MAC
-
Posts
5,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by MAC
-
-
surfs up
Off by one letter
-
Manning has been very public this off-season - Letterman, in NY to see Jeter, Saban, etc ... I wonder if he is thinking this will be his last season and he is making the rounds.
It's JETER'S last season. It's more or less Letterman's last season as well. He spent time focusing on his friend Todd Helton's final season last year but somehow that wasn't an indicator of anything besides friendship.
He's helped the hospital raise money numerous times. He see's college coaches every year . What was different about Alabama was that his OC was there and Saban yapped about it to the media. .
He's clearly well aware that he's getting older, and he's been making an effort to relish everything that he's going through for awhile now - but your tea leaves are willfully murky. Listening works a bit better. He's repeatedly said that he will play as long as he enjoys the process, is physically able, and the Broncos want him. Ironically he said all that again last night. He obviously could retire any year at this point, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he gave George Blanda a run for his money. The fact that he has a very public life is indicative of nothing but his popularity and the respect with which he's held (and that he has more energy than most of us put together).
-
Thanks Nadine........ The 'just ask somebody' is not an in-person option in my situation..
so I appereciate ALL OF YOU showing me anything..
Until recently, I thought LOL was a subsidiary of AOL..
Well with the Warner Brothers merger that subsidiary would probably be
-
I'm on the computer a lot..I just cant master much of it..
I can figure out most things but this hasn't been one of them.....Directions matter only if you understand the language
I'm not as smart as you are.. MAC
I don't know about that. I've often made my wife feel dumb without intending to. She's not, and I can be a
.Have you considered taking any adult education seminars at a high school or junior college? They are usually taught by regular people looking for a little extra income (as opposed to professors) and only cost a few bucks - at least around here. It might increase your comfort level.
You can feel free to ask me questions as well.
-
my sister is not good with computers and one day I was texting here and I said "idk"...........she asked me what that meant and I told her "I don't know"
:
: I REALLY thought that you were slipping into a "who's on first" moment for a moment.By the way, I'm far from a Luddite, but detest those abbreviations and the related slang. I write some of the worlds longest texts - growling the entire time - and can't fathom how anyone could communicate more than their pants size in 140 characters. I largely detest the entire concept of Twitter - another step in the decline of civilization. ;)
It's not that I can't learn to abbreviate, I just find it about as desirable as learning Ebonics. I prefer to just stick my fingers in my ears (or is it "in the Dutch water retention device that sounds disturbingly inappropriate") and hope that the rest of humanity eventually comes around.
-
Yes, those who grew up with computers do have an advantage. My first experience with a computer was when the university I worked for sent me to off-campus classes. I can still remember sitting their lost and confused while all the other students were typing away because I didn’t even know how to turn on that blasted thing.
Although my computer knowledge will never come close to matching that of so many others, I have come a long way since then and so have you or you wouldn’t even be on here posting.
Your age may be a reason as to why you aren’t computer savvy, but never let it be an excuse. Ask questions. As Nadine said, there are many who are happy to help.
And, don’t be like my husband who never figured out how to use a universal remote. It’s not that he isn’t intelligent enough to understand. After all, he is the same guy who can tear a motor apart and put it back together. He just chooses not to learn as it is easier to claim ignorance and yell for help.
IMO, it is people like him who cause those who have computer knowledge to become angry when giving assistance. It’s not that they don’t want to teach an old dog new tricks. It’s more that they get tired of leading a horse to water when the horse doesn’t want to drink.
That's pretty much what I was alluding too, but you said it MUCH better. "The direct approach, what a novel idea".
It's a process and it requires determined effort.
-
Younger folks forget that they grew up with all this....I went through grade school, (we didn't call it middle school then) HS and college and never saw a computer of any kind
Until recently I thought a smart phone was one that didn't cost very much..
The language might as well be ..an ancient form of Chinese for all I understand it...and I've found that folks are just stunned and almost angered that someone older has not learned on their own things they were taught....I only know what I've picked up through trial and error and all of that will fit in a small bag...
....Until just recently I thought a 'selfie' was something you couldnt talk about in mixed company
Pretty much no-one over 50 saw a computer when they were young. Either they got comfortable using them at work or bought one of their own. My age just means that I have vastly more experience and knowledge than those "younger folks".
Of course I find it physically painful to say "I can't". My wife feels too comfortable with giving up - makes my hair stand on end. Granted - "I can't" dunk a basketball, memorize the phone book, tear said phone book in half for that matter (though they get smaller every year), nor witness one of those autopsy close-ups on CSI without getting nauseous and averting my eyes. We all have our limits.
However I'd read the entire help menu, experiment with every icon/tool in the post editor, and search the internet for "what does it mean to post a link", before publicly admitting "I am old.. I couldn't post a link if my life depended on it... "
Perhaps the attitude that people show you is simply a reaction to the exuberance with which you embrace your computer ignorance. It's not a permanent condition. Are you perchance a professional curmudgeon? :thmsup:
-
I've outlined in green the web address for this page. If you were to copy and paste it into a post here, it would create a link that takes you to this page
You know, I always post links using the special "link" icon - which is apparently an entirely superfluous step. WTH?
-
There will be no tanking with the front office and coaching staff that we have.
Ever.
No tanking.
Period.
Non-negotiable.
This idea is DOA. Dead! On! Arrival!!!!
There's nothing remotely unique about the current staff - NO staff wants to tank (not to mention no players on any team in the history of sports).
The owner may see the long term benefit, but everyone else is too concerned with their own careers - which might end abruptly due to said "tanking". (Which by the way, didn't happen in 2011 either. It was simply "losing" - big difference.)
To the question - with the exception of a franchise QB (which the Colts presumably already have), there is no such thing as an NFL player worth losing for in the first place.
-
As much as I like Peyton and even Luck, I'll go old school, Mr. Joe Cool himself, Joe Montana.
Funny how perspective varies. Montana doesn't seem remotely "old school" to me.
-
im surprised no one has chosen mr.comeback himself john elway
You mean Mr (third on the 4th qtr list behind Peyton) Comeback. Yup - he'd be a good choice as well.
-
The guy that has mad a living doing it...........Tom Brady. Manning would throw and interception.
Right - just like how the 2006 AFC Champ game played out.................
-
As others have said, not likely at all. His ypc is the stat that sets him apart, but that's only going to drop from here if history is any indication. He's had two spectacular seasons, and the other five he's averaged 1251 yards. Unlike a QB, what makes him spectacular isn't going to improve with age.
Smith was well ahead of him at this point, and had three more solid years left before turning to hanging on seemingly for the sole purpose of setting the career rushing mark. If Peterson has three more 1251 yard years, that would leave him 4,488 yards away as his age 32 season started. Few backs put up that much in an entire career. The question is whether he has another 1,100 or more rushes in him at that point, and whether any team in this day and age would be willing to offer him the opportunity.
I think that the only way that he breaks it is if he truly can defy the reality of life in the NFL, and average (for example) 1,500 for the next four years - which might put him close enough that some team might be willing to put up with him for 2-3 more years for the publicity involved in setting the record. So he just needs to spend his early 30s playing like Edge in his prime - in a league that considers RBs to be disposable commodities. I'd say
probably not happening. -
He definitely could but he probably wont. Think the same thing applies to Manning with the all time passing yards record.
Peyton only needs 26 more games at his career average per game (more like 20 at last years pace).
I think that the probability is far higher that he soundly breaks the record - and probably all four major career passing marks
By the way, it should take him about 1/2 a season to break the TD record.
-
Cant believe no primetime vs redskins
One minor storyline does not a good game make.
-
Brady has only married once ....
And is still married...
I was just teasing AM - as I'm sure she knows. Thus the "
".I have negligible interest in the private life of either QB. It was obviously an allusion to his famously changing partners in a manner that infuriated gossip column devotees around the country, but the reality is that I'm more likely to be infuriated by the fact that gossip columns exist in the first place than by the details contained therein. It's a waste of precious brain space.
-
Perhaps there's something to those Brady comparisons after all. -
The PLAYERS union wants the limitations on off-season work because they want their members to have the right to lay on the beach for a couple of months without worrying about it damaging their competitive position within the team.
Peyton wasn't mandated to appear in Denver, nor did the team sneak in an extra full-squad scrimmage to get a leg up on the league. This is about Peyton - who you couldn't get to stop working unless you knocked him unconscious - talking football with a college coach. It was just fine when several Broncos recently spoke the the Duke coach and practiced in their facility. The only difference here is that Gase came along.
Does anyone imagine that Peyton was required to attend by Gase, or that he was "coached" in any way, shape or form? Does anyone imagine that any QB in the league doesn't keep in touch with their OC throughout the year? How do you control this exactly? If Gase is instead in the next room with a speaker phone, or if they each speak to Saban separately is it within the rules? How about if they vacation in the same place and bump into each other in the hotel lobby?
Penalizing them for this would be akin to the police - asked to pick up a witness to a mugging who failed to appear in court - slamming them face-first into the pavement, shackling them, and then interrogating them until they needed to be hospitalized. You need to be keep in mind why something is "illegal" in the first place. If Peyton wants to spend his off-season learning more about his craft, or if Brady wants to spend his entire off-season in BB's den watching video, WHO CARES. The agreement was designed to protect your backup running back from being pressured into scrimmaging all spring out of fear for losing his roster spot, not to keep Peyton from teaching Nick Saban how to play offense.
-
So he was arguing on the phone while sitting in a traffic jam, when a police officer arrested him for something along the lines of "failing to cow-tow sufficiently". I don't see any mention of an actual crime. Maybe they released him for good reason.
Don't get me wrong, co-operating with the police is essential to an ordered society, but unless he actually did something illegal, there is no rational reason that it couldn't be resolved at the scene.
-
You sound like you work for them.
If “DeskSite is essentially designed to operate as a DVR for the Internet”, and promises that you can "Watch videos even when you are offline", doesn't that suggest that instead of streaming what you want, when you want it (as is normal), it's instead downloading everything that it hopes you might want, when you don't want it, in the background? How else could they promise that?
Sounds like the price of watching Colts videos whenever you want without lag is to have sporadic and unpredictable interference to EVERYTHING else that you ever use the computer for, with a massive commitment of hard drive space. And do advertisements come along with for the ride?
That's offensively intrusive, and perhaps they should make it a little clearer in the promo. Thanks, but no thanks.
-
Whether failing to pay college athletes seems "right", "wrong", "fair", or "unfair" is completely irrelevant. The issue is that paying college athletes is completely untenable.
Open this "box", and you are voting to completely eliminate college sports - period. No more BCS. No more March Madness. Vast decrease in preparation for Olympic sports. And for what purpose or gain exactly?
Am I supposed to feel pity for the thousands of kids pulled out of poverty every year and offered a free opportunity to change the entire course of they and their families lives? It is NOT a job, it's an opportunity that an awful lot of much smarter people simply can't afford - and all they have to do to obtain it is exercise and play a game. My heart bleeds for them.
I don't think that too many college tennis players or wrestlers lie awake at night grumbling about the fact that they aren't getting paid - they are just happy to be there. What happens to them when their sports are eliminated? The ones complaining about money are likely the ones who expect to get to the pros. They consider themselves to be hired guns that the school is lucky to have, not students. If they don't like it, they are free to leave school and go work at McDonalds. At least they won't have to worry about having money for food there.
As NCF expressed, the image of fat-cat colleges wallowing in free cash is miss-leading and miss-guided. It's a career path for some overly well paid coaches, and some administrators likely work with the selfish goal of perpetuating their own existence, but we are essentially talking about non-profit organizations who provide an essential function to our society. Worst case scenario (or perhaps best case scenario) - the schools obtain a few extra million a year that they use to offset their vast budgets involving educating "our" next generation, and doing research that often changes the world. People act as if this is some form of slavery. I doubt that the millions who can't afford a college education see it that way.
I would change the system from the other direction. The kids are students first, and nothing should interfere with that. Certainly not training or practice. They don't like "working" so many unpaid hours - vastly reduce them. No organized activities when the school is out of session. No more in school work than you would see with a reasonable part-time job. The athletic programs are hyper competitive, and I'm sure the massive schools forget their mission in the process. The coaches think that it IS a professional environment. Change it - but don't pay the students. This will reduce the development of the athletes and the quality of the play, but so what - they are there to get an education. Let the pro-leagues set up PAID off-season training and scrimmage programs, if not actual minor leagues. I'm not talking about drafting them early, I'm talking about the leagues investing money to develop talent to benefit the league at a whole down the road. No one cares if they get paid working a conventional job during the off-season, so why should anyone care if they get paid a lot more money to do something that they are skilled at. But the COLLEGES shouldn't pay them, and alumni sure as hell shouldn't pay them, but this idiocy about a free donut costing them their amateur status is absurd. Who cares about "amateur" status, what does that even mean at this point now that the Olympics sold out. Let them earn whatever they can earn, just not for playing sports at a college.
However, any injury sustained by any college athlete should be completely the responsibility of the college. Frankly it never occurred to me that it wasn't already. And colleges should pay for group disability insurance as well. And insurance companies should be encouraged to provide "free" insurance for top prospects who decide to risk their health by staying in school. BIG premiums coming out of the first pro contracts of those who make it, payouts to those whose pro careers are derailed by injury, but no cost otherwise. A kid shouldn't get paid for going to school, but he shouldn't pay a price for doing so either. A little common sense could go a long way.
-
Didn't the Broncos play Seattle and SF in the pre-season last year, too
I wonder if they avoid cross country trips for fake games
I think it is for travel sake. The Pats play the teams from the NFC East every year in the preseason - Redskins, Eagles and sometimes Giants just to save on the travel. The only other option would be for them to play their division opponents and I def. don't want that in the preseason. But I get your point. It only happens every four years anyways. What is awesome about this season is that it worked out that the two teams that played in the Super Bowl are playing each other because the West is playing the West. That is great for the game and for the fans as I expect a much more competitive game then the Super Bowl. At least I hope so anyways. Someone has to shut Sherman up. ;)
I'm sure you're both right. I know that the Colts always play the Bengals, though frankly I've assumed that an effort to bring meaning through rivalry to an otherwise silly game was the motive. I can't say that I've ever paid attention to who anyone else plays in the preseason.
I think that one reason that didn't pop into my head is that SF and Seattle aren't all that close to Denver. Of course there isn't a heck of a lot thats IS close to Denver. Arizona and St Louis (who they apparently played last year) are actually closer. Heck, the Colts, Vikings and Titans (amongst others) aren't much farther. I guess you have to look at it from the perspective of who's close to poor Seattle and SF.
-
I don't think it makes a difference one way or another. As you said, it is meaningless. Neither team will play their starters more than a series or two. The first two pre season games both teams will be looking at the players who might or might not make the team.
True - but last years pre-season game against the Seahawks was held up as being meaningless until the moment it appeared to be prescient. I just don't want to hear it.
The pregame buildup coming off the super bowl will be irritating enough once, much less twice. I'd like to see the "revenge":matchup during the season. Having a meaningless game between the two events is just plain wierd.
-
The game is meaningless, but it would be nice if they made an effort to avoid having teams facing the same teams in the preseason that they do in the regular season. It's a big deal that the Broncos face both the Seahawks and 49ers in the regular season. Having them back to back in the preseason does nothing good for anyone that I can think of.
Well with the Warner Brothers merger that subsidiary would probably be
.
: I REALLY thought that you were slipping into a "who's on first" moment for a moment.
probably not happening.
".
Perhaps there's something to those Brady comparisons after all.
Would you trade for Brock Osweiler?
in NFL General
Posted
The Curtis Painter references are completely nonsensical.
Painter was drafted 201st in a draft that featured the following:
1 1 Matthew Stafford QB Georgia Detroit Lions 1 5 Mark Sanchez QB USC New York Jets 1 17 Josh Freeman QB Kansas State Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2 44 Pat White QB West Virginia Miami Dolphins 4 101 Stephen McGee QB Texas A&M Dallas Cowboys 5 151 Rhett Bomar QB Sam Houston State New York Giants 5 171 Nate Davis QB Ball State San Francisco 49ers 6 174 Tom Brandstater QB Fresno State Denver Broncos 6 178 Mike Teel QB Rutgers Seattle Seahawks 6 196 Keith Null QB West Texas A&M St. Louis Rams 6 201 Curtis Painter QB Purdue Indianapolis Colts
Osweiller was drafted 57th in a draft that featured:
1 1 Andrew Luck QB Stanford Indianapolis Colts 1 2 Robert Griffin QB Baylor Washington Redskins 1 8 Ryan Tannehill QB Texas A&M Miami Dolphins 1 22 Brandon Weeden QB Oklahoma State Cleveland Browns 2 57 Brock Osweiler QB Arizona State Denver Broncos 3 75 Russell Wilson QB Wisconsin Seattle Seahawks 3 88 Nick Foles QB Arizona Philadelphia Eagles 4 102 Kirk Cousins QB Michigan State Washington Redskins 6 185 Ryan Lindley QB San Diego State Arizona Cardinals 7 243 B.J. Coleman QB Tennessee-Chattanooga Green Bay Packers 7 253 Chandler Harnish QB Northern Illinois Indianapolis Colts
The only thing Osweiler and Painter have in common is Peyton. A much better comparison to Painter would be Harnish. Anyone who actually expects either one of them to ever come remotely close to being a franchise QB clearly has no knowledge of where franchise QBs come from. You can only "develop" so much. This is one of the reasons that I defend Painter, because people talk about him as if he was a "bust" without noting that he seriously out performed most of the QBs drafted before him.
Osweiler in contrast was drafted ahead of a pro-bowl alternate and a super bowl winner - both of whom are already considered by many to be franchise quarterbacks - and he's two years YOUNGER than either.
He's also a few months younger than Savage, only a year older than Bortles, and is physically bigger than either one. He's vastly more mentally stable than Manziel yet reasonably mobile, and lacks some of the unpleasant question marks attached to others. He just hasn't played much for one reason and one reason only - Peyton. NONE of the QBs drafted in 2012 - or perhaps EVER for that matter - would have seen the field in that circumstance either.
In other words, I keep hearing that this is a pretty questionable (if not lousy) QB class. The potential of any given pick always seems enormous. Then you attach a name to it and realize you're stuck with Mark Sanchez or JaMarcus Russell. It's perfectly reasonable to think that Osweiler might be as good a prospect (and/or a safer bet) than anyone coming out this year. He might be worth MORE than a swap of first round picks to the right team. Who knows - certainly not any of us.
I'm not defending the kid as if I'm a fan of his - I've hardly even seem him play because preseason bores me to tears. However he clearly has some value, and I'd LOVE to see the Broncos trade him. It's not like I want to see him play for the Broncos. That only happens the same moment my interest in the team drops off a cliff.