Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JDaveG

  1. The dude with the seat:
  2. I found this on FB a while back and thought it appropriate to this question:
  3. I used my Father’s Day money to get one of these: I already have their H4n, and it’s great to take a line out from the board, but for recording in the room this is much easier. Less bulk, less fuss, easier setup. I’m looking forward to using it.
  4. That wasn't a shot at the people trying to get in. It was a shot at the people already here. 99% in jest.
  5. We need a pre-screening. Have them spell "shovel pass." If they say "shuffle" or "shuttle" they must go to re-education camp in order to have their membership approved.
  6. @Jpowers, they also had this gem recently:
  7. Meh, I giggled a little. It’s making fun of the notion that you can convert people to Christianity with bumper stickers.
  8. I went all the way back to find this post just to say this: You underestimate them:
  9. Honestly, the freedom in FA after next season is going to be immense. We can go all in in either 2020 or 2021 on an honest superstar FA to make a run. The FO has done a great job with this rebuild, as slow and meticulous as it's been.
  10. Re: Gundy, it's interesting to me that Ginsberg joined Scalia's dissent in Reynolds, but joined Kagan in this case. I'd like to hear her reasoning, but she did not render an opinion, so one can only speculate.
  11. For what it's worth, I think Kagan and Alito are good justices (Rehnquist too, and Garland), in that they are reasoned and consistent. I just vehemently disagree with their approach to such matters. The Constitution binds the government. They view their job as cutting the bonds so that "justice" (in their eyes) may be done. That they often disagree on what "justice" looks like is precisely the reason I disagree so vehemently with that approach.
  12. To @Gritzblitz 2.0's prior point, the final couple of sentences, cut off at the end in this tweet, read as follows: "But JUSTICE ALITO supplies the fifth vote for today’s judgment and he does not join either the plurality’s constitutional or statutory analysis, indicating instead that he remains willing, in a future case with a full Court, to revisit these matters. Respectfully, I would not wait." Law and order authoritarians are the worst of all justices, because they subvert the law to reach the desired result. That is true whether their names are Rehnquist and Alito, or Garland and Kagan.
  13. I'm a huge fan of his writing, even where I disagree with him. He has a clarity to his legal writing that is really, really solid. On par with Scalia, Kagan and Ginsberg. And yes, Garland would have been a nightmare in my opinion. Generally speaking, the people who actually wanted him to be on the court (as opposed to those, of whom I am a part, who felt he should have been given a vote), wanted him precisely for his authoritarianism.
  14. I'm working my way through this decision, and Gorsuch's concurrence is brilliant. A couple of highlights: "If individuals and groups could invoke the authority of a federal court to forbid what they dislike for no more reason than they dislike it, we would risk exceeding the judiciary’s limited constitutional mandate and infringing on powers committed to other branches of government. Courts would start to look more like legislatures, responding to social pressures rather than remedying concrete harms, in the process supplanting the right of the people and their elected representatives to govern themselves." "In a large and diverse country, offense can be easily found. Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody. No doubt, too, that offense can be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation. Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and democratic responsibility, an 'offended viewer' may 'avert his eyes,' Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 212 (1975), or pursue a political solution. Today’s decision represents a welcome step toward restoring this Court’s recognition of these truths, and I respectfully concur in the judgment." One of his main points is though the Court ought not convey standing to offended parties to remedy offense, the state of Maryland can take down the cross should it choose to do so, the "political solution" Gorsuch primarily refers to above. Thomas' concurrence, disappointingly, is (to borrow a phrase from Gorsuch's commentary during oral argument) a dog's breakfast. I haven't yet read the dissent. It was a 7-2 decision, for what it's worth.
  15. I once thought about getting every member of my family on the list to flip them all, but once you pay for it, even a $150 profit is going to only net me about $750.00, and I have to wait for years for it and then front the over $1200 cost of 5 KOT pedals.
  16. Let them. I did and haven't really looked back. Okay, I got on the list, but that was just so you could get one and see for yourself. They're great pedals, but at gig volume the Fulldrive is much better, at least with my rig.
  17. Yes. 10 times out of 10 this. Except use a Sunface.
  18. I think the moral of the story is Saints fans are whiny sore losers and NFL refs have thin skin.
  19. I'm thinking of taking my wife to that Raconteurs show. We went to Music Midtown a couple of years ago for the sole purpose of seeing Jack White. That's the last time we went (because unlike that year, the past few there was literally no one I wanted to see).
  20. First suggestion below this on YouTube was this gem:
  21. The formations and protections are nearly identical to garden variety WCO offenses too. For example, "Nasty" is a particular WR split and "Jet" refers to the protection being called.
  22. Re: Tampa, that's exactly right. And I would never bet against Bruce Arians getting the most out of his QB, and Winston is undeniably talented. I just see them as a perpetual "they're right on the cusp" team, but they never manage to finalize the transition to the other side.
  23. A couple of clues. First the commonality between this and what we've heard Shanahan call, just in terms of what words are used to designate protections or formations. But more to the point, the way they designate the routes. "Huggo" and "sluggo" are classic WCO terminology (I believe for "hitch and go" and "slant and go" respectively). And how he is calling out each route for certain plays. Shanahan streamlined some of this into concepts, like Erhardt-Perkins systems, but he still clung to the old way of designating routes like his life depended on it. Koetter came from a Coryell background, and when he took over for Mularkey he used the Erhardt-Perkins terminology Mularkey used. What you hear in that video just isn't his terminology. Here is an article comparing the Coryell system to the E-P system. https://www.bigblueview.com/2016/7/15/12188564/summer-school-erhardt-perkins-offense-belichick-weis-parcells-brady-patriots It mentions how a play call in Coryell ("Jet Dart 368 Y-Flat Train") would be simplified (in that example, to "Circus/Kings"). And it specifically gives some examples of E-P terminology for a full play call like "3 Out Slot Hat 73 Ghost/Tosser." If you listen to what Koetter is calling out in that video, you can tell it's that old clunky WCO terminology. Koetter and Mularkey committed to learning our language so the players didn't have to adjust. I saw an article that said he and Mularkey are working to smooth some of the clunkiness out of it, but it still sounds pretty clunky to me. Hopefully that remains a work in progress. The WCO is my favorite offense by far, but its terminology is absurdly complicated.