All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. You only answered 1 of the 4 questions. And Julio has no ego, but is working on a new contract...maybe more to the point, it's voluntary and he is already putting work in as he always does...
  3. Quote from last year. Can we just have like Facebook Memories here so people can just go back and read all the dumb **** last year instead of freaking out yet again this year? It'd be great... “Julio and I, we speak regularly,” Quinn said. “I was fully aware that he wasn’t going to be here for the start of the offseason program, and I was also aware that he wasn’t going to be here this past Monday. He’s in great shape, and he’s spending some time this offseason working on some of the things he has not been able to over the last offseason, due to some injuries. “I do expect him to be here certainly at the minicamp at the end of the offseason program.” Quinn explained that he and Jones had not discussed a detailed timeline and that he doesn’t know if his receiver will make an appearance at all before the start of minicamp, but he did reiterate that he would anticipate Jones to be with the Falcons for the start of the team’s mandatory minicamp. Jones caught 88 passes for 1,444 yards and three touchdowns last season, and he is regarded as one of the best receivers in the NFL. A four-time All-Pro, Jones has eclipsed 1,000 yards in every season in which he’s played at least 14 games, and he is the only player in NFL history with multiple 250-yard receiving games, adding his third such game in Week 12 last year against the Buccaneers. It’s not uncommon for proven veterans around the league to miss their teams voluntary workouts, and given Jones’ track record on and off the field, Quinn and his staff trust him to be ready for when he does meet back up with the team. “For those of us who know Julio and the teammate that he is, [there is] no disappointment, certainly not on my end,” Quinn said of his absence. “I know the work that he’s putting in to get ready. I’m very comfortable with that.”
  4. And my stance is this one session isn’t gonna stop that. There a TON of football to get that in. Period!!! Once more the leader of the pats missed. They won a SB. Ppl call him the goat!!!
  5. Usually contract or ego
  6. Yeahh I understood but Hes just talking about this team. There were a good number of teams that use the run first approach.
  7. This guy But *I* am the clueless one
  8. It’s never been correct in the WCO. The run is opened by the pass.
  9. Not at all. I don’t blame him for not wanting to risk injury. My contention the whole time has been don’t practice, but be present for meetings and to coach up younger guys. He knows the extension will get done
  10. You know I would never let you stay out in the cold.
  11. Dude the WCO offense has always passed to open the run. When Bill Walsh introduced it that’s how he taught it. He said the short pass is an extension of the run. Basically a long handoff.
  12. Usually that’s correct..but not on 2016. We threw to open up the run
  13. You gonna quote ancient *** Bill Walsh? Really? I'll play your game though, where does he specifically cite OTA's as the key to those Super Bowl winning teams? Again, these are OTA's. We aren't even close to training camp yet... Was Brady not absent last year during OTA's? Then what happened? Why do so many players skip OTA's you think?
  14. During this week’s “Medicare-for-All” hearing on Capitol Hill, Budget Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., vowed to continue pushing for “access to quality, affordable health care” via the radical new proposal that would amount to a full government takeover of our health-care system. However, achieving this goal will not come from socialized health care. As noted by the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare-for-All could “lead to lower quality of care for patients,” and will cut doctor compensation which will “reduce the amount of care supplied.” Under this plan “participants would not have a choice of insurer or health benefits,” and the development of new treatments and technologies would be slowed. Not as easy as the left claims To start, according to the Galen Institute, the transition to single-payer health care would force 173 million Americans to give up their current plan, and care would be arbitrarily apportioned and rationed by the government. Tax-advantaged Health Savings Accounts – which give choice and flexibility to 25 million American families –would also be repealed. However, advocates of single payer say that transitioning to this system is simply a matter of shifting spending from the private sector to the government. This is misleading. Overhauling the health-care system would cost between $32 and $36 trillion in new federal spending over the next ten years, based on research from experts on the left and the right. This will mean dramatically higher taxes on every American family and business – not just “the rich” and large corporations that Democrats demonize. Total U.S. health-care spending per year currently reaches $3.5 trillion, and roughly 60 percent of this is already borne by the federal government, so Medicare-for-All would require significant new spending. There is no easy way to pay for this. Proponents of Medicare-for-All argue there would be efficiencies through consolidation and point to the fact that government programs such as Medicare already have low administrative costs, so they say expanding this program to all Americans will lead to savings. Again, this is only one part of the picture. While public insurance often spends less than private insurance, this comparison is misleading. Medicare Part D is administered through the federal government, but there are savings from the competition between Pharmacy Benefit Managers, insurers and manufacturers. Other agencies help administer the program – the IRS, the Social Security Administration and the states all play a role. Moreover, administrative costs are only one part of a bigger picture – they can be reduced at the expense of better service or measures to fight waste, fraud and abuse. Leading to shortages of care Even if transitioning to a socialized system could be a smooth process, the new system will inevitably result in the rationing of health care. Socialized medicine works by a combination of price controls and a reduction of payments for caregivers that would ration care for patients, harm the development of medicines, and limit patient access, as noted by CBO. This is not hypothetical – there are numerous examples of the single-payer health-care systems used by foreign governments leading to shortages of care, medicines and doctors. For instance, in the United Kingdom, patients reportedly wait more than six months to receive medical treatment and almost 25 percent of cancer patients did not start treatment on time despite referrals from their doctor. Canada’s system is a little better – patients reportedly wait over 20 weeks on average to receive treatment from a specialist. At any one time, over one million Canadians are waiting for a procedure. This rationing of care extends to medicines. Of the 290 new medical substances that were launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018, the U.S. had access to 90 percent. In contrast, the United Kingdom had access to just 60 percent of medicines, while Canada had access to just 44 percent. Make no mistake, the single-payer health-care plan being pushed by Democrats would end the U.S. health-care system as we know it. Medicare-for-All would lead to tax hikes for every American, end current health care plans for 175 million Americans, and restrict access and choice for patients. Alex Hendrie is director of tax policy at Americans for Tax Reform, a free market advocacy organization dedicated to lower taxes and limited government.
  15. I agree with some of the OP’s points but it shades a bit too optimistic for me. I agree on the secondary depth - if Trufant is injured then you have a 2nd year guy who is unproven at best, a guy who was playing safety last year, rookies drafted in the 4th and 5th rounds a few weeks ago, and practice squad guys. Not great. I’m not seeing quality depth at LB either. Duke Riley doesn’t belong in the NFL, Foye held the fort adequately and should make a jump but he’s a 6th round good athlete undersized guy who played in the Ivy League, Carter is a career bust/back up, Ishmael is a special teams guy tweener who can’t really help a defence. I don’t know why Zach Brown wasn’t looked at before he signed elsewhere. DE doesn’t keep me up at night but based on performance it is adequate at best as a group. Hope they sign Derrick Morgan if he’s healthy enough to replace Means. My point is kind of obvious - barring catastrophic injuries to the offence, the season will go as the defence goes and all eyes are on DQ (and TD for that matter).
  16. How so ?? If Ryan got injured and we had to count on Schaub, would we still get as far ???
  17. You went to law school. Is something wrong with making a business decision? And he’s not selfish. But every single player on that team or any team has selfish reasons for their life and families. These are grown men. And their life is your entertainment. That’s the only reason it pisses any of you off.
  18. Was the cost worth it? No, but I didn't have a bunch of options. I was a mechanic who was laid off for a year during the recession (thanks Clinton/Bush). I either went to school or I made $8-12/hour. Was the education worth it? Absolutely. I went from working at a cable company in the warehouse to working in the call center, to working in the NOC, to working at a bank as help desk, to being IT Director/CIO, to working as a consultant. Salary went up exponentially. Went from making $23k/year busting my humps to making $250k+/year working a few hours a day a few days a week.
  19. Dude how clueless are you?? run always sets up the pass, it forces the linebackers and safety to inch up. You must be from this new school approach. Nvm that told me all I needed to know..
  20. I would have grabbed five All Pros. I mean come on, how did they not know?!
  21. Crawford or Hageman. Hages played outside when Quinn first got here
  22. If he had his contract he would. Julio isn’t selfish at all. Just making a business decision
  23. It’s essential because if the young guys. I never disagreed with you about and nobody else has. All we’ve been saying is missing ota’s isn’t gonna hurt a vet and the team as a whole. And it won’t. And for the life of me nobody can answer the Brady question about him not going to ota’s? If Matt didn’t go I’d say the same thing I’m saying about Julio because things don’t get serious until the pads come on. These earlier practices are for the younger guys mostly. But yes vet presence is essential. One vet it two that knows what they’re doing isn’t gonna mess up team chemistry or determine if they will be good or bad. PERIOD!!! Don’t get pissed cause nobody else is.
  24. We were leading dude. Then that's when we choked as usual. It was 14-7. Then 21-14 then 28-14.
  1. Load more activity