Jump to content

Return of the Gaucho

Pure Football
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Return of the Gaucho

  1. 2 hours ago, Duff_Man said:

    Rodgers has always been a humorless boob. They guy has the personality of a turnip. He has a record of just being a pretty bad person to be around. None of him wanting to leave surprises me in the least. Someone on the team probably ate the last piece of cake in the dining hall and he got pissy about it.

    No idea where you get that impression from. Dude doesn't engage the media, but there doesn't seem to be anything supporting your contention that he's bad to be around.  He did a weekly interview on the Pat McAfee show this past season and I got a new view of him. Seems like a good dude but a bit sarcastic and reserved which might not come off well. 


    He was in the NFC Championship Game in 2019 with a defense who got run over in the playoffs. They were on the doorstep to a Superbowl. Then, they trade up to draft a QB who won't see the field for 3+ years. For all Green Bay's platitudes about wanting him to retire a Packer or be part of the long term plans, their actions show that they are content letting him play on a contract without guaranteed money on a year to year basis. Easy to trade, easy to cut, no guarantee for the player.  I'd be pissed too...

  2. You trade Julio if you are going into a 3 to 5 year rebuild, not if you think you can get this team to the playoffs within a year or two. If a team offers a 1st and a day 2 pick next draft, maybe consider it. If a team offers a haul this season AND we can sign Grady Jarrett to an extension to offset the 23 million in dead cap by trading Julio before 6/1, you maybe consider it. I don't see either of those scenarios happening, so keep Julio and gear up the offense if you take Pitts at 4, or trade back, stockpile for next year, and bolster the defense this year.


    Also, I really hate it when I agree with SAS.

  3. So, honest question: How much training do police officers in your department get on what they can and can't do regarding vehicle stops and searches?

    I ask this only because I still see things in the news today that would not pass the Arizona v. Gant standard. It always infuriates me that people are arrested for searches of a car when the justification for the stop was something that would have no evidence possibly contained in the car. Sure, they can try to justify a search by "I smell something," but that doesn't work when you are looking for a gun or stolen property. I often see officer safety raised in these news stories justifying the search, yet in most instances that I have seen (admittedly it could be selection bias)the driver or passenger is already handcuffed on the sidewalk when the search is conducted. 

    When I was working for the public defender in a large California city, certain cops would purposefully not handcuff subjects when searching their car (post-Gant) so the officer safety thing could still be technically viable. It was clear that they were briefed on the change in law, and took steps to conform their prior behavior with the current standard. That charade ended when an officer got messed up by an unrestrained suspect.  Now, it seems like it is just ignored and business as usual.

    Just curious about the education of officers on what they can and can't do, and whether it takes the form of "here is a new legal standard" vs. "here is what you need to do differently to save your search."

  4. 13 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

    there are so many factors - let's concede for the moment that 2022 QB class will be decent - or 2023 QB class.    Falcons haven't picked in Top 5 since 2008.    NFL teams are getting better at scouting the QB position and the differences between college QB play and NFL QB play is shrinking.....it's getting easier.   For all of the @gazoo in the world that try and tell you that you can "find" a QB later in the draft - those "later QBs" may not be in the top 5 but they are going in the first round now and not dropping out - Mahomes, Watson and Jackson to name three.   Moreover, the NFL is becoming more receptive to the dual threat QBs and, to be blunt "the black QBs" than in past - these are trendlines.   What we do see is that EXCEPTIONAL QBs win SuperBowls.

    Now if TF and AS don't believe Justin Fields nor Trey Lance are EXCEPTIONAL prospects capable of being ELITE QBs - if they don't believe that - then by all means don't take either one of them and punt and figure it out later in draft on a developmental guy or punt until 2022 or 2023 and hope you get lucky.

    This pick - this #4 pick - is a GIFT for the Falcons that they should redeem if they believe Justin Fields or Trey Lance are future superstars at the position.   If they are, none of you will look back and regret the pick - no matter how good Pitts, Sewell or Surtain may be.

    Nothing you said is wrong, but I am a fan of trying to trade back for these exact reasons. If we can trade back and get an impact player now, an additional 1st next year and some other picks, then even if we finish the season at 8 and 9 (that is going to be weird to get used to as a barometer for mediocrity), we would have the ammo to move up if there was a QB worth taking. If this coaching staff can get Matt Ryan to return to elite production, we will be picking in the 20's for the next few years if the defense is shored up. Should that happen, a QB at 4 this year will not be starting for the Falcons on their rookie deal. Alternatively, if the coaching staff can't return Ryan to 2016 levels of production, we will not be picking in the teens either and would likely have another high pick next year.

    I just see the team going one of two directions on the field, rather than a middling result in the first year of new schemes on both sides of the ball. Neither direction would be greatly changed with a QB at 4 this year. I think this is more like the Dallas situation where a new coaching staff comes in with a new offensive system and a player at QB that they may have questions about. Taking a 1 year approach and seeing how it works out seems practical, even required given the current cap situation with Matt Ryan. If Ryan returns to his former status, the Falcons still have him under contract through 2023 with the option of an extension if needed (which it would be with cap hits of 48 and 43 million in 2022 and 2023). If he doesn't, well the Falcons are screwed anyways as the cap situation is what it is. If Ryan doesn't perform up to the level where he is the option going forward, there will be a limited trade market, which would have to be post June 1 trade anyway, and the cap woes would continue through 2023 with a post June 1 cut. I guess the Falcons could take an absurd 40 million in dead money on the 2022 cap if done earlier, but either situation means the next QB will be playing with 20% less resources around him for the first couple years. 

    To each their own though, we will find out in two weeks...

  5. 5 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

    There might be a few decent ones.  The UNC Qb and Spencer Rattler from Oklahoma.

    However, all 4 of Lawrence, Wilson, Fields and Lance would be QB1 if they were in the 2022 class.

    I mean, that may be true, and it may not be. At the start of the 2019 NCAA season, Joe Burrow was an afterthought. Before the 2018 season, nobody thought Daniel Jones would be a top pick. People knew Kyler Murray would be a first round draft pick, they just assumed (correctly) that it would be to play on the diamond.

    Next years draft class could look like the 2018 QB draft class, or it could be more like this years draft class. We don't, and can't, know now. What we do know is that even Matt Ryan's detractors would have to admit that he is at least "serviceable," and he is here for at least 2 more years due to his contract.

    If we take a QB at 4 this year, so be it. If we don't upgrade the starters around Ryan on the offense, or shore up the defense, we are more likely to be picking high again next year, and the year after that. Taking a QB in the first round this year, in my mind, does nothing to help the team now, and would likely mean that the QB drafted starts year 3 on a lesser team. Alternatively, if we take an impact player like Pitts, Sewell, or Surtain, or trade back and stockpile picks for the next 2 drafts, whatever QB is taken next year or the year after will come into a better team and have a higher chance of success. We would then have a starting QB (that hopefully works out) with at least 4 years on a cheap contract and hopefully a cap with less dead money. The window to win is longer, and the overall team seems more likely to be better.

    But what do I know, I am not even great at my actual job, let alone Terry Fontenot's. 

  6. 4 hours ago, Cole World said:

    What DE or Safety is worth pick number 4

    None, but you could re-tool the O-line if someone like Sewell is there at 4. Grab him, kick McGary inside to RG, Lindstrom kicks over to LG and hope Hennessey is ready to snap the ball. You then could concentrate on RB or DE in round 2 and go from there. 

    I don't think he goes Safety or DE at 4, no value there. If a good LG can be had in FA without breaking the bank then awesome, but that still seems to indicate a better trade-down scenario. I think there are a lot of good safeties in FA, so it isn't out of the realm of possibility that they double dip there.

    Who knows though, I don't get paid to football... 

  7. 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...



  8. 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. 

  9. 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. 

  10. 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?

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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. 

  15. 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...

  16. 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.

  • Create New...