LinvilleGorge

Economic studies have shown that public spending on stadium projects is a terrible "investments" and essentially amounts to a handout to billionaires. Something feels extremely grifty about the numbers involved too. Jerryworld cost $1.4B to build in '04 and was considered wildly extravagant at the time. The Falcons' new stadium cost $1.6B. You're telling me you need $1.2B just to RENOVATE our current stadium? I call BULLSHIT.

As if there isn't more than enough evidence already to show that he's a mythical 30 foot anaconda?

Yeah, what intrigued me about Wilson was basically the polar opposite of Bryce Young. Wilson had that hose and the ability to throw ropes on the run. The guy had extremely intriguing arm talent.

Yeah, a good buddy of mine in HS was wild and crazy as hell but good as gold. Like a wild man who'd do anything on a dare but had a good heart. Anyway, I got a call when I was a sophomore in college that Danny had been in a car wreck. Well, no poo. That's like a weekly occurrence. No, this one's bad. He'd gone airborne and snapped a telephone pole on half basically with his skull. He survived but he just wasn't the same person. Probably cost him 30 IQ points and he had minimal control over his emotions. He had a hair trigger temper that just didn't exist prior to the accident. He didn't have a mean bone in his body before that. Take that and add millions of dollars and you get the current version of Antonio Brown.

I honestly can't remember any talk of him being crazy before that.

I want 10 wins. 10-7 with competent QB play from our rookie clearly shows me we're going the right direction.

Is it half the size of a normal one?

They're sweet as can be, but damn those heart issues. Hope yours live long and happy.

Is that a King Charles Spaniel?

I'm saying it validates what I always said about that class. It's a fairly standard QB class and everyone was acting like it was atrocious because it lacked guys who were viewed as elite top tier prospects. An atrocious class wouldn't have 3-4 guys expected to start in year two. That fanbase and locker room in DC will revolt if Brissett starts over Howell

Which coincides perfectly with what I said about last year's QB class. It stacked up pretty much on par with recent history outside of having any guys considered slam dunk top tier prospects. Which of those descriptions seems more accurate with 3-4 guys likely to start in year two? What I said or "atrocious"? The NFL undervalued that class.

How many teams starting second year QBs are ever considered contenders? 3-4 QBs penciled in as starters going into the second season is pretty damn good.

I treating it's still considered an "atrocious" QB class when there are at least three QBs drafted last year who are almost certainly going to be starting this year and quite possibly four depending on what the Pats do with Mac Jones.

It looks like it's eyes are starting to open. It's up to 200g now. Almost doubled in weight.

Yeah, this.

It's just physics, man. It's all velocity, mass, energy, and bullet type. If we're talking FMJs then they don't expand, period. If we're talking about an expandable, hollow point type of bullet them they're all going to expand in a human sized target. There's a lot of mythology around the .223/5.56 round but if it was true the military wouldn't be moving away from it to a larger, more powerful round despite the ammo capacity reducing weight penalty that comes along with that move. You see this type of mythology in the long range shooting world. Guys absolutely convinced there's something magical about 6.5mm projectiles that allows them to have a flatter trajectory. No, there just happens to be a lot of heavy for caliber, low ballistic coefficient bullets commercially available in that caliber. There's nothing magical about that specific diameter of projectile.

It seems like people have been fleeing Michigan for years. I swear there was a time about a decade ago in CO when every third person you met had just moved here from Michigan.

The physics of ball flight change from college to the NFL? We're talking about tracking the ball here.

Yeah, I think the only folks moving, selling, and buying right now are folks that have to due to a relocation or they're fleeing from an area of higher cost of living to an area with lower cost of living. Moves within the same area looking for an upgrade or something like that just don't make much sense right now.

This is a complete myth. The .223/5.56 round is one of the weaker modern centerfire rifle rounds available. Interesting historical note: the AR-15 actually predates the M-16. If you're comparing the .223/5.56 to typical gunshot wounds seen in America (almost always handguns) then yes, the .223/5.56 is far more damaging. That's simply because rifle rounds pack a lot more velocity and energy. But compare the .223/5.56 to other rifles typically found in American gun safes (pick your flavor - .308, .30-06, .243, .270, whatever, think typical "deer rifles") and those rounds create a LOT more damage than the .223/5.56. There's a reason why the military is moving away from that round to a larger diameter, heavier bullet round despite the weight penalty that will mean soldiers will be able to carry less ammunition in the field. They need a round that does more damage. If you want to ban the AR-15 on the rationale of the damage the round causes you are in effect arguing to ban all modern centerfire rifles because the vast majority do a lot more damage than the .223/5.56.

Because you either cannot or will not acknowledge the reality that these firearms can be modified to be compliant. That's on you. It seems to me that you just want blanket bans on no actual functional basis. If you take your non-compliant firearm and modify it to be compliant, what's the problem? I have moved zero goal posts. I have been perfectly logically consistent. I said from the beginning that I support banning high capacity detachable magazines. Period. You just thought you were going to be able to convince me that means that I support blanket banning a bunch of firearms based on this sole attribute. I support requiring those firearms to be modified to be compliant. That's where we differ. No. I will not support an "assault rifle" ban because it focuses on a lot of irrelevant features. Focus on the feature that makes this class of firearms particularly deadly in mass shooting scenarios. Drop all the other BS.

Might wanna go back and watch his college games.

We can definitely be creative about getting the ball in his hands in space in multiple ways but I wouldn't give up on developing him as a legit WR just yet.

It's exasperating to me that you're confused. I said I'm ok with banning high capacity removable magazines. In your opinion that means that AR-15s are banned. Forget AR-15s. Use a Mini-14, whatever. All of those weapons can be retrofitted to be made compliant with banning high capacity removable magazines. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Give me 3500+ yards with 25+ TDs and a 2:1+ TD:INT ratio with 10+ wins and I'm as happy as I can be.