England v Pakistan at Lords, day 3 (Saturday & Sunday).
Monaco F1 GP Qualifying (Saturday afternoon)
Monaco F1 GP (Sunday)
Indianapolis 500 (Sunday)
If you could only watch 3 of those, what three, & why?
These are probs the only things I'm watching, although might flick the footy on at some stage.
If I had to lose one, it's a flip between Cricket and Indy. Indy on the basis that I don't properly follow the entire championship, and England/Pakistan test with England being pretty poor to watch atm and Pakistan having a 180 odd run lead after the first innings, if I had to pick 3 I'm probably not missing much by not watching the rest of the test. However Babar Azam injury does makes it a bit more interesting with Pakistan being down a batsman if they have to chase anything decent in the 4th innings.
Sigh. Had to be really. Chargers going to make us pay. Bosa and Gordon up front, James in the back.
Have a bad feeling we're going to take a WR in the 2nd round and neglect the defense, and picking a Tackle ahead of Edmunds and James hasn't done anything to convince me otherwise.
Thought we'd grab one in the 3rd/4th round but putting up 30 points a game will sell season tickets in Vegas - we've got rid of Crabtree, Nelson is 33, and we're probably letting Seth Roberts walk in a year, so we need someone to pair with Cooper in the long term who can be our #3 receiver then start in a couple of years.
EDIT: About 5 seconds after I hit the "post" button we get Martavis Bryant from the Steelers for our #75 pick. Like that move a lot tbf. Now PLEASE pick a defensive player at #41.
The new rule change regarding lowering the head sounds like a potential recipe for disaster next season, especially as it could lead to player ejections if deemed 'flagrant'.
Based on wording alone, it's going to encompass all sorts of regular plays, so will hopefully be subject to a great deal of clarification.
If you're cut blocking and leading with the crown of your helmet, you're doing it wrong - Even from halfback where you see them 'attack' the line of scrimmage as QB drops back to pick up a free blitzer, you don't (or shouldn't) use your head in the block at all. Shoulder between knee and hip height, head outside, roll through so that your weight takes them to the ground and stay high enough that they can't just step over you to make you miss the block and have a free run at the QB.
I reckon they'll make the QB sneak exempt from this, or just turn a blind eye to it, because they kinda have to. It's hard to get the same forces in a collision at the line of scrimmage when the MLB/DT and QB are 2-3 yards apart pre-snap just because of not accelerating to full speed. If they start throwing flags on 4th & 1 against either a diving QB or a linebacker making a hit, it's going to become a problem for the league's popularity real fast, especially as they'll be inconsistent calls because QB sneaks naturally end up being a complete mess and the side judges' views will be blocked by guards and tackles.
The 'Flagrant' line has been in the NFL rulebook for ages in regards to unsportsmanlike conduct, personal fouls etc, but Odell Beckham stayed in the game with Josh Norman a couple of years back and Gronkowski's hit on Tre'Davious White didn't get an ejection either, even though both were flagged ingame and were about as flagrant as you can get. The refs are super reluctant to eject anyone and I don't see that changing except in cases where a helmet hit starts a fight or something.
To me, it reads more like a half arsed effort at rewriting the targeting rule and not using the word "targeting", and I doubt they enforce it most of the time because it's been so unpopular at college level with fans. If there's more than one or two extra ejections as a result of this rule next season, I'll be surprised.
- Brady - Gurley - Donald - Wentz - Brown - Bell - Gronk - Wilson - Campbell - Brees
Someone else?
Brady - Probably between Brady and Gurley IMO. Wentz - I can't see it happening because of the injury counting against him, but it wouldn't be a total shock either. Wilson - With the demise of the Legion of Boom, lack of running game and terrible O-Line, I can see the case for Wilson being MVP, because they're probably a 3-13 team this year without him. However, he needs to make the playoffs, and even then it's hard to overlook performances such as the game against Jacksonville. Brees - Could be argued that he's not even been the MVP of the Saints this year when they've got two backs who will almost certainly reach 3,000 yards from scrimmage between them. He's had a good season, but not an MVP season. Gurley - Definitely in the conversation, not only for his statistical contribution but for how that also assists the development of Jared Goff. We could potentially look back in fifteen years at Jared Goff's career and wonder where he would've gone if it wasn't for Todd Gurley this season. Last season, Goff looked like a guy who could be out of the league within three years. Bell - Don't think he's the best player on the team this year. Also don't think he's been better than Gurley. Gronk - Availability will always be an issue for him, and I think his 1 game suspension will count against him much more than any injury. Brown - Belongs in the conversation for certain. Like Wentz, injury might cost him. Donald - DPOTY perhaps. Won't get the love he deserves because he's a defensive tackle for MVP. Maybe in the outside shot group. Campbell - There's more chance of Jason Campbell winning it. He's had a good season, but so have AJ Bouye and Jalen Ramsay, so how much of their respective performances are down to which player? He's also played against Deshaun Watson Tom Savage, Andrew Luck Jacoby Brissett and Marcus Mariota who hasn't looked the same since his injury last year. 9 out of 14.5 sacks this season were against Houston and Indy in blowouts against poor QBs. No sacks of Rivers in Week 10, Wilson in Week 14 or Garoppolo in Week 16, despite the Jags' secondary. I don't think you can run up big sack numbers against poor teams and poor QBs and be in the MVP discussion because of it. Pro Bowl, yes. MVP, no. I don't think he's even been the best DE this year - IMO that man is Everson Griffen.
When does Joffra qualify for England? He'll be a game changer for our pace attack, also proving a genuine threat of runs at 9. Speaking of , I thought Cummins batted beautifully today. Took 40 balls to get off the mark but, even then, he wasn't scratching around and panicking. Very classy technique.
"It would be a seven-year qualification to play for England, not complete until 2022-23 which at the speed he is developing would deny international cricket of a gifted cricketer for around four years, frustration no doubt for West Indies cricket."
One of the fans has bought a giant banner at Foxborough tonight with the FOX 28-3 score box on it, it's draped over the wall at the back of one of the end zones
They get hit in the head virtually every time they make a straight ahead run, yet seems to get less concuissions than players in other positions.
Just on the severity of the impact I think. Running flat out in to linemen is better than Earl Thomas/Ed Reed/Kam Chancellor turning themselves in to human missiles aimed ( more so in past) at your head. I guess we're still fairly early on in our understanding of it though. American Football has done well to take a bit of a lead on it but years of testing to come yet, they must all be damaging their brains really.
Played some running back in UK pre-season for local team, like February/March, so have some experience. Got switched to WR because our team was stacked at RB, and ended up only really playing special teams because the other rookies were better than me. Great fun though, 10/10 would recommend.
Some of it is speed when they make contact - Obviously a WR running over the middle of the field and getting nailed by the free safety who is also running at full speed is a much harder impact. When a collision happens between the running back and a linebacker or the safety who has snuck up into the box, the tackler doesn't start a million miles off the line of scrimmage either. Plus, the defender has to actually read the run play first before they start moving towards the running back, otherwise they're going to screw up in pass protection. Neither player gets close to full speed when a tackle occurs around the line of scrimmage.
On top of that, changing direction at the line of scrimmage is often going to slow a running back down - RBs are coached to avoid sharp direction changes and keep speed up, but you're usually going to have to turn at some point to avoid running into the back of your O-Line, and at least slow down a little bit to do so. There's sometimes traffic for the opposing player to get through to make the tackle as well, such as a TE or FB.
All of that means that neither player is close to full speed on a standard run play that goes for a gain of like 2-6 yards because there just isn't the time to accelerate fully, so the forces in the collision just aren't as big. Don't get me wrong, you still get hit pretty hard running inside, but it's more accumulation of hits over a game for running backs, rather than a particularly big hit.
Worth nothing that F=MV^2 - if you double the closing speed between two players, you quadruple the forces in the collision. So speed of collision is a huge factor
In addition, as a RB, you're constantly looking where the tacklers are coming from, because you carry the football away from tacklers to minimise the risk of fumbling (Then you put your other arm on the ball as you go into contact). For that reason, you're usually aware of where the hit is coming from, which helps because you can get your head out of the way and prepare for contact by getting yourself in a stronger position. When you're turning your head to catch a ball as a WR, you take your eyes off the defender(s), and you're not in any kind of body position to take a hit. Sometimes, you're either not expecting a hit, or have no idea where you're going to get hit from. From experience, getting blocked as you run down field on kickoffs is the absolute worst for that.
As a RB, you have to get your pad level low (low man wins), and therefore, you run quite low to the ground. As a WR, you run your route, then you might have to reach up to make a catch. If you get hit as you're making a catch, you're off balance, you're definitely hitting the floor, and from a much greater height. You see a lot of WRs getting concussions not from the tackle itself, but from where their helmet hits the ground. You don't see that with run plays all that often.
It doesn't affect anyone except the gender neutral.
The other 99.7% should mind their own business.
I don't think the bolded statement could possibly be more wrong.
There's the argument that "Hey, why are people wasting my tax money and their time on this when NHS/Housing/Education/Whatever is fucked?" on the basis that it either benefit more people and/or represents a better use of a limited amount of resources to use the money elsewhere - I don't agree with those people in this case as I think it's a conversation worth having, but we can't (and shouldn't) prevent people from having that opinion, because democracy.
If a gender neutral British tourist is harmed or perhaps killed as a direct consequence of identifying themselves as such on a passport - highly likely given LGBT tolerance in many countries still - clearly that affects far more than 0.3% of the population who are gender neutral if you think about it for more than a nanosecond. Concern for the safety of a gender neutral person abroad, and the consequences should anything happen to them, are valid concerns for anyone, not just those who identify as gender neutral.
Also, people minding their own business means that LGBT people who are binary would also not be entitled to a (likely supporting) opinion, even though it directly affects them as a change benefiting gender-neutral people increases the likelihood that future changes involve better treatment towards them in some way, too.
So no, the other 99.7% of people shouldn't be banned from expressing an opinion and told to 'mind their own business', irrespective of their views.
Think about reasons why this needs to be on a passport - Laws differ throughout the world, and some of those differ based on whether you are male or female. E.g. there are countries where men and women have a different age of consent. Indonesia's laws are not "According to your passport you're transgender, so you can pick and choose whether you're allowed to have underage sex based on whether you're feeling more masculine or feminine today". There are legitimate reasons why there are two options (Probably far better examples than the one I've given) and as I can't see places like Saudi Arabia rewriting their laws for equal treatment of men, women and everything in between any time soon, binary is necessary.
Quite frankly, you'd have to be an absolute moron to tick that box even if you were transgender and the option was provided, because of the rights you would be giving up in so many parts of the world. Pull your pants down and tick a box accordingly is the smart move - identifying as transgender on a passport will give you far more trouble than it's worth. You're literally volunteering to be discriminated against if you tick that box.
Commit a crime? Good luck when they chuck you in the men's part of a foreign prison if you're biologically female. Also, good luck being transgender and getting a fair trial in most parts of the world. Getting through customs? Guess who is going to get held up for hours on end when they see you ticked the "X" box. Visiting America? You'll probs get shot by a cop, just because. Going to the World Cup in Russia next year? Not any more.
So no, we shouldn't allow an "X" option. It already says "Sex" which is biological, thus binary, as opposed to "Gender" which is psychological. It's fine the way it is right now.
Obj broken ankle. That'll be him done for the season. With his team at 0-5 there's no point rushing him back
Their schedule doesn't get any easier either. They play the AFC West (Minus Chargers) and NFC West, plus 4 divisional games remaining. They've already lost to the Chargers. Tbh, the only winnable games I see there are Arizona and San Francisco, and both of those are road games across several timezones. The 49ers are pretty good for an 0-5 team, and the Cardinals might suddenly become a playoff contender just by picking up Adrian Peterson. Maybe we had the wrong New York team going 0-16 before the start of the season?
It'll be a miracle if Jerry Reese survives the season - For years, he has failed to do anything about the O-Line and lack of running game, and the current injury crisis is going to highlight that worse than ever.
If the Giants get a top pick, which looks very likely, surely they draft Eli's successor with that pick? Pick up some linemen in the next couple of rounds, let the rookie sit for a season while Eli takes a pounding behind a pair of rookies on a still poor OL before shipping him off somewhere else or sending him into retirement, then start the draft pick in 2019 when they've had two draft classes plus free agency to sort the OL out, and a year to get rid of some expensive veterans.
Bookies still have pats 9/2 favs what do we think?
Probably losing home advantage in the AFC to the Chiefs is significant, but it's still Brady and Belichick we're talking about here. As long as they don't go 0-2 vs Buffalo which would mean they have to win 3 games more than Buffalo with tiebreakers, then they'll still win the division. From there, I can't see many wildcard options that would scare New England if they even have to play a Wildcard game - The likes of Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Oakland, who are all probable WC opponents, are too flawed for Belichick to not just exploit their weakness defensively or make them one dimensional on offense - They all look like the kind of teams that get into the playoffs and end up one and done.
It's just having to play the Chiefs that is the big concern, and maybe the Texans if losing Watt doesn't hurt them too much and if nobody's found out how to stop Deshaun Watson by then. I'm not sure I'd have them as favourites over the Chiefs, but I don't think there's a whole lot in it because Belichick - They'll probs at least make their defense half decent by the time the playoffs come around, even if it still ends up being their biggest weakness. They don't need to become the 1985 Bears, just get Brady only needing to put up 28 points rather than 35+ in order to win, and they'll be okay.
The Chiefs are 15/2 with 10bet atm. If I wasn't a Raiders fan I'd be on that for sure It's difficult enough having to hate the Chiefs but also reluctantly enjoying Andy Reid being an absolute genius and having such an exciting offense, without putting money on them.
Show Posts
Will keep an eye on the thread/updates though, glgl.
, I thought Cummins batted beautifully today. Took 40 balls to get off the mark but, even then, he wasn't scratching around and panicking. Very classy technique.
