Jump to content

Todd Gack

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Todd Gack

  1. 10 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

    I must be the only person on this thread that believes Trump wins re-election if Sanders is who he’s up against. No offense to Sanders. And of course passionate democratic voter turnout could cause me to be completely wrong.

    Take FWIW, but even a fox poll has Bernie beating trump.  Not that polls are really trustworthy (link shows Biden beating him handily and I think trump would look like the stronger candidate in a debate), but I think Bernie brings back the voters who voted Obama and switched to trump.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

  2. 29 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting 4 against 11 is not a good defensive scheme?

    Give him the benefit of the doubt and say the 3 linebackers will hit the line right before the snap.  So 7 vs 11.  It's so genius, the Kansas OC will never see it coming.

  3. 5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    It's because she hasn't officially released a healthcare plan. That would make all the questions go away.  Seems pretty easy to do. 

     

     

     

    Did she not co-sponsor Bernie's bill?  What am I missing here?

  4. 7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    How do you buy this complete nonsense? 

     

    It's really the only explanation that makes sense.  If Liz and Bernie know that projections show M4A will actually save people money (as in the amount in additional taxes will be less than the current premiums/deductibles for the VAST majority of Americans), what other reason could they have for not articulating this to everyone watching these debates.  Might it be that some dickface on the trump campaign will clip the soundbite and broadcast through every media outlet that the socialist dems will in FACT raise your taxes to pay for the healthcare of all the dirty mexicans crossing illegally?  Remember the doctored clip of Jim Acosta "assaulting" the press room microphone lady?  Or shit, Hillary's deplorable comment if we want to see how it plays during a campaign?

  5. 3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    Scroll backwards until you get to the part where the Working Families Party executive board chose Warren and see the parades being thrown about how she's eating Bernie's lunch among progressives.

    But this? Nah this is pointless and meaningless and actually shows how pathetic Bernie is, if you think about it.

    lol

    Like the ACA, Wyden-Bennett would be a radical restructuring of the insurance market. There is transition to cost-controlled universal healthcare that is seamless or painless. Would you disagree? Do you think the transition to Wyden-Bennett (a plan no one is championing and is not being discussed by anyone except you) would be seamless/painless?

    Medicare is an existing program with an existing regulatory infrastructure. What M4A does is simply enroll everyone into it and expand its existing scope of services. The pricing structures are already in place.

    So I think I get why dem candidates avoid talking about the additional costs/taxes to pay for M4A, but have any of them addressed the type of expansion to the infrastructure that will be needed?  Additional staff, social security offices, a more robust cyber security system to avoid fraud to the system, etc.  Seems as if there's an opportunity to say that some jobs (albeit federal jobs only) will be created to offset the loss of jobs in the private insurance sector.  Unless the ratio of jobs lost to gained is ridiculously skewed like 50:1 or something. 

    Plus it may play well with the average Joe to point out that all those insurance execs making millions per year on the backs of sick Americans will soon be unemployed and have to sell their beach houses.

  6. 21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    Honest question: is this just a message board thing or are you consistently wrong all of the time in real life too?  Do you try to get into other people's cars by accident when leaving the grocery store?  Do you try to heat your food up by putting it in the washing machine?  Do you walk around all day with shoes on the wrong feet?  Just trying to paint a better picture of who I am dealing with here.

    I'm ashamed to admit that when several days pass with no board activity from the resident trumpkins, I start to hope that they've finally reached the point where they step back and do some introspection to figure out how they've managed to support and defend such a shit individual running a shit administration.  And then zavala will do his random drive-by video propaganda post, or onboard will see the virgin hillary in his tortilla and come back to scream about bengazi or the clinton foundation, or boxofhammers will tell us how all the climate models are wrong, and a little more of my faith in humanity dies.  Someday, I'll tell Lucy to just take her football and fuck off.... someday.

    • Like 6
  7. 19 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

    I’m sorry bullshittery like “shiny objects” and “pocket change” are poll tested zingers.

    They’re shitty and condescending.

    Pete started the back and forth with Beto calling his stance on buybacks a shiny object.

    I’m getting tired of Pete telling everyone what cannot be done because it’s too much.

    And the “pocket change” snark at Warren actually pisses me off more. It’s dismissive and snobby.

    That pocket change is out raising him and his LA fundraisers and $500 selfies.

    Take a seat eat a pussy, Pete.

    fify

  8. 12 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

     

    Know it's a joke but FUCK this bad karma shit for Kirko.  Dude helped us in WVU game, and hope he's healthy for rest of the season.

    Hook 'em  Kirko!!! 🤘

    I actually thought he hit the hole pretty hard on his first two runs.  He brings more of a punch than any other RB on the roster.

    • Like 1
  9. 1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    This is my new favorite kind of Trump tweet.

    At some point, someone obviously got it into his thick skull that that he can say whatever he wants on Twitter if he quotes one of his minions on Fox News, while having the "I was just quoting someone else!" defense should something ever get back to him.  But lately, since his brain is eating itself, I've noticed a number of tweets where he either forgets to tag the Fox personality, or simply just thinks that putting quotation marks around something is all he needs to do.  Stable genius.

    Forgot the close quote too.  Or did he intentionally add an open quote to confuse people?  4-D chess...

    • Like 1
  10. 1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

    it really isn't though.

    it's about her constantly avoiding answering the tax question.  bold ideas are not new in politics, but they're always followed up with "how are we going to pay for it".  someone as prepared as her knew this question was coming, and she's choosing not to answer it.  anyone questioning it, isn't a "mercenary" or a "republican".

    my concern is this - if liz is "with bernie" on m4a.  and bernie has already answered all the questions, and for obvious reasons, is far more battle-tested on it, then why hasn't liz just come out and answered it in similar fashion, with a similar answer?  the longer she goes without answering - even if she literally parrots bernie's answer - the longer people are going to think there's a reason behind it, and that she might pivot away from her "with bernie" positioning on it.

    i like liz a lot, but it's something i've thought about.  it won't make me like her less, but it's interesting.

    Couple things...

    I don't think she answers primarily to avoid giving right-wing ad companies the 0.5-sec clipped video of her saying "yes..." while cutting out the rest of the answer: "...damn near everyone's taxes will increase, BUT, you'll no longer pay for insurance through your employer and 90+% of all Americans will actually save money annually on health care."

    Secondly, I think she knows that all mainstream media outlets know exactly this, but they're being directed by the healthcare executives (via advertising dollars) to ask these questions framed in a certain way. That being, to make her simply say the word "yes" on video.

    • Like 1
  11. 7 minutes ago, Longhornmaniac8 said:

    A guy citing Spencer/Christy's work as the end-all, be-all of temperature records and criticizing others for making adjustments is just laughably hilarious.

    And then citing an article by Bjorn fucking Lomborg as an accurate authority on, well, anything. I should say he's great at being a contrarian.

    And then citing one single response to one of the 10 peer-reviewed papers that find >90% consensus among climate scientists as if it refutes it.

    It's really funny when people like @Thetexashammer pretend they know what they're talking about because they've done a little internet sleuthing.

    He's so stupid he doesn't even know what he doesn't know. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

    And the one response is an editorial from a guy (not a climatologist) who also wrote an article called "Coal is Clean".  This is after he laments that "there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation."  Jesus...

    I understand it's easy to think you're enlightened and above it all when you stay in your echo chamber and only ingest info from people who already agree with you.  But to then lecture everyone else about propaganda and manipulation is just too much cunty condescension to ignore.

    • Like 4
  12. 1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

    From an historical context, this is true but misleading. Increased temperature resulting from natural sources, particularly in geological time frames, causes large increases in greenhouse gases (carbon sources being released by the increased temperature). The releases in turn feed the temperature change, causing greater increase than would have occurred without the additional releases, at least until the Earth finds a new equilibrium. This is one of the reasons why human CO2 releases are so concerning and why scientist talk about climate change going beyond human control. Our releases cause temperature increases. Those increases will in turn cause further massive releases of greenhouse gasses, for instance methane from melting arctic ice, thereby causing further temperature changes. 

    This is what I've read as well - positive feedback.  What I don't get is the lack of explanation for basic physics from this hammer fellow.  If additional CO2 (whether it lags or leads temp) increases through positive feedback, which in turn causes more temperature increases, then land-locked ice will melt and sea levels will rise.  How is that controversial? 

  13. 13 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


    There are huge price distortions and it costs too fucking much, among other things.

    I'd argue that the core problem is that the richest country in the history of ever doesn't cover every person who gets sick when the health and longevity of the populace is a cornerstone of a well-functioning society.  If you believe healthcare is a right (I do), you should start there and then figure out how to pay for it.  Kinda like the way we did it with the bank bailouts.  Kinda like thousands of families all over the country who find out that their child has just been diagnosed with leukemia.  There is no decision to make, only strategies for how to cover the costs.

    The current problem with the "how to pay for it" discussion is that it's hard to even get a handle on what the academic research says.  The main study that Bernie cites is a somewhat Koch -funded study that shows M4A will save $2 trillion over 10 years.  Factcheck.org casts some doubt on that, as does the person who did most of the research.  It would be nice if the media dove deeper into these things.  But all things considered, other countries have figured this shit out, we should be able to as well.  

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

    • Like 1
  14. 18 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

     

    Not that I disagree with anything that Hawking 2.0 is asserting, but at which point in our history has a grassroots movement overtaken an industry as large and influential as healthcare in America?  Isn't healthcare spending something like 20% of GDP?  I imagine a shit ton of very wealthy people will keep their middle finger raised at the people while upping their campaign contributions and keeping the same political whores in office.  Asking honestly 'cause I suck at history.

  15. 36 minutes ago, Machinator said:

    (Scipio Tex) Texas-LSU Postmortem: Defense

     

      Reveal hidden contents

     

    The final butcher's bill was long and bloody. I'll hit a few lowlights beyond 45 points surrendered at home before a raucous 100,000+ Texas crowd. The larger context of that is important.

    LSU QB Joe Burrow was 31 of 39 for 471 yards passing. He completed nearly 80% of his attempts on largely downfield throws (>15 yards per completion). He averaged 12 yards every time he attempted a throw. As a general rule, competent defenses force a trade off between accuracy and DOT (depth of target). Higher completion percentage? Fewer yards. More yards downfield? Lower accuracy. Texas failed on both accounts, allowing what will likely be Burrow's highest passer rating all season. Generally, a defense can make an impact on one part of that equation by simple alignment. Not so Saturday.

    LSU converted 50% of their 3rd downs. On par with the rate Orlando surrendered last year in Big 12 play, where Texas surpassed only conference winless Kansas in money down defense. As I wrote last year during the season, in my preseason preview and pointed out leading up to this game after we saw the La Tech effort, Todd Orlando has exhibited a post 2017 problem with 3rd down defense and the call matching approach, with squads absent overwhelming talent advantages and seniority.
    Those situations more than any other call for coherent team defense and individual agency at some key positions. Not mindless Xs running to spots.

    All three LSU primary receivers went >100 yards receiving. Jefferson: 9-163-3td. Marshall: 6-123-1td. Chase: 8-147-0. Jefferson was in single coverage on his game sealing 3rd and 17 zero blitz 61 yard touchdown catch. Of course, so was every other Tiger receiver.

    LSU's "normal runs" (non sack yardage) went for 5.7 yards per carry. But why run for 6 yards a pop when you can throw for 12 yards an attempt? When LSU ran successfully, it was primarily when Texas lined up wrong. They won surprisingly few individual match ups in the run game. Mostly leaning and screening.

    LSU had only 11 meaningful possessions. They scored on 8 of them. Surrendering points on 73% of possessions is not good. Particularly given that Texas will play some Big 12 games where the opponent will have 12-14 possessions. In a game featuring 88 combined passing attempts and 100 attempted throws (factor in scrambles) allowing LSU only 11 possessions is a triumph of the clock-milking, possession-stealing Longhorn offense. Typically, a game like that might yield 14 possessions for the opponent. Had that occurred, LSU likely puts 59 on the scoreboard.

    The Texas defense was never placed in a bad spot the entire game. Every point they gave up was excruciatingly deserved. LSU's average scoring drive length was 68 yards. Relevance? No short fields. Tiger average starting position? The LSU 23 yard line. The Texas offense and special teams did not have a single turnover. That's ideal.

    In the second half, in a game played in 98 degree heat, Texas dominated time of possession: 20:38 minutes to LSU's 9:22. But LSU's last three possessions? Three 6 play, 75 yard touchdown drives. Bam. Bam. Bam. In the late 3rd quarter on, when the game boils down to conditioning and picking up the other team's tendencies and adjustments over the course of the contest, the Texas offense dominated. The Texas defense got worse (from a low bar), despite barely having to play.

    Due to the Longhorn O dominating Time Of Possession, LSU ran only 68 plays. But had 573 yards of offense. That's 8.4 yards per play.

    **

    The Texas offense and special teams did everything possible to protect the Longhorn defense. And were resoundingly successful in that effort. So while the defensive effort looked bad, in the larger picture, it's substantially worse than what you saw. Usually a defense surrendering 45 at home is doing so on the wrong end of short fields, handicapped by a sputtering offense, betrayed by turnovers, a blocked punt, general bad breaks. The scoreboard reflecting a total team failure more than any one one unit.
    Nope, nope, nope and nope. This was all on the D.

    Texas was also able to run dime personnel against LSU's O, but saw no (or negative) coverage benefits despite a seemingly favorable personnel mix that played more to the defense's relative strengths. Maybe that's because we chose to play that dime more for pressure rather than helping/disguising in coverage.

    The 3rd and 17 call. With 2:38 on the clock, the Texas offense dominating (they scored on every 2nd half possession), down 37-31, 3rd and 17 on the LSU 39 yard line, Todd Orlando chose to go with a zero blitz on the game's most important play. Texas brought six men, leaving four Texas DBs in single coverage on four LSU receivers (the middle safety, Chris Brown, didn't have depth and was basically a QB spy). Burrow evaded the blitz and threw a game sealing 61 yard touchdown.

    That call defies Football 101. It's bad probability analysis - the difference in not understanding the percentages between playing Powerball or a hand of Blackjack. It also ignores the larger context of the game. All that matters there is possession of the ball. A 10 yard gain is cause for riotous celebration. At that point, statistical window dressing, frustration that you've been taken to school by a 29 year old passing game coordinator for four quarters, or the dream of inflicting a defensive big play is out of bounds. You play the percentages established by God and man.

    I won't try to characterize Todd's thinking there, but I will say that it was consistent with his defensive approach the entire game.

    It might be a useful encapsulation of Todd Orlando's 3rd down problem. Increasingly, the Texas defense just looks like a bunch of calls on a play sheet. "Looks." A defense is a coherent blend of 11 men playing their positions and doing their jobs within a larger construct. Some players have necessarily narrow assignments. Hedgehogs. Some key positions require individual agency if you want a successful defense - particularly against wide open offenses. Open doesn't just refer to space - it's also about being open-ended. The way to combat that is having some of your own flexibility and open-endedness. Not creating robotic Xs running to spots you anticipate will cause a problem and playing Battleship with the opposing OC. (I-9? A-4? G-3?)

    The inability to trust athletes and a possible failure to teach them the game from position up means that in key moments, he's always going to try to make them mindless X's running to spots and try to Call Match the opposing OC. If we don't guess right, we blame a lack of instincts for their struggles to operate within larger defensive principles they may not really have been taught. I mistakenly believed/hoped that more experience, some smart players, and a loaded safety room would have our staff grant their pupils more freedom and trust. Or at least put them in a base defense that they know and are confident in where they can display the instincts that made them four and five star recruits.

    I think defense should start at the position level up. Not the white board down.

    The Players

    Usually, I break down the players, but why bother? It's irrelevant. The Texas defense played hard. Actually, really hard. They also have talent. They weren't assignment perfect, but they weren't blowing coverages and melting down either. LSU has three NFL quality wide receivers and a good QB playing in a cool scheme. So it's not as if the reasonable standard is defensive domination. But the standard should be something higher than a thorough X&O pantsing for four excruciating quarters despite massive support from the offense, special teams, field position and crowd.

    LSU's excellent receivers made some good plays. But most of those throws were open by scheme. Just as they were last year against hurry up spread practitioners with lesser talent. Burrow made accurate throws to open receivers. If our defense is relying on offensive incompetence, that's going to hurt our ceiling.

    So while Joe Ossai, Mal Roach and Chris Brown had several great individual efforts and McCulloch missed an open field tackle on Helaire (and made some others) and Kobe Boyce and Jalen Green got beat in single man coverage (sometimes as we rushed four and had four Longhorn players at LB depth in no-man's land incapable of pressuring or coverage) what exactly is the value of evaluating their individual play? I'd be making the same mistake our defensive staff did.

    The game wasn't about that.

    The defensive staff lost their battle. They didn't just lose on the white boards on Wednesday. They lost in Spring and Fall camp. Because we still don't have a hang your hat defensive identity or a plan - however imperfect - for answering the same questions.

    A laminate with some pressures on it isn't a defense.

    Want to know why Texas can cross train it's linebackers and defensive backs so easily?

    Because they're not learning a position...

    ...they're just memorizing a call.


    Hook 'em.

     

     

    You know, if even half of this analysis of our defensive "scheme" deficiencies is accurate, a loss to ou is an almost certainty. 

    And the fact that our def guys haven't done well in the draft becomes less of a mystery.

×
×
  • Create New...