DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

I never heard of him till today.

I will track him some this year because I see raw ability.

College players seem to jump all over the place. Going into the 2025 season Beck, Klubnik, and Sellers were supposed be to great prospects. Now not so much. Guys rise and fall.

Mestemaker has a first round grade? I don't know if that is valid.

The Browns are most likely going to draft a QB in 27. I want to see who is out there.

Moore and Manning are up there now with others.

The guy I saw last year who I loved was Mateer. Until he was injured I liked him more than anyone else.

This year I will be looking closely at the college QB class.

All I can tell you is the support in the UK was political because the PM did not back the US - and the opposition thought it had a chance to score points. It was not in any way related to how close or otherwise any UK politician believed Iran was to a nuclear weapon. You can take my word on that or not - I don't mind. It's the truth.

"Absolutes are never good" .... that's an absolute and as I wrote it, I smiled. Hence my follow up comment. That was all.

The older you get the more you find out what you used to do is further away from what you can do now.

I used to have to go up on the roof for various reasons. I stopped doing that. It is not the ladder. It is getting from the roof back on the ladder. I started to become more conscious about it. I just ended it with why take the chance?

Also endurance slips away. Not all at once but a slow decline.

You accept the declines even though you find it frustrating.

IMO the worst thing you can do is give in to things. Your internal dialogue starts saying I can't do this. And slowly you start backing off all kinds of things. You should push yourself. You should take the steps instead of the elevator.

You should care about health because it really hard to enjoy your life if you feel lousy or limit your true ability.

'Utterly Surreal': Critics Flag A Striking Detail In Trump's Iran Deal Update

The president appeared to name a decades-old agency that could be of no help to efforts to end his unpopular war.

President Donald Trump on Monday proposed that the “Atomic Energy Commission” could help oversee the destruction of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile as he looks to negotiate an end to his unpopular war with the country.

But there’s one apparent error with the proposal: the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was dissolved over half a century ago.

“This is getting utterly surreal!” wrote Erik Townsend, one of several critics on X who flagged the president’s mention of the defunct agency on his Truth Social platform.

Earlier in the day, Trump pitched on social media that the stockpile of what he calls “nuclear dust” — a sticking point in the talks to bring the conflict to a close and reopen the Strait of Hormuz — be “immediately turned over to the United States to be brought home and destroyed.”

He laid out other alternatives, as well: the enriched uranium could also be “destroyed in place” in conjunction and coordination with Iran or it could be destroyed “at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event.”

Townsend noted that both Pakistan and Israel currently have an “Atomic Energy Commission” but neither “make sense” in the context of Trump’s pitch.

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, formed in 1946 under President Harry Truman, was tasked with developing and regulating nuclear technology.

After the AEC was dissolved in 1975, its duties were split between two agencies: the Energy Research and Development Administration (which merged with the Federal Energy Administration in 1977 to make the Department of Energy) and the still-active Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Neither the AEC nor its successors, however, have typically been involved in such a mission to disarm a nation of its nuclear material.

Others on X wondered whether Trump was referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a body that would monitor Iran’s compliance with an international agreement to dispose of its stockpile.

The White House did not immediately return a HuffPost request for comment.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dona...FGhAtSAS36Gkv_aem_abWPZPso2DKmcthkeoNjTw

They REALLY need to get someone to proof read great grandpa's posts before he puts them on social media. But they've needed to be doing that for a long while now.

And creating false narratives have been proven to be even less reliable and more dangerous.


You of all people posting this means you aren't even reading what you yourself has been posting.


And yet nobody has said that. The degree for which war was a needed and immediate need is is the point here. That could said be said for many locations around the globe.


Yes Israel invaded Lebanon in the 1982 beginning the the first war between the two in Lebanon. We gave bombs to Israel to level Gaza just like Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon. The fighting between the two has been going on back and forth on an intermittent basis ever since.


Israel is widely believed to possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Experts and intelligence agencies estimate the country has a stockpile of approximately 90 nuclear warheads, with capabilities to launch them via aircraft, submarines, and ballistic missiles. I would just like to ask you, if you were in Iran's shoes, would you want your neighbor who has been trying to get the U.S to help destroy you for decades now to have such nuclear capability without you having an equal threat in retaliation?


And neither do you.

Where it seems you may be lacking in trying to be objective here, or maybe you're not trying to be objective here, is who the terrorists are depends on where you live.

If your family was bombed and killed during the Iraq war and finding out the U.S. allegations for the cause of that war were false, who do you think they would think they would consider the terrorists to be?

If your family lived in Gaza and had no affiliation with Hamas, then Netanyahu claimed he was going to destroy Hamas....... But his method of doing so was to carpet bomb civilian neighborhoods killing everyone living there, your wife, children, parents and grandparents, neighbors and friends. Who would you consider the terrorists to be?

Now I'm certainly not trying to label Netanyahu or the U.S as terrorists even though I would more likely label Netanyahu that way because his acts of wiping out innocent people living in Gaza was quite purposeful.

But I mean I get it. In the U.S. it's quite normal to look at things from one side. To not consider how people feel based on geography. On who they consider the bad guys to be based on their life experiences.

These conflicts that we have far too often insert ourselves in date back sometimes for several decades and in some cases even hundreds of years. And every time we do that we deplete our own resources and jack up our own deficit.

With all of the back and forth gong on here, Iran was no "direct threat" to the U.S. Netanyahu had been trying to get a U.S. president to get involved to help him destroy Iran for decades. Well he finally found one.

We had no problem getting allies to join us in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iran that isn't happening. The same reasons you are giving as to why they are not getting involved now has existed forever. They certainly existed before the previous two wars in the middle east happened. Yet the outcomes are completely different. As such if they joined us then but refuse to now, you're going to have to do better than that.

And yes, there's a lot of they could haves, they might have, but they have been saying.... and on and on it goes. But none of that changes anything.

While I think this is noble, this is a message board comprised entirely by adults. This day and age, I find it hard to believe many are swayed by someone posting all day on a message board. People are either happily set in their echo chambers, or they aren't. "Shielding" others from BS shouldn't be anyone's responsibility.

Alex Jones is a loyal MAGA/Trump ally.

I find myself thinking more and more about aging as I get older (I know... funny how that works). My playing hockey has been a really good barometer. Starting at mid-thirties, just doing a couple laps around the rink and a quick stretch was no longer enough to get my body ready to play. I realized that I had to be more disciplined about exercising (not just hockey as exercise, but cardio and stretching) so I didn't pull a muscle or worse while playing. I've still got work to do there, but now (getting into my mid-forties) I'm finding that sometimes all the discipline in the world won't stop a random muscle pull or other minor injury... and now those take a LOT longer to go away.

What's more interesting to me, though, is how I'm aging upstairs. Even after I got married, I was still playing 3-4 times a week non-stop with a couple tournaments each year. Now I only play once a week and look forward to taking the summers off. Yes, kids and house and job are the reasons (just like everyone else), but I always imagined that I wouldn't be able to handle playing so little.

Sorry for the tangent, reading your post and feeling my shoulder from when my dog yanked on the leash got me in a sharing mood.

Watched last night, purely out of team loyalty. Just painful. We have some more work to do. We do not have the answers for NYK, clearly the better team. Apparently better coached IMO.

Mestemaker is one to keep an eye on, but I have some skepticism. (Go figure, me, skeptical)

The Oregon game in week 2 could kill/dampen the buzz pretty quickly.

8 of his 9 interceptions last season came in 3 games --The games against "better" competition. USF, Tulane, and San Diego State aren't on Oregon's level.

Oklahoma State was not very good last year. (Oregon beat them 69-3) The situation he'll be in does not inspire confidence.

On the other hand, a good outing vs Oregon could bring on the frenzy. We'll see how it plays out.

There is your chronological age and your biological age.

Because of how the internet tracks you. Once you have looked at an article; of course you get feeds to related articles.

So I saw something like "if you can do this at age 70-75" you are in x percentile.

There are all kinds of gerontology studies that measure your biological age.

One is how many times can you get up from a chair unassisted in 30 seconds?

Another is can you walk at a decent pace for 30 minutes. Then there are cognitive type questions about isolation an social interaction. As well memory recall tests etc.

I decided to test myself because I will be 79 in September. I was wondering what could I expect in the coming years.

On the 30 second chair test. I did 27 reps from low stool not a regular chair.

A score of 27 reps actually mirrors the physical capabilities of a healthy 20 to 30-year-old, who averages roughly 33.

I plugged in that I swim 1500 yards per week. It said that can reduce biological age by 20 years.

I have been lap swimming for close to 15 years and I cut back to 1500 yards.

I was blown away. I had a massive heart in 2024 with a 5% chance to survive. I completely recovered and am back to my normal abilities. I do deep squats every day so the chair test was no big deal to me because I do sets of 15 twice a day. I never tried seeing what I could do in 30 seconds.

I feel ageing but I took a lot for granted. I measured myself to "can I fly fish wading in rivers." I cannot because of osteoarthritis in my back. After 30 minutes my back hurts and it is no longer worth it because you can't fish for 30 minutes and expect much.

My mother lived till 97. My father made it to 71. I always figured if I made it to 75. I got a full ride. There was a thread about "how much is enough." Well the first thing is how long you live is a big factor.

Ya never know when something will bite you and out you go. But if you can it is important to be physically the best you can be.

Absolutes can be okay when they aren't false. False absolutes are always bad. (That might be a situation where an absolute is ok. Still was uncomfortable to write)

I agree that there was a 180. But that implies that initially there was support. That in turn implies that the problem wasn't the idea that something had to be done, but that they did a shoddy job of it. As far as [2] I think you're selling short the other countries' complicity in the "lie." I.e, the Brits were the ones that provided the allegedly manufactured intel. There's reality and what "needs" to be done, and there's politics and trying to manage public sentiment and trying to win elections. Unfortunately those things don't always align.

I think the middle paragraph is tilted to support your beliefs. I think people saying Iran is a threat and dangerous is more prevalent than you care to admit. There are degrees to that, but you seem to be saying that most people in power and leadership saw what Iran was doing as fine, which isn't true. There was no public call to war because war is unpopular (as it should be.) Yet "wars" were already going on and have a tendency to spread and worsen, and Iran was already involved in one with our allies through proxies. Wars have a tendency to escalate and Iran ramped up HEU production. If it were just any one individual thing with Iran ("Death to America") it would be different than the totality of bad things that we have, the supporting terrorists part in particular.

Yes, people in power have more information, but they also have more concerns. You don't know why they are making the decisions they are making. The idea that they have concerns closer to home is not meritless. Is it crying wolf when Iran has literally been funding (terrorist) proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas for decades? Claiming ""ONLY" in all caps is BS. It's not that simple. We have to get to him leaving office, and while some things are inevitable, his conviction unfortunately isn't one of them as much as we might like it to be so.

You see lots of idiot freaks at trump rallies. You can hear them too. All one has to do is listen to what they say. You just think idiot freaks are anyone and everyone who is different than you are.

Please show me people dressed in "furry costumes" at a democratic rally.

Please explain how someone having blue hair makes them an idiot or a freak?

You do realize just making BS up doesn't look good, right?

Yeah, but you don't see the Idiot Freaks at Trump rallies. No one with blue hair, no guys wearing women's clothes. No one dressed in a furry costume, etc.... there are so many idiots I cannot name them all. They all reside on the left side of the aisle.

Can? Yes. Anything is "possible". Possibilities are not a cause for war. I know for sure that Saudi Nationals can hijack planes and fly them into buildings.

Yes, they've been chanting that for 47 years and nothing as you have described has ever happened. It seems that threats and noise in your world mean something. Let me guess..... "So we should wait for it to happen first?"

So you've never watched a trump rally obviously then. Even the head head honcho is out there throwing tantrums and calling the other side nasty names. You forgot to add Murica! And Freedumb! to your post.

This morning I went to the "Draft Buzz" site.

I like the site because of the way it is structured. They go into detail on each ranked prospect.

So, I was looking at their ranking for the 2027 quarterback class.

Most of the prospects I am aware of. However, they had this guy Drew Mestemaker listed as their 7th ranked prospect.

I saw his measureables and decided to take a look because I had never heard of him. He is 6'4" around 215.

I was impressed. This young has a arm. He is accurate. Has a fast release. I saw a clip of him in a workout with a QB guru who trains Mahomes. Very impressive.

His story is strange. He was not recruited. He was a punter and safety. Some coach saw him and thought he could be a QB. And after being way down on the depth chart worked his way up. Got a shot and took off. He played at North Texas and transferred to OK State.

He will be interesting guy to keep an eye on this Fall. He is projected as a first round talent.

I am sure he will get a lot of attention going forward.

Just watch the news showing all the lunatics chanting and acting like fools at Dem rallies.

J/C

If Watson wins out, you play him.

LMAO. That's every un-American Democrat right there. Every single one. All exactly the same. They are all exactly like this. . . .case closed. It couldn't possibly by there's one lunatic who is a one in a 10 million example of someone whose just bat chit crazy.

So I used an absolute - my bad. That's never a good thing (maybe absolutes are ok sometimes!). But I did acknowledge and state you can find voices that agree with Trump anywhere. They are often the fringe - in the UK they are the hard right party trying to blame everything on immigration. At the start of the war - both the conservative and Reform party leaders were indicating that the UK should have done more to assist the US. Within a matter of days - seeing the train wreck, lack of objectives, the way Iran responded.... that sentiment changed and did a 180. Spain and the rest of EU similarly had zero interest in the war. [1] Believing it to be a war of choice and not a response to an imminent threat [2] remembering Iraq and how the USA lied and manipulated them at that time.

Yes - there are talking heads and ex-ministers who will tell you Iran is a threat and dangerous. No it was not prevalent. It was not those in power and leadership. No there was not a call to choose to strike and go to war from the majority and not those in power.

Does that prove that Iran was not imminently on the verge of obtaining nuclear arms - no. But based on these people in power having better access to information and details than you or I - I'll follow their lead instead of a pathological liar in Trump and Netanyahu who has had the same agenda and cried wolf for nearly 30 years and whose ONLY objective is to keep military action going to prevent losing power and subsequently and inevitably being convicted when he leaves office.

As I said - this is not hard. And we can disagree.

Thank you everyone my dad
Died in Vietnam November 23 1968

The most likely scenario is of course DW winning the job. It’s no secret I have no real faith in Sanders. There is a very decent shot that DW plays well. As mentioned, it’s a contract year and he has a lot more talent around him. This is a team that’s a little more than a QB away. If not this year, next. That assumes our revamped OL is middle of the pack and our WR’s and TE’s are indeed significantly upgraded.

So let’s say he plays well. Like top 10. Then we’re likely going to the playoffs and who knows what from there. (Yea I said what I said).

And then of course we’re looking at extending in that scenario. We’d just have to. A good QB is just too valuable. An hilariously awful situation to be sure. And… there’s a solid chance we offer him a deal and he walks anyway. In fact, I would almost guarantee he leaves if he has other legit starter options. Even if it means making less. I don’t even think it’d be about the Browns really, it’s about escaping his past, about leaving the last 5 years far behind, getting away from the stink. So wouldn’t that just be the cherry on top. It’s also no secret that I really have no love for DW. It will always be hard to root for him. So if he plays great AND he sticks around, it’s gonna be… interesting.

Sanders is never going to be a viable long term starter. I’m willing to put money on that. So.. assuming DW moseys we’re back to next years draft. And a late pick. So moving miles becomes a very real possibility in that scenario. In fact, after this years draft, that was my first thought about next years draft. It’s pretty much the only pocket ace we have left to get up high. If we’re where I think we’ll be, next year it’s going to be critical to solve for the QB. That’s when this whole thing comes together or falls apart.

Do you think no one in Iran can fly a plane? Get smuggled across a border on foot? Purchase a commercial remote controlled drone in Canada and rig a bomb to it? Like I said, you don't seem to understand the modern "battlefield" or asymmetrical warfare.

Once again, no one but you is focused on ICBMs as delivery systems. I commented on Nagasaki and Hiroshima because of the resultant devastation. Being in Japan and feeling the horror isn't the same as seeing a documentary.

Yes, there are lots of possibilities of potential dirty bombs. But acting like members of a government chanting "Death to America for 47 years" isn't relevant is asinine. And there are "standard radioactive isotopes" in small quantities for specific civilian uses being properly monitored and there is HEU in massive quantities while now avoiding inspection in the hands of a government that supports terrorism. Those are different situations.

Yeah, it didn't go over my head that you're projecting your whining and trying to twist things as usual. You even got mgh in on the act trying to attribute your words to me.