Jump to content

Return of the Gaucho

Pure Football
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Return of the Gaucho

  1. I just don't get why a rebuild must start immediately with a QB?  The benefit of a young QB can be seen around the league, and it is primarily that a good (not even great) young QB on a cost-controlled rookie deal can be one to get you to the Super Bowl or deep in the playoffs. If the cap issues and talent/scheme rebuild will take 2 or 3 years to sort out, why draft a QB now that will learn and spend 3 years on a depleted roster with no hope, then have 2 years to win it all before costing 40 million a year and making it more difficult each and every year after that? I would rather take 2021 and 2022 and sort out the cap-space and begin to rebuild the roster for scheme. Shore up the lines, the LBs and secondary then look to add a QB next year or the year after for the long term success. By then, the cap should be helpful, there should be more talent, and a good young QB in the right system could have Build the lines now, get the scheme set in place and put in the surrounding pieces, then get a QB and RB when you are a bit closer to the window. And lets face it, if this is a rebuild to the level it needs to be, we will be picking at the top of the draft next year to, or Matt Ryan will find his form again and we won't need a QB. Who knows...



  2. So, now can we compromise? 





    Irrespective of the SPLC designations of the New Black Panthers, what happens when protestors peacefully exercise their second amendment rights in an open carry state? Which hypocritical side of the two party system breaks first? 🤔

    I guess I’m just glad Reagan isn’t governor of Georgia right now. 

  3. 1 hour ago, Jpizzle said:

    So I wanted to wait until I had a minute or two to respond to @Return of the Gaucho. You said as much but without knowing the context of the Hong Kong and Iranian protesters comments I can get your perspective there. But for the most part those were tongue in cheek comments pointing out what a lot of us believe to be rank hypocrisy from some of our more conservative friends down here. I would never compare what is happening and has happened to Iranian and Hong Kong protesters to what's going on now as a direct comparison. Because rankly based off of what I see Americans would have broke long before those people did and it would be a dishonor to them.


    Moving onto the only pointing out one side of the violence and only focusing on the officers actions part of your response. I mean you aren't necessarily wrong but the repeated police brutality at protests about police brutality and systemic racism especially considering the outside factors of rhetoric like "You have to dominate them", "You have to dominate the battle space" being thrown around , and then the military rolling in and what appears to be the forceful dispersal of a crowd with "pepper balls" so the president can get a pretty picture...I mean. And I don't pretend to be unbiased here. I have a clear bias and it lies with the citizens protesting.

    So without quoting every post, I do want to thank everyone who replied, though I have no idea how to link their handles in the reply. I went back and read a bit more, and I see no need to continue to debate the police vs. protesters issue that has been so thoroughly discussed. I would note that my issue lies with the, what I view as, correct distinguishing of the protesters from the looters, with the seemingly monolithic treatment of police in general. There is a certain appeal to the argument that police officers who are good, nevertheless fail their public when they are silent or allow bad cops to engage in exactly the behavior that has triggered these protests. Yet I see a clear tendency to paint the police as a bloc, and the protesters/looters as a dichotomy. 

    That behavior of the police forces in the US by and large needs to change, but it isn't as simple as "more oversight" or "remove the power of the police unions." Oakland is the perfect example of what can go wrong with having a goal of reform without a plan. A federal lawsuit was brought against Oakland for civil rights violations due to the actions of several members of the OPD. The settlement of the lawsuit brought about major changes, federal oversight and an independent police commission to hold the police accountable. This has gone on nearly 20 years, and there have been a lot of changes in the OPD for the better, but the oversight remains. In 2016, a sexual assault case within OPD resulted in firings, and the resignation of the police chief, and the subsequent appointment of a popular and reform minded police chief named Anne Kirkpatrick. She was subsequently terminated by the oversight commission "without cause" for what she claims was the refusal to reimburse one of the commissioner's car towing fees. In the background of all of this, the police department is chronically underfunded and doesn't have the resources to adequately police the city in the best of times, let alone now. Every use of force, which in my understanding can be as simple as handcuffing, requires the officers involved and witnessing the use of force to file a report. This takes officers off the street daily to write these reports. It's all in the goal of accountability and reform, but it only exacerbates the problems.

    While the specifics are surely different in departments across the country, the underlying issues are not unique. When you add onto that the looting and rioting that has occurred over the past week, you take police officers who are already overstretched and force them to work significant overtime dealing with situations that they are quite frankly not trained for. The overzealous use of pepper spray, "non-lethal" rounds, and other tactics by the police is overwhelmingly unwarranted, but realistically what do you expect when a police officer is pushed to exhaustion and confronted with a mob?  It doesn't excuse it, but I think it needs to be considered when judging these situations. The actions over the past week are not really reflective of the underlying issues of disproportionate targeting and treatment of minorities and the poor, and a lack of accountability for officers who either never should have been sworn in in the first place or those who weren't trained in how to handle things properly. 

    So what is to be done? If someone says increase the police budget for training, more manpower for community policing, more oversight, etc., it seems to be a non-starter. Holding police accountable is certainly a goal I agree with, but how is it done without giving the police departments the resources to make the changes needed to prevent the abuses in the first place? Do you strip qualified immunity? Do you force police officers to carry their own professional liability insurance? I really don't have the answer, but I tend believe that more accountability needs to be forced on the police and adequate resources to meet those heightened standards should be part and parcel with the accountability.

    I'll end the wall of text there, but this issue is something I have followed closely since I began working as a public defender 10 years ago, and continues to be something I find myself dwelling on now that I have been in the civil arena for 5 or so years.  As always, I do appreciate the thought that the posters in ABF tend to put in, despite my lack of participation. 

  4. Serious question to everyone back in Georgia, has there been any serious looting? Just skimming the past couple pages, I get the feeling that a lot of people seem to be trashing the police response to some of these protests, but not a lot of discussion of the violence and looting that is also occurring. I will admit I didn’t go back through the past 50 pages in the last week, so I may have missed it. 

    I now live in San Francisco, and work in Oakland. I was at a peaceful protest in Oakland last Friday, and left well before sun down. A bit after I left, a federal security guard/officer was murdered in a targeted killing, and another wounded. While that news was making it through the crowd, and once the sun started setting, opportunists, without much overlap with protesters, began looting and burning. 

    They looted and tried to burn a Target a block from my office. Above that Target were about 200 new apartments, and graffiti on the building complained about”gentrifiers.” Many other stores in Oakland and San Francisco were looted that night, and then all over the Bay Area the rest of the weekend. The next day, 2 gun stores in the Bay Area were picked clean, and it appears the same group stole 16 cars from a dealership. Only part of this has been recovered. As the crime progressed, the response by the police started to increase in aggression. 

    By Monday morning, most of the police around the Bay Area had been working 16 hour days, 3 out of 4 days. They were breaking. Their responses got more aggressive. I saw a water bottle get thrown from a crowd at police, which triggered tear gas. The Friday I was there in person, I watched water bottles, glass bottles, rocks, etc. be thrown at the line with barely a response. Things had changed. 

    i guess my point of all this is as follows: the police actions in MN were appalling and demand justice. The protests were and are justified, but as the line between protester and looter blurred, and the police were pushed past their normal limits, the actions of both sides became more aggressive. There are certainly examples on both sides that were out of control. What I don’t see in the last couple pages is any real discussion of the context of these photos, just a bunch of shots at police response in the US as if it is somehow on par with much more brutal crack downs in Hong Kong, or brutal repression in Iran that has cost the lives of a thousand Iranians for every American protester who has been killed in the last decade. When did a demand for reform with America require this level of false equivalency? What am I missing?

  5. 9 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

    The problem with Fulton was he flunked the character test twice in that he tried to circumvent the PED testing by using someone else’s urine sample - said because he would have failed for marijuana.  Was suspended two years but believe he only sat out one.

    Not sure the appetite of DQ and TD on someone that made that choice after Jalen Collins and Rashede Hageman with their character issues.


    4 minutes ago, Fernando C. said:

    No more Marijuana testing under the new CBA... 

    I have no issues with marijuana.  It helps me out chill at the end of a long work day fairly regularly, and doesn't slow down the next morning like whiskey does. 

    However, I will always have a problem with people who are faced with the choice of "weed or my career" and choose weed. I'm glad that testing for it is gone, because I think that is a stupid choice to have to make. Yet people who choose weed over a career will always seem foolish in my eyes, and doing so more than once makes you immature and stupid after getting the wake-up call. Players with multiple pops should be avoided at all costs, not because of weed, but because of their idiocy...

  6. 19 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1970 said:

    Never imagined you turning into a blind loyal homer.

    I was wrong about you. Carry on bro. Hug on hugga.

    Dude, the way you attack people who see something different that what you see is pathetic. A minimal deal for a low risk, high reward player is not something to get vicious about. We get it, you could do better than Dimi. Keep waiting by the phone and getting saltier with each passing silent day...

  7. A client of mine always sends me a nice bottle of liquor to start the year, and I just got this years gift, and quite frankly I had no idea such a thing existed.  They sent over a bottle of "Amrut" a Single Malt Whisky, which is from India. Makes sense that India would have a whisky tradition given the colonial background, but it never occurred to me to before opening the box.



    Really wish the work day was over to give it a taste...

  8. 3 hours ago, Jpowors said:

    That high of a proof bourbon......I mean it's good and it reflects my like of a little pepper (see rye) in my bourbon....but I don't know that that's what I'd hand a newbie.

    True, but I always thought it had depth that you don’t find in some of the other bourbons at the same price point. I always noted some sweetness and vanilla that you don’t find in the four roses and bulleits that are comprable, and it seemed to be a good introduction to the more complex flavors you find in the higher end bourbons. 

    You’re right though, it’s barrel proof and really is a true sipper. Caution advised. 

  9. On 1/6/2020 at 2:20 PM, Refried Beans said:

    Blank has hired a bunch of rift raft trash from Tampa and all they know is rift raft. Winners know winners and losers know losers. You are with the company you keep. Empty trophy case and empty hype. Nothing changes cause nothing changes. If we were a WINNING organization the coach pool would be stronger, not unemployed losers and greenies. 

    I am fairly certain that people from Cleveland wouldn't spell "riff-raff" wrong twice in the same sentence...

  10. 18 minutes ago, stizz said:

    Some dude tweeted that the NFL wanted him to sign something that said he couldn't sue if he didn't get sign after the workout. How sad is that, someone can sue because things didn't work the they wanted it to.

    That is not the implication. The version I heard was that the waiver would waive employment related claims, which would not just be the lack of a job coming from this workout, but also the lack of employment for the last 3 years, the lack of future employment, and potential legal damages for lost earnings based on the underlying collusion claims that he settled previously. They specifically did not settle the employment claims, so this waiver, if it was as Kap's camp portrayed, would be an end run around his potential next lawsuit.

  11. 2 hours ago, MayorWest13 said:
    The NFL’s Colin Kaepernick dog-and-pony show about nothing was about something, after all.

    It was about extinguishing the second lawsuit that Kaepernick could file for ongoing collusion plus retaliation against him for his first grievance that was settled for a payment reportedly between $1 million and $10 million.

    That’s the inescapable conclusion from the assertion, as made by Kaepernick’s lawyer and Kaepernick’s agent, that the NFL demanded that he sign a broad waiver, including a waiver of potential employment claims.

    Let that one sink in. The league, under the guise of acting out of the goodness of its own heart and/or to assuage the guilt of 32 months of Kaepernick being wrongfully denied an opportunity, set up a workout for all teams (even though any team could work him out at any time) and then, as he showed up for it, asked him to sign a waiver that not only protected the league and the Falcons against a torn ACL or some other injury that could have happened during the workout but also exonerated the league of any and all responsibility for the violations of his rights that may have (have) occurred since he grievance was settled in February.

    As a source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT, when Kaepernick’s camp suggested a standard injury waiver that didn’t sweep broadly to absolve the NFL from its ongoing violation of his rights, league representatives said that the proposed release had been drafted by NFL general counsel Jeff Pash, and that Pash wanted his release to be signed.

    Pash’s name constantly has been mentioned behind the scenes as the person who was believed to have devised this entire scheme. From Kaepernick’s perspective, it wasn’t about Roger Goodell cleansing his conscience, and it wasn’t about Jay-Z repairing his reputation. It was about Pash, recognizing that the failure to buy out Kaepernick’s ongoing employment rights in February coupled with an ongoing cold shoulder created the very real possibility for a second lawsuit that would have taken far more cold hard cash from the league than the first one.

    By moving the workout from the Falcons’ facility to a new location, Kaepernick has escaped checkmate, and he has escaped a potential checkmate. If any team representatives who were ready to watch him work out at the Falcons’ facility fails to attend the session at the alternate location, the end result could be legal checkmate for the NFL.

    At this point, given the clumsy, awkward manner in which Pash’s scheme has played out, the only way to avoid a second lawsuit from Kaepernick could be to do what should have been done in the first place, if the league truly wanted to help Kaepernick: Pick up the phone and make whatever deal has to be made behind the scenes with one of the NFL’s teams to give the guy a job.



    19 minutes ago, Ergo Proxy said:




    "Because of recent decisions made by the NFL, the workout for Colin Kaepernick will be changing to an alternate location in Atlanta which will now start at 4 p.m. All representatives from clubs are invited to attend and will be provided the location. Further, all media will be invited to attend and upon request will be provided with the location. From the outset, Mr. Kaepernick requested a legitimate process and from the outset the NFL league office has not provided one. Most recently, the NFL has demanded that as a precondition to the workout, Mr. Kaepernick sign an unusual liability waiver that addresses employment-related issues and rejected the standard liability waiver from physical injury proposed by Mr. Kaepernick's representatives. Additionally, Mr. Kaepernick requested all media be allowed into the workout to observe and film it and for an independent film crew to be there to ensure transparency. The NFL denied this request. Based on the prior conduct by the NFL league office, Mr. Kaepernick simply asks for a transparent and open process which is why a new location has been selected for today. Mr. Kaepernick looks forward to seeing the representatives from the clubs today."


    “We are disappointed that Colin did not appear for his workout. He informed us of that decision at 2:30 pm today along with the public.

    Today's session was designed to give Colin what he has consistently said he wants – an opportunity to show his football readiness and desire to return to the NFL. Twenty-five (25) clubs were present for the workout, and all 32 clubs, their head coaches, general managers, and other personnel executives would have received video footage of the interview and workout, shot by the Atlanta Falcons video crew. It is important to note the following:

    • As stated above, more than three-fourths of NFL clubs were present for today's workout.
    • The NFL made considerable effort to work cooperatively with Colin's representatives.  We invited his agent to suggest questions for the interview.  Yesterday, when Colin's representatives said he wanted to bring his own receivers to the workout, we agreed to the request.  In addition, Coach Hue Jackson discussed with Colin's agent what drills would be run at the workout so that Colin would know what would be expected of him. 
    • Last night, when Nike, with Colin's approval, requested to shoot an ad featuring Colin and mentioning all the NFL teams present at the workout, we agreed to the request.  
    • On Wednesday, we sent Colin's representatives a standard liability waiver based on the waiver used by National Invitational Camp at all NFL Combines and by NFL clubs when trying out free agent players. At noon today, Colin's representatives sent a completely rewritten and insufficient waiver. 
    • We heard for the first time last night, around the same time we heard from Nike, that Colin wanted to bring his own video crew. We heard for the first time this afternoon that Colin wanted to open the event to all media.
    • We agreed to have Colin's representatives on the field while the workout was being conducted and to allow them to see how it was being recorded. We did so even though we have been clear from the beginning that this is private workout. As is typical with NFL Combines, one video crew was prepared to shoot and distribute video of the interview and workout. We confirmed with Colin's representatives that they would receive both the video that would be sent to all 32 clubs as well as the raw footage from the entire event, which is unprecedented.

    The location Colin selected is more than an hour away from Flowery Branch.

    We are grateful to the Falcons, who made available the club's first-class facility, along with athletic training, equipment, and communications staff to ensure that today's workout would occur under ideal conditions, to coaches Hue Jackson and Joe Philbin, who were prepared to run a workout that would allow Colin to demonstrate his skill level, and to Jeff Foster and the Combine staff for arranging for other players to participate and for managing the logistics of the workout.

    Colin's decision has no effect on his status in the League. He remains an unrestricted free agent eligible to sign with any club.”


    And here are both sides of the story.  The only issue I really have is if the NFL really tried to insert additional language into the waiver that may undermine any of Kap's additional legal rights for employment related claims against the NFL.  The NFL said it was a standard waiver, Kap's people said it was not and included a bunch of additional clauses.  Seems like a pretty easy point to prove one way or another as Kap's people had a copy of the waiver and submitted a revised version.  Its a lot of legalese but there can be real impact on future litigation depending on the content of an employment agreement.  I don't know much about Georgia's employment laws, but I suspect Georgia was selected for a reason. 

    As for the filming, media, etc., I couldn't really care less. If it was all about transparency, then so be it, but people trying out for the NFL don't get to dictate terms, and it isn't like any other player gets to dictate terms and demand concessions like this.  

    It seems to me that both parties are angling more for optics than a future employment relationship.  If the NFL tried to get him to agree to an unreasonable waiver, it would be easy for Kap's camp to prove.  If his camp doesn't counter the NFL's position, I have no faith that Kap really wanted anything more than a headline.  If they do counter it and show the NFL tried to get one over, I think they just helped his next lawsuit, and I wish Kap luck.

  12. 5 hours ago, wartownfalcon said:

    It was a Thursday night college commentator...there’s a reason he’s on Thursday nights instead of Saturdays


    That commentator was Pat McAfee.  Great follow on Twitter, and a pretty good football personality.  See below.  

    4 hours ago, DirtyBird2 said:

    Sounds like something Pat McAfee would say and hes spot on. This is his first year in the booth and he does Thursdays because he has 10 other things he does every week (weekly radio show, Get Up, 2 podcasts, WWE). He is actually very knowledgeable and has a lot of insider knowledge. I recc giving his podcast a listen as well, tons of insight on the NFL (The Pat McAfee show 2.0) or his radio show on westwood one.



  13. 12 minutes ago, R_The_Great said:



    Yeah this guy looks like he is excited for the team and to be an NFL Player.  I have seen Prison inmates have better mug shots than this.   GIVE ME A ****** BReak with your locker room cancer ***

    Did you seriously post a video of Takk trolling D-Led as some evidence that he is a cancer?  When you find yourself on the same side as D-led, you should just stop.  

  14. Just now, R_The_Great said:

    Right, since the Falcons look SOO SOO Good on Sundays.  Man I really want to watch that action every Sunday, MAKES MY WEEK BETTTER!  Keep wearing the glasses buddy.  I am sure its nice and safe with the glasses on.

    Sick red herring bro.  You called Takk a locker room cancer with zero evidence other than your own perceptions.  You don't get to act like someone has to like what they see on Sunday's from this squad if they disagree with your unrelated baseless assumptions.  

  15. 24 minutes ago, R_The_Great said:

    I could tell by  the way the guy is, he is just a walking locker room cancer.  His face says it all...


    ...it at least gets that cancer out of the locker room.  He has AB about him when he was with the Raiders...

    ...I tell it like i see it. 

    Well, with all of that convincing evidence you posted, how could one deny the power of your observations?  I mean, his face says it all, he's a locker room cancer.  


    In all seriousness, I do believe you when you say you tell it like you see it.  Your problem is that your vision is apparently garbage.  

  16. So this essentially seems like a 5 year, 85 million contract. If he is guaranteed an additional 45 million, I would assume some is guaranteed salary for the first year the extension goes into effect, but how does the remainder prorate over the other 5 years?

    it sounds like his 2019 salary didn’t get adjusted, and there was only like 5 mil in cap space, so I would think the non-salary guarantees could only be up to $20 million. Any cap gurus care to take a stab at it?

  • Create New...