Kinda_Dante

Members
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    664

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Kinda_Dante

  2. Posted · Report post

    36 minutes ago, Cawtious said:

    Stanley is the second most talented based on what, exactly?  I will believe that to be so when I see him against the best the NFL has to throw at him.  He's definitely talented, but I don't know if I'd hand him that already JMHO.  He's got the potential.......

    I completely agree he has all the talent in the world but we need to be cawtious :rimshot:

    2

  3. Posted · Report post

    8 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

    Needed a LT bad, and seeing some of the guys that went before him, like Oher (no offense) felt he was a steal at this point. I know hes got a bad rep around here, and injuries are definitely a concern, but if healthy he's definitely better than several guys taken ahead of him.

    He was definitely one of the option I was considering when I took Okung

    0

  5. Posted · Report post

    1 minute ago, berad said:

     

    Don't want to get too pumped up or raise expectations too high but it's got that same feeling as when Steve Smith came here. Who knows? I'm just excited.

    Yea I definitely feel like it's the exact same signing but for our defense. Even if he doesn't get a lot of picks himself I feel like he'll have everyone in the right place to create turnovers.

    0

  7. Posted · Report post

    5 hours ago, usmccharles said:

    I was discussing this with my friend is an avid Broncos fan and we were debating on if its worth it to pay a defensive player that much money.  Miller is no doubt a beast, but unlike a QB he cant consistently win games by himself.  As we are seeing when a player gets his big pay day, other players have to leave, usually its the QB who gets the big pay day though.  Thoughts?

     

     

    My argument is if you Flacco goes down for the season and Von Miller goes down for the season which team wins more games?

    0

  8. Posted · Report post

    10 hours ago, usmccharles said:

    Just not a fan of those redundant type shows,.never really was big into comedy series, other than the office and seinfeld of course.   Or maybe just Scrubs never interested me.   

    I don't think I've ever met anyone that didn't end up liking scrubs after watching it.

    0

  9. Posted · Report post

    1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

    He probably wants more guaranteed money. Personally, if I'm a player, I don't care how much I can earn because you're probably not gonna earn even half of that; I'm worried with the guaranteed money because that's money I know I will definitely see.

    I mean I get that but I think even flacco has like 44m guaranteed how much more can he want?

    0

  17. Posted · Report post

    7 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

    I'm sure some of it could be that, for me, its logic.  Just from the article i posted we have 1200+ planets and a possible 4000+ more.  All taken into account the Kepler can see about .25% of whats out there.  Just using laymen math, averaging that out you come up with around 2,040,000 planets out there (head math, could be wrong).  And i also think that is low-balling it. 

    I am not suggesting that there is another planet out there where their population is watching tv and online looking at cats, but i have no issue believing that there is a civilization out there that may be very well developed in different ways, I think of something like the movie K-PAX.  Also, doesnt mean there isnt a bunch of cavemen out there starting where we did. 

    Yea that's basically what it is for me as well, there can't be that many planets and no other life forms.

    0

  22. Posted · Report post

    10 hours ago, flynismo said:

    Interesting, until you spend a minute to think it through and realize the total implausibility of an ancient civilization of humans more intelligent than modern civilization. We would have found artifacts with little to no effort showing their advanced state...think of the mundane things we take for granted -- electricity, cars/highways, power tools, skyscrapers, flight, etc...those remnants would be easily discoverable; obvious even.

    So it brings us full circle to the original question -- how did they accomplish their engineering feats when they were far behind us in terms of technological advancement?

    Yea, but what if they didn't need any of those things? What if we have found artifacts and just assumed they were for other purposes but were actually more advanced than we give them credit for. Again not saying I agree just kind of playing devil's advocate.

    0