Jump to content
fatcheerleader

Random Thoughts

Recommended Posts

science doesn't care what you believe, unless you are a liberal-socialist-globalist, then science can make exceptions for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, drunken_honkey said:

770470_1.jpg

 

That is correct. Science isn't partisan, politically correct, is influenced by what is popular or is influenced by those in power. That's what I love about it. My teachers can tell us to blindly believe something, just because that's what "Scientists say"and that one would have be an idiot for going against them. But that misses the point of science, in my mind. What great discoveries would have been made if people just accepted what they knew as truth at the time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Label me....  that's what I want.  I hear your bullshit answers and know it doesn't matter in the long run of things.... Fear leads to anger.... Anger leads to the dark side.

 

Small minds think alike.  I really don't care about your politics.  This is what talking politics leads to with die hards like yourselves with no intentions of changing....

bCfDJQ.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa, easy there partner, no need to chop off my head!  there is no "believe" when it comes to science!  I agree with you!

 

I'm just saying the only reason I hear the generic, almost meaningless word called "science" anymore is about politically coercing people to admit that they "believe" in something that can't be proven - or even clearly defined!  and it seems nowadays that this generic term "science" or "scientist" has become interwoven with globalist, "leftist", socialist politics.  and science should have (actually it does not, by definition) nothing to do with "beliefs" and or "politics".  it is what it is, a fact is a fact.  a law of nature is a law of nature.  etc, etc.  

 

now the funny (scary) thing is - when it comes to gender and life, science seems to take the backseat and get bypassed, because (these easily proven and easily defined things) things like life and gender have recently become seen as "choices" - not science!  and that is pure madness.  

 

but yet "believing" random "scientific" theories about the beginning and the end of the world is "believing" science? and the person who does not "believe" these endless, ever-changing, and un-provable theories is the crazy one?  lol.

 

so whatever, no big deal here, have a good one.  I hope I'm explaining myself clearly and concisely, maybe I'm not?

 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa, easy there pal, no need to burn me from the noose and check my birth certificate.... <sarcastically stated as to point out the pot calling the kettle black> [Meaning one who calls out hypocrisy shouldn't be a hypocrite]

 

Still don't care about your hard coded opinions...

 

And thanks, I will have a good day.  You have one yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Pitino thinks that 5 games paid vacation is too harsh a penalty for his lacking oversight of his assistant coaches buying the services of strippers to dance and perform sex acts for the team's players on 22 separate occasions over the course of 4 years.

 

The patriarchy is strong in this one.

Edited by Maynard_G_Krebs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maynard_G_Krebs said:

On average, have you ever noticed how generally fat, unhealthy-looking, misshapen, and miserable rich people in powerful bureaucratic positions look?

 

Yup. I'd guess that stress has something to do with that. 

 

And those people probably have everything they could ever want at their fingertips, so their lifestyles probably aren't too healthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been noticing (historically) that NFL QBs that I would consider as "running" QBs (meaning that they are elusive and can typically run for positive yardage) usually get sacked the most.

 

for example, in 1990, the top 5 worst sack % QBs are:

 

MAJK Man 10.8

Jefferson George (IND) 10.0 

Skid-Marc Wilson (PATS)  9.9

QB EAGLES 9.5

Vinny Testesverdes 9.4

.....

then, with the best sack % is:  The Mark Rypien Experience at 1.9

 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya sometimes its a chicken and egg thing.

 

Does the qb runs more out of necessity because no one is open or the line blows. 

 

Or are they scrambling because they arent seeing the open wrs. 

 

Rypien was behind one of the all time great lines in this example and randles was historically bad. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude, randall cunningham had career sack % over 10!  

 

CAREER sack % for some random QBs:

 

steve mcnair 5.3%

 

joe montana 5.5%

 

mcnabb 7.1%

 

rich gannon 6.7%

 

mike vick 8.9%

 

kordell stewart 6.7%

 

theisman 8.6%

 

steve young 7.9%

 

randall cunningham 10.1%

 

brady 4.8%

 

brees 3.9%

 

rivers 5.8%

 

esiason 5.8%

 

marino 3.1%

 

kurt warner 6%

 

jim kelly 6.3%

 

aikman 5.2%

 

steve deberg 5.6%

 

....

 

point is, look at the "6 MS" QBs - they seem to have lower sack % than the 25+ MS QBs.  

 

also, side note, it seems the deeper I go into the 1980s, the higher the sack % in general.

 

I would say the baseline is around 5%.  just from the gut.

 

sidenote # 2:  how to compensate for this in TSB ratings - give low sack % QBs a higher RS?

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1986, Randall Cunningham was sacked on 25%(!!!) of his dropbacks! He was sacked 72 times that season. I need to find some footage of that season so i can see how much of it was a result bad pocket awareness, crappy oline play, or terrible play-calling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Someone made a good point on another NFL board that the sack numbers look a lot better if you include rushes in the dropback calculation. Because most of those runs aren't designed runs so its better to look at sacks per dropback where a drop back is

 

A pass atttempt

A sack (the QB dropped back)

A run (A high % of QB runs were probably pass attempts that turned into scrambles. And unless its an obvious run it will be counted as a sack if tackled behind the line) 

 

I tried looking at mobile qbs vs statues using the following formula

 

SACKS / (ATT+RUNS+SACKS) which is kind of like saying (sack per dropback)

 

It definitely made things much closer. This was definitely a quick comparison but I got something like 6.5% for mobile QB's vs 5.5% for statues

 

 

 

@buck

Even in tecmo the faster QB's tend to take more sacks (at least quickly looking at sack rankings in HSTL) as you think you can buy time with their speed which is probably some of the reason  the fast guys take more sacks on average. 

 

Sacks are pretty infrequent and meaningless in tecmo due to

 

1. QB's not fumbling at a rate consistent with their normal rate on a sack.

2. QB's injuries rate being pretty low.

3. Any QB with reasonably high PC/ low PS can safely chuck deep down the field and its typically better than taking a sack since the average yards on an int return are tiny. 

 

To answer your question more directly. I tried the lower RS/RP method in one of my roms YEARS ago. I didn't really like how it worked but you can give it a try. 

 

Other ways I tried to add more sacks in general

 

1. Have OL's not hold up as long

2. Have drone DL be able to tackle a MAN guy pretty often

3. Have better pursuit of QB (via new defenses, better ratings) 

4. Make INT's more likely and more returnable

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in an age where many people have no shame in what they say to each other through online mediums or in-person, no matter how derogatory it is, and yet, most of the population feels uneasy to audibly pass gas in public. Wrap your heads around that sense of social etiquette.

Edited by Maynard_G_Krebs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maynard_G_Krebs said:

We live in an age where many people have no shame in what they say to each other through online mediums or in-person, no matter how derogatory it is, and yet, most of the population feels uneasy to audibly pass gas in public. Wrap your heads around that sense of social etiquette.

 

Interesting thought (that I'm about to think wayyy too much into).

 

In theory, when you make a derogatory remark toward someone else, then attention and feeling of embarassment/shame is on them - vs. - farting in public, which puts the attention and feeling of embarassment/shame on you (especially if it was unintentional).

 

Personally, I'd rather rip one in public than insult someone.  But I tend to be self-deprecating at times and often in search of childish-humor. 

 

To complicate things, most people would consider passing gas around them to be a form of insult.  So which is actually worse - someone insulting you or farting around you?  I suppose if it's a one-time thing, the fart would be pretty funny (again, childish humor) - but if people felt like they could just pass gas whenever they wanted, over an extended period of time it would become pretty f'n disgusting.  And other people's derogatory remarks have never really bothered me, especially people I don't really know. 

 

So when it comes to social etiquette, I'm not sure which is worse.  I suppose it depends on the severity of the insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maynard_G_Krebs said:

We live in an age where many people have no shame in what they say to each other through online mediums or in-person, no matter how derogatory it is, and yet, most of the population feels uneasy to audibly pass gas in public. Wrap your heads around that sense of social etiquette.

 

How about when people feel it's ok to scream racist shit at you from afar.............but when you actually start to move closer and are looking them in the eye, they don't have anything to say to you. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bodom said:

 

Interesting thought (that I'm about to think wayyy too much into).

 

In theory, when you make a derogatory remark toward someone else, then attention and feeling of embarassment/shame is on them - vs. - farting in public, which puts the attention and feeling of embarassment/shame on you (especially if it was unintentional).

 

Personally, I'd rather rip one in public than insult someone.  But I tend to be self-deprecating at times and often in search of childish-humor. 

 

To complicate things, most people would consider passing gas around them to be a form of insult.  So which is actually worse - someone insulting you or farting around you?  I suppose if it's a one-time thing, the fart would be pretty funny (again, childish humor) - but if people felt like they could just pass gas whenever they wanted, over an extended period of time it would become pretty f'n disgusting.  And other people's derogatory remarks have never really bothered me, especially people I don't really know. 

 

So when it comes to social etiquette, I'm not sure which is worse.  I suppose it depends on the severity of the insults.

 

Like, one would ('should'?) experience shame from saying unnecessary/excessive derogatory comments. But in our present culture, the shame/embarrassment experienced is greater from passing gas. 

 

Our culture is more comfortable with public displays of violence than farts.

 

#farts4peace

Edited by Maynard_G_Krebs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×