beanfigger

Still a long way away, but at least we're making the Caps work for it. Imagine if we get more than ELEVEN shots next game.

Not possible, I guess.

2 hours ago, Cville-Raven said:

Lucas wrote the movie so if what your suggesting was the case than he sabotaged himself with his awful directing . Although most of the dialogue is pretty bad so I don't really know which Lucas is more to blame, writer Lucas or director Lucas?

I think the acting/directing is more to blame for THAT scene, but like I said, there is nothing great about the writing.

1 hour ago, sflegend89 said:

The Elliott to Dallas buzz is exciting. Can't wait for draft day, we're getting a stud any way you look at it, I just feel like we're going to hit our first 2 picks out of the park

Toying with my emotions. Is it real, or is it like Jones really wants Manziel, but they still take Martin ahead of us? Maybe it's they will take Elliot over Bosa if SD takes Ramsey.

13 hours ago, ludy51 said:

Getting my learners permit in a little over 3 short months.

I'm kind of terrified

So are the other drivers.

16 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

@52520Andrew I'll up the ante. If Jalen Ramsey happens to fall to us at 6, I'll use the avatar I hand selected for you. 

And I'll use it if I get struck by lighting three times before lunch. Seems like more of a risk.

I think the sand quote is more a metaphor of how people that didn't like the movie felt about the movie, rather than, "I don't like the movie just because he said that."

Also, that whole blurb defending the quote and scene is all well and good, and that's great subtext by the writer if that is what was intended, but none of that matters if the direction and acting cannot convey that message in the shot. The writer can only do so much on the page, but there are many more people responsible for bringing that vision to a satisfying light for the audience.

The writing was not excellent for that movie, but I don't think it was the biggest factor in why that particular scene was laughable.

1 hour ago, 52520Andrew said:

Yeah I kinda figured you were, I was just trying to have fun with it but alright

There's really nothing fun about math. C'mon.

2 hours ago, 52520Andrew said:

But you accounted for the overlap when you said there was a 2% chance that two prospects would be there. The chance that Bosa and Jack being there according to your probabilities is 40.5% which is quite a lot greater than 2%

I know how the math works. I was exaggerating, and I knew someone would jump on it and take it literally, but I didn't want to just put a super low number for all the non-Bosas, even though that's what I believe.

And I do hope you realize your original post about it equaling 100 is still wrong.

2 hours ago, 52520Andrew said:

Well the probabilities you have listed can't all be true so as long as you understand that my work is done

There's overlap. It's an exaggeration, but it has to be more than 100 because they aren't exclusive.

51 minutes ago, 52520Andrew said:

That moment you realize that these probabilities don't add up to 100%  

They're not supposed to.

.0001% chance Ramsey is available to us. He's in play for each of the three picks ahead of us, and I guarantee he's number one on Dallas's board.

5% chance Tunsil is available. Maybe that's stingy, but I think he's getting the hype for a reason. I'd be shocked if both SD and Jax pass on him.

45% chance Jack is available. I think he's number one on Jax board if Tunsil and Ramsey are gone, but I could be wrong.

90% chance Bosa is available.

2% chance we actually have a choice between two of the above.

I guess I've resigned myself to believing Bosa will be the BPA for us.

4 minutes ago, SammyG said:

Although I don't think it's likely, if you truly wanted Elliot you would have to jump Dallas, and San Diego wants to trade out, so who knows! Dallas might even then trade out!

Nah, if Dolphins move to three for Elliot, Dallas turns in their Ramsey pick two seconds later.

5 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

Matt Miller is reporting that teams believe there's no way Ramsey makes it past Dallas. 

That's a guarantee. They'd have to trade their pick for him to go past four. 

7 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

The Dolphins are said to really want him, so I'd expect them to strongly consider moving up a bit. 

Hopefully, they move to three or four. Give us chance at Ramsey, and greatly increase the odds of Tunsil slipping to us.

8 minutes ago, Dame2 said:

Let's say SD take Ramsey and Dal take Bosa the Jags can still take Tunsil 

I'm well aware of this. I would still be expecting him to go before us (perhaps via another trade), but there's a chance he slips to us. I really believe there is not a realistic chance Ramsey slips. Of course, I would be ecstatic if I were wrong about that, and given the trades that have already happened, anything's possible, I guess.

1 minute ago, SammyG said:

Actually that isn't quite true. Walter football says Dolphins want to move up badly for Elliot at 3 maybe????

If that actually happens, I will travel everywhere via backflip for weeks.

Chargers might as well bring their guy in for offseason workouts with the team at this point. They hit the jackpot and virtually vaulted up to number one. It'd be nice for the rest of us if they started tipping their hand a bit so we know what to expect.

3 minutes ago, PolishRifle said:

I feel alot of the people, who say that, just don't want the Ravens to pick a LT. Just a question: Would you want them (the Ravens) to take Tunsil? Because I think, that outside of Ramsey, Tunsil would be the best possible pick for Baltimore.

I think I might agree with your top 2. I really want to believe there's a chance at Ramsey, but I highly doubt he lasts past four. It's almost be better if SD takes him, which would give us a slight chance at Tunsil. If SD take Tunsil, we get neither.

9 minutes ago, RaineV1 said:

After the trade I'm thinking:
1. Goff
2. Wentz
3. Ramsey or Tunsil
4. Bosa (especially have Lawrence getting busted)
5. Ramsey or Jack (Jack being the second option)

That leaves the Ravens with Tunsil (if the Chargers don't select him), Jack, or trading down if someone offers us a future first and a group of pics for this draft for Tunsil or a QB.

I still believe Ramsey is number one on Dallas' board. He won't get past them.

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And my point is:

1. In my judgment, its not anywhere near as much of a factor as fans think it was 

2. Most importantly, how do we measure whether it was even a factor? What evidence is there to suggest that we win more games with a more favorable schedule? Hence, my most recent post. You look at what we do when our schedule is favorable, and its completely unimpressive and really didn't show much deviation from our performance under a non-favorable schedule.

As such, if we can't see barely any significant differences in production from a favorable vs non favorable schedule... how does somebody arrive at the conclusion that a less favorable schedule was a factor in our total outcome?

We have an inkling that injuries played a roll later in the season, and likely that quantity of opponent played a role, but scheduling? I don't see it.

In my judgement, it was a factor. Performance was the main factor, injuries second, then schedule. The injuries started to pile up just as the schedule lightened up. I honestly believe that with a healthy Joe, Steve, Justin, etc. we win against Jax and Mia, which puts us on a huge winning streak right in the middle of the year, and who knows what happens after that. They were healthy during a nearly unprecedented start to the season schedule-wise in the NFL, and it can't simply be dismissed because that type of start to a team's season doesn't just happen all the time with historic basis to prove it has no effect on a team. I believe it did, and it seems obvious to me that it did. We were one play away from winning all those games (actually, tying the game against Ari, winning the rest), and to me it seems very likely that without the back-and-forths across the country and different city every week schedule that we might have made at least some of those plays.

I love dressing up, but it isn't natural for me. I have always needed more "functional" clothing for work. I don't spend time shopping for clothes or picking out outfits each day. I wear whatever is on top in the drawer and am mostly clothed in last birthday/Christmas/other gifts.

When I do dress up, it makes a bigger impression because I'm rarely seen that way.

20 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

 

Again, all circles back to a talent/production issue far more than a scheduling one.

I would never, and have never, argue(d) with that. Has nothing to do with the points I made. The schedule wasn't the reason we were bad, but it was a factor, and it was a very unlucky set up. That's all. You pointing to other reasons we struggled doesn't apply to this.

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

OK, but nobody can infer that we would have somehow been a better off team if we had a "balanced" schedule based on any sort of factual information. You can make a guess that's the case, but that's all it is... a guess. In my opinion, its sort of a baseless guess.

My inference that we wouldn't be a better team with a balanced schedule is based on the fact that we weren't a better team when we had a favorable schedule. 

So the fact that we had a better record in the second half of the season with backups than we did with starters in the first half means nothing?

I want Ramsey badly, but if the Cowboys don't trade out, they will sprint to the podium with their Ramsey card if he's available to them.