DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

LOL. Good one

Since when did protecting and funding federal lands and our national parks become a matter of "extremes"? People of all religions and all political viewpoints share equally in the enjoyment and reward of those lands and protecting them and preserving our natural wonders. Maintaining them have been continued and carried out by every president and administration for decades.

Now it's an extreme issue? Maybe you need to pause and ask yourself why it's now an extreme issue when it never was before? None of this is as complicated as you're trying to make it sound. I think even you know that.

If the OP had focused on the fossil fuel extraction, mining, and commercial use aspect, I'd likely have taken a different approach.

I agree with you on lobbyists.

I think you are more consumed with hatred for Trump than Trump is consumed with hatred for Obama at the moment. Trump is playing politics. Trump is too busy counting his money to hate an individual that acts as a useful political tool/target. Honestly, I get your hate. I'm not a fan. I just think your hate bleeds into a negative bias that has an effect on your objectivity at times. But negative biases are a part of the human condition.

Unfortunately, Trump going down as the worst depends on when the history is written. Could get worse. (That's probably my bias towards politicians.)

1. Saying what I would like was not referring to what those in power are doing. So it really depends on if the details being paid attention to are the ones being talked about.

2. When every topic is presented from one extreme or the other, I guess trying to look at things rationally seems contrarian.

Thinking people are going too far towards one extreme on a specific topic does not mean I agree with everything the entity they are arguing against does.

I wasn't arguing for the government's (lack of) "efficiency." I agree with you, oober, that the current administration's approach has been a mess. Still, I think less big government is ultimately good if done correctly. Yes, slack would have to be picked up locally in many instances. Yet, I think most issues are better handled with local knowledge than through sweeping bureaucracy. Just because the government is doing a horrible job of something doesn't mean the original/underlying idea was wrong. Efficiency is good, everything else being equal.

I think the idea of national parks is great. I think I have different ideas than others what that should look like. I'd do away with the commercialized/touristy stuff altogether. That's my preference. I don't need shrines to America or someone's version of a history lesson. I prefer being able to appreciate things as they are rather than being told what I should be taking away. Others are welcome to feel differently.

While I think natural /"historical" areas should be preserved, I don't think giant blocks are necessarily the best way to do it. They do need a certain minimum size, but 1.36 million acres in one go seems overkill to me. I am for creating more smaller, protected natural areas. I don't mean that we should just make them all smaller, but that we should go back towards populated areas and create/designate more, but with an eye towards balance and locality over sweeping, near impossible to manage monstrosities.

I just feel like focusing on a percentage reduction doesn't really tell me anything without knowing the specifics of what the numbers actually represent on the ground. If the actual Buttes were no longer in the park that would be a problem for me. If the outlying area that possibly shouldn't have been included in the first place which blocked pre-existing commercial traffic was reduced, I'd feel differently.

That's what worries me....

We have a very talented defense, the question is on our new DC Mike Rutenberg!

Again, I think you are hand picking some information here. Yes, he took over a Titans defense that was really good and they became great... However, he took a 2013 Bills defense that ranked 20th in points allowed and his only year there, they went to 4th in points allowed. Then, he took a 28th ranked Eagles defense, first year there they moved up to 12th, then second year they were 4th.

Credit where credit is due, imho.

We live in a world of "What have you done for me lately", but we have arguably invested more in the QB room than any of those teams, signing Watson. To date, he has been the worst trade and sign player in the history of the league. However, the short history he has here is irrelevant to 2026. The one thing that Watson does care about is money. I don't think he will ever have enough and he wants another pay day. The only way he gets that is by winning the starting job this off season and balling out. If HE balls out, this team wins a lot of games, it's that simple. We know he has done it before, it just isn't something we know if he can ever do again.

Last words for me on this:

If Watson wins the job, I EXPECT that large turn around because of the investment.
If Sanders wins the job, it is more likely that is because they have no future plans for Watson and would rather see where Sanders can progress before designing a way to get one of the QBs in 2027.

The second scenario, it's hard to call it a loss... If Shedeur progresses into a franchise guy, we win, we can use draft capital to continue a progressive build overall. If Sanders ceiling has already been hit(which is pretty low), then the Browns enter 2027 off season with a top 5 draft pick to go get the QB they covet. It will be a lot easier to move up from a top 5 than from a mid-teen on down...

FOR ME, worst case scenario is that Sanders is so bad this off season, Monken sees no other option than Watson. Watson plays just well enough to get 2nd in the division, no playoff, leaves in free agency and we have zero chance at a QB in the draft. I love winning 7 games over 4 games, but the way this team is built right now, all it needs is a QB. I would rather sacrifice this season to get one, if Sanders is incapable.

Home
Baltimore Ravens W
Cincinnati Bengals W
Pittsburgh Steelers W
Houston Texans L
Indianapolis Colts L
Atlanta Falcons W
Carolina Panthers W
Las Vegas Raiders W

Away
Baltimore Ravens L
Cincinnati Bengals L
Jacksonville Jaguars W
Pittsburgh Steelers W
Tampa Bay Buccaneers L
Tennessee Titans L
New York Giants W
New York Jets W
New Orleans Saints L

10-7 Playoff Wild Card

Yes, in both those cases they made a heavy investment at the QB position before things turned around for them.

Drake Maye and good-Stroud. Young QBs, sure... but that's the big difference that pops out to me between those teams and ours.

He seems to really have a knack for taking talented defensive units and putting them over the hump into "SB-worthy".

Sounds like you are doing it right. Before I retired, we did new vehicles, roof, windows, general repair projects, all the things we could anticipate, trying to do them before regular pays ran out. Beefed up investments & savings. My post was trying to point up a need for emergency needs. Random timing, not a known amount or time frame. Paid off house which helped immensely and immediately. My medical procedure turned it all upside down.
We will work the plan as long as we can. For now being here helps because we needed to re-model for handicap facilities here.

Expect some challenging issues. Unforeseen can still be a load.

Some smooth Van Morrison

I holding off on mixing the first batch of kool=aid for this season. The SoS reveal was encouraging after the last few years' schedules, really tough patches we can see, and they showed in our record. I haven't put a lot of stock in it for awhile now. It is a real thing admittedly, but we played lousy ball too often. We did more to self-destruct in many losses. Any respectability probably was a product of an amazing defense.
injuries hobbled an already lame offense. The offense and ST flubs were prolific. We never did get much of our penalty issues ironed out. We shot ourselves ib the foot too often — sometimes burning a clip! SoS closed deals on top of our issues.

I am optimistic because we have some youngsters, some speed, and we can improve versus some different teams. Monken is a puzzle to start. Lots of new coaching on schedule. I also think we will get better shedding some players that were part of the losses. Hopefully the triage will prove successful. I will root them, and I am hopeful. I insist on seeing them under fire. It won't be perfect, but I expect us to be better, and I also expect to see some problems mopped up. We need to find a few things to be r4eliably good at, like we had with Kelly's sweeps.

SoS is a factor in our favor on paper. Go, Browns!

But your comment only applies if you are [1] Paying attention to details. [2] Not trying to come up with contrarian angles on every topic.

I agree, I don't usually put much emphasis on SOS. But the article made some compelling reading over the past 3 seasons. One can hope that the schedule is an advantage going in. We have a lot of new faces on the offensive side of the ball and the clip board holders. We are going to need all the help we can get.

One thing we do know is, who we are playing:

Home
Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals
Pittsburgh Steelers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
Las Vegas Raiders

Away
Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals
Jacksonville Jaguars
Pittsburgh Steelers
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans
New York Giants
New York Jets
New Orleans Saints

We have a lot of top ten draft pick games (7) in there...Only (5) games against teams that made the playoffs, including Carolina who finished at 8-9 but won their division.

Again, a lot changes year over year, but a lot stays the same as well...

SOS means a little, but not all that much. Teams have a way of getting better from on year to the next and last year could have been a bad injury year for a team or two.

I think the schedule comes out tomorrow. I think the order in which you play teams has a little more impact on things over the calculated SOS.

Housing costs is another. For my wife and I we sold our home a few years ago and have moved in to an apartment. For us the cost of renting falls well below our monthly income. I calculate monthly income as SS and an annuity we bought 30 years ago. We get the check every month. Things like 401K minimums, interest income, and anything we withdraw from our retirement acccounts I count as yearly income. I don't factor that in as living expense money. We call that our entertainment money.

Having a house brings some security, but it does have expense. Taxes, maintenance, landscaping costs, the cost of any security you might have, insurance. Renting bundles all of that in to one simple payment...you do have some liability and personal property cost, but that is pretty cheap.

You eliminate the unexpected home costs ( most can be expected) like replacing a water heater or roof, or deck, or paint the place, HVAC unit or whatever. There are some trade offs but for us it was the perfect solution to make our life simpler, and simple is the name of the game as you get older.

Agreed. I hope our new DC does a good job and he very well may, but I would feel a little better if Schwartz was still here.

SOS I take with the proverbial grain of salt.

So many factors come into play as a season unfolds.

Start with the fact that teams change a lot each year. About a third of the roster turns over.

Players on the roster don't always perform the same. New players can have huge impacts.

Records can be deceiving. The NFL is tied to parity. Games are very close. Teams are very close in talent.

The difference between a ten win team and a seven win team can be very slight.

I rarely look at a team and think "automatic win or loss."

I look at each week like it is never a given.

Schwartz wasn’t a one year wonder boy. He was highly successful his entire career. Everyone was excited when he arrived and he certainly lived up to the hype.

?? What ?? 😂

Patriots had a second year QB.
Texans had a rookie..

You can be very good at your job and still be overrated