. Assuming that the Senate vote splits more or less along party lines (Collins can be an exception, who cares, it would take 4 aisle-crossers to put the vote in jeopardy), and assuming that McConnell is greasing the wheels to have this happen lightning-fast, I expect she will be appointed before the election. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. So I kind of have one foot on both sides of the aisle. And quite honestly, the level of enmity and loathing that so many on this board seem to have for anyone that is a Democrat is, I think, dangerous. The same goes for Democrats who mock and deride Trump supporters. It's dangerous because IMHO there's a very thin veneer of civilization. When you can oh-so-easily argue that the other side is dangerous, it makes it easier for you to support violence and extremism against that side. Trump is making a calculated bet that threats of civil disorder help him no matter what happens - and he's probably right. If cities experience more riots, violence and looting etc., it makes voters more willing for someone with a firm hand to step in and solve it. And if his rhetoric manages to stifle riots, violence and looting, he can claim victory that his leadership is quelling those things before they get out of hand. He foments this kind of stuff, because the more normal things seem ahead of the election, the easier it is for voters to entertain the idea of switching to Biden. This is the same reason why the 'terror threat' kept getting raised ahead of the 2004 election - also won by the incumbent. I don't dismiss GOP supporters - after all, I'm fiscally conservative. But when Trump is your flag-carrier, a vote for Trump is a vote for a monarchy. He has done his level best to erode checks and balances within a democracy, encourages violence against opponents or those who question him (e.g., reporters), and basically wants to be an absolute ruler. Thus the admiration for leaders of banana republics like North Korea, or strongman regimes like Russia. And given his history - being the king of the Trump empire and answerable to no one - why would he want to change now? So in this election, I'll vote for Biden. I don't think a GOP win this time is worth the cost to democracy.
  5. Groundhog

    Trump Won A Poll. Five Thirty Eight Calls it EVEN

    He gives poor grades to polls that consistently show forecasts that diverge greatly from actual results. I don't think he's discounting outliers solely because they're outliers per se. A poll of Biden +9 in Arizona is unusual, but that doesn't make it necessarily wrong. If subsequent polls show a much closer vote, I would argue that Biden +9 is probably from sampling error.
  6. Groundhog

    Trump Won A Poll. Five Thirty Eight Calls it EVEN

    Nationally, unemployment is at 8.4% as of August, which thankfully is on the mend from over 14% earlier this year, but for most of Trump's presidency, it was below 4%. To put that in context, Obama's administration ended with unemployment at 4.7%, well below what he inherited from Bush (7.8%) and below the post-war average (5.6%). Trump took a fairly good situation on unemployment and improved it, until the pandemic happened.
  7. Groundhog

    Trump Won A Poll. Five Thirty Eight Calls it EVEN

    I think you're being too dismissive of his process. Check out the forecast for a swing state, Arizona. He's taking into account (1) current poll average, (2) momentum from recent polls, (3) allocating undecided voters in a 50/50 split, (4) adjusting for demographics, and (5) adjusting for economics and incumbency. The weights that he assigns demographics and economics/incumbency are determined by prior results in Arizona, and both of those factors, in Silver's work, favor Trump - that is, they give Trump a boost. Now, you could argue that the weight given to those latter two factors should be higher, because you prefer them to be higher, but that would be acting as a partisan, not as a pollster. Silver gives economics/incumbency (a Trump-favorable factor) a 15% weight, and the polling data are given an 85% weight. Because it has been determined that this is how influential these factors have been in the past. If now you say, well, I think economics/incumbency in this election should be 35/65, or 40/60 you've basically picked that out of thin air.
  8. Groundhog

    Trump Won A Poll. Five Thirty Eight Calls it EVEN

    I think FiveThirtyEight is about the most transparent of election forecasters out there. Keep in mind, their last forecast ahead of the 2016 federal election gave Trump a 29% chance of winning, which (although obviously less than 50%) was still higher than betting markets' 18% odds, and other polls tracked by the NY Times ranged from 1% to 15% odds of Trump winning. But all polls have a margin of error associated with them. The actual outcome was still within that margin of error. You can say that Nate messed up, but then you'd be assigning more certainty to the individual state polls than really exists. Trump supporters can decry these polling results pointing to a Biden victory, but their current simulations still say that Trump has a 23% chance of winning, which isn't that far off from where things stood in 2016.
  9. Groundhog

    Forte to the Patriots?

    Forte over the last four seasons had cap hits in the range of $6m - $9m per year. He's 30 yrs old of course now, so with the wheels slowly coming off the wagon, you could see those cap hits starting to come down. LeGarrette Blount is 29 and last year, his cap hit was < $1m. Steven Jackson is 32 and last year, his cap hit was also < $1m. In the last three seasons, 2013-2015, the Patriots ranked 25th, 20th and 19th, respectively, for total cap $$ allocated to running backs. It's a position that they just do not prioritize. For 2016 they are currently expected to rank 20th again. Found this on overthecap.com. It seems like a nice positional fit - Forte can do a little of everything at the RB position - but the gap between what the Pats pay, and what Forte recently earned, seems like a really big stretch.
  10. Groundhog

    Rules question

    In SB 50, Denver safety T.J. Ward intercepts Cam Newton, tries to gain more yardage, ends up fumbling, and Bronco teammate Danny Trevathan recovers at the Denver 4 yard line. My question for this here bored: what if Trevathan had recovered it in the end zone? Is it ruled a touchback (Denver gets it at the 20. leading 16-7), or a safety (in which case the score is now 16-9 and Denver punts it from the 20). I think it would have been a safety, but just wanted to confirm. Might have changed the complexion of the game a little…difference between one score down and two scores down.
  11. Groundhog

    It's an EXCITING Time to be a Seahawks Fan

    I think re-signing the defensive free agents is the priority, even as bad as the O-line was. In theory, continuity on the O-line is great, but when your O-line crapped the bed for much of the season, why not roll the dice? My priority re-signings are: 1) Lane. The Cary Williams fiasco showed the importance of having enough DBs who can stay with the scheme and be counted on to be in the right place each time. We no longer have the depth at DB we once had. Lots of positives supposedly around Tye Smith, but we haven't really seen what he can do. 2) Rubin. The guy is a fire hydrant in the middle of the field and did a fantastic job bottling up other teams' interior run games. Aside from the 1st play of the game, when KJ Wright took a bad angle and Earl slipped, we didn't do all that badly on the Panthers' running game. We don't know whether we can count on Jordan Hill to be healthy (alarmingly, he is looking like the 2nd coming of Marcus Tubbs...fantastic player who could not stay on the field). Rubin is 29 so I see him as a higher priority than Mebane, who is 31. 3) Mebane. He's 31 years old. Enough said. As part of a rotation? Sure. 4) Patrick Lewis. The line's performance improved considerably after he took over for Nowak. 5) Okung, assuming a not-break-the-bank deal. Still the best offensive lineman on the team, at the most important position. 6) Irvin. 7) Sweezy. I think this is the full list of FAs, although I could be missing someone. I definitely think we need extensions for Kearse and Baldwin, along with Shead. Bennett is a year away from a renewal but he too is worth extending early.
  12. Groundhog

    Time for the NFL to do away with divisions....

    Solving one problem creates others. You don't like weak teams getting into the playoffs? Ok, I hear that. But then in your world, those 4 teams in the crappy division have absolutely nothing to play for at the end of the season. No stakes = less fan interest. I would rather have something at stake in every division even if it means letting in a crappy team.
  13. So basically I'm reverse-jinxing my team by going ahead and talking about issues for 2015. As I see it, here are the key personnel issues during the off-season, whenever that should kick in. 1. Beastmode. Do we re-sign him? What if re-signing him hinges on a long-term deal (i.e., 3 yrs or more) - do PC and JS go ahead and do it? 2. WR help. Richardson's ACL is apparently a mess and we may not be able to count on him for at least part of 2015. Do we use a high pick on another WR, or maybe someone in free agency? Hopefully someone with their head screwed on right. 3. Brandon Mebane. He's 29, coming off injury, would only count $200,000 in dead money and save $5.5 million on our salary cap if we release him. Jordan Hill was a revelation late in the season. Do we release and try to get younger at this position? 4. Doing a 2nd contract for Russell Wilson. I'd say he's outperformed his 3rd round rookie contract. 5. Russell Okung. He'll be in the last year of his contract, he's often injured, and we could install Alvin Bailey in his place at LT for cheaper starting in 2016.
  14. No. I don't think Barkley has the arm strength we need at the QB position. Archer doesn't have it either, but I'd rather bring in an UDFA than give up a draft pick for a guy who can't do what we would need him to do. We don't throw a lot, but when we do, he has to make the defense pay down the field.
  15. The fact that the team is tinkering with assignments on the O-line (surprise!) is a problem in itself. Can't develop continuity if you take young OL guys and cast around for a solution. Britt being tried out at LG, Gilliam at RT. Line play in the Broncos game was terrible. Fortunately we have a QB who excels when out of the pocket. Might as well just move him out of the pocket ourselves before the pressure has a chance to collapse on him. It's like leaving your glove box open and your empty car unlocked so that no one tries to bust a window to break in and steal potential valuables. They're getting in anyway so let's just minimize the damage. But look, we let Carp go because we didn't/couldn't afford to pay him what he could get elsewhere, and keeping Unger would mean not getting Graham. It's a bet that Cable can coach up the line into serviceability on the cheap. The first game is against the Rams who might have the best D-line we'll see all season. No scheduling favors there. If Nick Foles is even halfway decent, it could be a two-team race between us and the Rams this year. I don't trust Palmer to stay healthy in Arizona and the Niners are in rebuilding mode.
  16. funny you mention that. I was just going to post that I think we have a logjam at this position and maybe the front office thinks about trading one of these guys to the Redskins - PFT notes that the Skins have a ton of injured guys at TE now. Graham and Willson are the top 2 TEs, but then you still have Helfet, McCoy and Allen. McCoy has been regularly injured, and Helfet recently injured, but both of those guys can catch and run, especially Helfet. Not a lock to make the roster at all. Why not pick up a 2016 draft pick for one of them? I think we run 2-TE sets to the extent that Graham shows willingness and effectiveness at blocking. Hopefully that can be coached-up.
  17. Ironically, if Okung gets injured once again this year, that might help the team make a decision on him. Let's say he misses a few games with turf toe or something like that. Gives them a chance to try out Gilliam or Bailey in that role. But if he stays healthy for 16 games? We won't really have a good idea how much of a drop-off there is between Okung and next best available. Or maybe I'm overthinking this, and the extensions to Wilson and Wagner make a new deal for Okung a non-starter. Whatever the cap is supposed to go up by in 2016, Wilson's cap hit growth in 2016 already eats that up.
  18. The historical success rate on a regular XP (or, an 18-yard FG attempt) is about 98%. The success rate on a 33-yard-FG attempt, which is essentially what people will be trying this year, is 93%. That's probably enough of a difference that some teams will go for 2 on a more regular basis. I don't think it's a terrible rule at all.
  19. http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/seahawks-offensive-tackle-justin-britt-a-different-player-now-after-struggles-as-a-rookie/ If Britt is able to develop like this article suggests, the right side of that line (assuming we re-sign Sweezy) could be a real positive.
  20. I think 75% is high, but really not outrageously high. When John Schneider built this team, his philosophy was to find a team of guys that would win an alley fight. A team that would out-muscle the other side and make them want to quit. You do that by running the ball down their throats. That is why Lynch is so perfect for this offense. At the same time, you also need the threat of an explosive play over the top to make a defense not willing to completely sell out to stop the run. Graham offers that explosive play potential at TE; they thought they had it with Harvin at WR, but didn't fully realize what a cancer that guy is in a locker room. How is a defense supposed to defend against that guy on this team? If you put in LBs who are fast enough to run with him, they generally aren't the same guys who can sift through the trash and shut down the running play. I could see a lot of games where Graham doesn't have a ton of catches but takes advantage of the ones he does get - maybe a scoreline like 5-90-1, something like that. I would be a little less excited about him in a PPR league as a result.
  21. at some point, the excitement provided by CM's explosiveness/potential has to wane when it becomes apparent that he will never, ever, figure out the nuances of the offense. The CM experiment is now in its 3rd year I think. Rawls likes to run through people and so is a nice replacement (with no change in philosophy) when Lynch needs a rest. If Rawls shines in preseason, I could see the Hawks trading CM to a team like the Texans (out of conference, zone-blocking scheme, injury risk at RB) for a late-round draft pick. on the other hand, Rawls is also leading CM in felony charges, three to zero. So there's that to consider. He'd better get his head on straight.
  22. Groundhog

    Russell Wilson Gets Paid

    Some guys, sure. But not the key ones. Irvin is in the last year of his contract and someone else can have him - he's not worth an estimated $8m-$10m a year. We can turn him into a FA signing somewhere else that yields a bonus 3rd or 4th rd pick in the 2017 draft, just like Maxwell will be in the 2016 draft. Before this signing, Hawks had $38m in cap space for next year. Let's say his cap hit is roughly, what - $22m? Still a decent amount of space to sign Wagner. He's the next key guy. Chancellor might get a little money front-loaded into give-it-now bonus instead of salary, like they did with Lynch. Not a huge cap hit beyond what's already on the books. Actually the wildcard here is probably Okung. He plays a premium position but he's injured a lot. Max Unger was a premium center, regularly hurt - they turned him into Jimmy Graham. So it would not shock me if we lost Okung in 2016.
  23. Just throwing this out there for discussion: are we certain that Wilson actually WANTS to stay in Seattle? The guy who says go-hawks everywhere he goes, isn't happy with an average of $21 million per year. Maybe he's asking for something so high, he knows the team has to balk? He seems like a smart enough guy that the agent isn't running a game that Wilson isn't aware of. Or, maybe all of this is just standard anchoring-high so you can extract as much as possible. I dunno.
  24. If you think about how much draft capital gets wasted on high-end QBs who never pan out, having all those picks in exchange is no guarantee of success. Look at St. Louis. Tons of picks from the RG III deal and they still can't field a decent offensive line or a deep threat WR. Their defense is very tough, but they're no closer to a title than a lot of teams. Maybe Foles and Gurley gives them a semblance of an offensive threat now, but that's a wait-and-see.
  25. Russell Wilson's contract negotiations. Not so good. Rumor has it that Russ wants to be the highest paid player in the history of the league BY A WIDE MARGIN. Now maybe this is his agent just anchoring high, but if this is really coming from Wilson, then this whole 'Go Hawks' rah-rah stuff feels like a sham. Asking to be the highest paid guy by a wide margin in a salary cap world is indirectly asking for insufficient support around him. That means lower odds of winning a 2nd championship. We're not all so naive to think that money isn't a major part of the discussion, but with him, I got the sense it mattered less than for most. If he refuses to re-sign, or asks for a number so high that the Hawks have no choice but to reject, he may roll the dice and play out his final year. At that point, the Hawks can slap the exclusive franchise tag on him. They can do this multiple times, but the cap hit snowballs each time. The avg. of the 5 highest paid QBs for 2015 is about $22 million. Assuming the typical $10 million per year uptick in cap for 2016, the QB franchise tag in 2016 is probably $23.5 million. Now if that's accurate, and if we're forced to use the franchise tag repeatedly, this is what the next three years look like for Russell Wilson: 2016: $23.5 million 2017: $28.2 million (+20%) - by rule 2018: $40.7 million (+44%) - by rule That's an absurd amount of money. To put it another way, assuming the total cap rises by $10 million per year, this is how much would be left for the other 52 guys/dead money: 2016: 85% 2017: 82% 2018: 76% That is a recipe for disaster. This year, the Saints have the distinction of spending the most on a QB (Brees: $28 million) which means the Saints are spending 80% of their cap on everyone except Brees. By 2018 we would be in worse shape than the Saints are this year, which is basically a salary cap train wreck. In 2015, the Hawks will spend 1.2% of their cap on their starting QB. By the end of the 2017 season, Russell Wilson will be 29 years old. Heading into the 2018 season, he won't be that far removed from the peak of his athletic abilities. A long-term contract, say 5 yrs, is very doable. Someone will give him a huge contract and gladly give up the two 1st rd picks to get him. And Russell and his agent know all this. So here's the question: if you're John Schneider, staring down the gun barrel of possibly the first $40 million per year contract in three years time, what's it worth to you to head that off at the pass? Five years, $150 million? Ultimately, whether JS can come to agreement with Wilson may depend on how fast JS thinks the cap will grow. If he thinks it grows a lot, then a big contract today won't seem so large in a few years. But if he thinks the cap growth starts to decelerate? Look out.
×