Jump to content

Don Johnson

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Johnson

  1. There are five openings and a number of minority candidates in the mix. Leftwich, Frazier, Joseph, Bowles, Morris, Caldwell, Aaron Glenn, Mike McDaniel. Can't see Flores getting any of the jobs, though.
  2. Flores was never a coordinator, was hired as a HC at 37 and was likely to have a long career in the NFL almost assuredly being a HC again. This sure seems like an overreaction to the Giants just preferring Daboll.
  3. Considering he went 3-36, if true, he probably could buy his own team now.
  4. Correct Jan. 11 (Tue) – Giants fire Joe Judge as head coach Jan. 21 (Fri) – Bills assistant GM Joe Schoen hired as GM Jan. 21 (Fri) – Bills OC Brian Daboll interviews with Schoen and Giants’ co-owners via teleconference Jan. 22 (Sat) – Bills DC Leslie Frazier interviews via teleconference Jan. 23 (Sun) – Bengals DC Lou Anarumo interviews via teleconference Jan. 23 (Sun) – Daboll and Frazier’s Buffalo Bills eliminated from playoffs Jan. 24 (Mon) – Cowboys DC Dan Quinn interviews in-person. Giants’ first in-person interview for the job. Jan. 25 (Tue) – Brian Daboll receives second interview. Interview occurs in-person *Brian Flores receives text messages from Bill Belichick congratulating him on becoming next Giants coach even though Flores has not had his interview yet. Belichick’s text messages were intended for Daboll.* Jan. 26 (Wed) – Giants DC Patrick Graham interviews. Does not satisfy Rooney Rule since in-house candidate Jan. 26 (Wed) – Ex-Dolphins HC Brian Flores has dinner with Schoen Jan. 27 (Thu) – Brian Flores interviews (satisfies Rooney Rule because it is in-person with someone outside organization) Jan. 27 (Thu) – Dan Quinn announces he is remaining as Cowboys DC Jan. 28 (Fri) – Leslie Frazier gets second interview, this time in-person, also satisfying Rooney Rule Jan. 28 (Fri) – Daboll hired as head coach
  5. Edit: I didn't realize the first interview with Frazier wasn't in person, so that could matter with the timeline.
  6. Even if he has proof that they had started the process what does that prove? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If the Broncos do provide the minutes that the meeting started on time and lasted 3.5 hours and that they flew 5 executives to Rhode Island, combined with Flores public statements on the interview - that pretty much blows his entire suit out of the water. The only interesting part left is whether he takes Ross down with him if he can prove the tanking or tampering charges.
  7. I guess you could go with the tweets that try to connect some dots but never actually does, or you could go with the actual study published by the CDC.
  8. I admit that I made the incorrect assumption that the state senator asking the question was a republican and trying to put him in a tough spot. Those questions coming from a democrat seem odd and I would've expected more specific questions that make him look even worse if he was to answer No. If an alien came down to earth and asked me "yes or no, are the vaccines effective against Covid 19?" I'd have to answer "that's not a yes/no question. They are very effective in these ways but less effective in these, you're going to need to be more specific." What's odd to me is that I think he could've answered her first two questions with a yes, but her specific phrasing ("do the vaccines work against preventing Covid 19, yes or no?) the third time, he could've accurately said no if he wanted to. The answer that y'all like (with regards to reducing hospitalization) didn't really answer her specific yes/no question about prevention.
  9. Yeah, he didn't say anything wrong at all. She was trying to box him in with a broad question narrowed down to a yes/no answer and he wasn't taking the bait. She asked the question 3 times and each time the question was slightly different. He didn't say the last part first because she didn't specifically ask about prevention until the third time she asked. Prior to that, "effective at what exactly?" would've been an appropriate rebuttal if you want me to answer with only a Yes or No.
  10. Jackson, MS had a murder rate of 99.5 per 100,000 in 2021. Puts some of those 70's and 80's figures to shame.
  11. "Yeah, we don't have Clemons and Bonds, but guess who we do have?......Larry Walker!"
  12. Another reason to avoid being more like Canada.
  13. Probably not saying anything not already known, but show evolved out of the movie The American President, which had Sheen playing the Chief of Staff. Written by Sorkin as well. A lot of the same sets were used for both. Sorkin said his script for The American President was like 350 pages long (needed to be 150) and what they cut out became the pilot for West Wing. I used to listen to a bunch of Bill Simmons on the Rewatchables and the one on The American President goes into it. Linked below. Also linked the one to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, where Sorkin was a guest and discusses some of it. https://www.theringer.com/2020/11/2/21547090/the-american-president-with-bill-simmons-amanda-dobbins-and-van-lathan https://www.theringer.com/2019/9/2/20844139/butch-cassidy-and-the-sundance-kid-with-bill-simmons-aaron-sorkin-and-sean-fennessey
  14. The CDC makes recommendations that multiples businesses, entities, schools etc use as a guideline for their internal policies. I'm complaining that their most recent recommendations place no value in being fully vaccinated, as defined by 2 shots more than 5/6 months ago. A fully vaccinated person is treated the same as unvaccinated. Exposed - Someone "up to date" does not need to quarantine. If you are "fully vaccinated" you need to stay home for 5 days. Same as unvaccinated. Masking indoors - If you are not up to date, you need to wear a mask indoors. So, at workplaces across the country you have people who did the right thing and got vaccinated, many of who also have also had a prior infection, who are treated by the company as unvaccinated. They must wear a mask around same as the unvaccinated. As mentioned, the NCAA has changed their definition of "fully vaccinated" (their words not mine, so take up the nuance with them). That's essentially a booster mandate for probably the healthiest segment of our society, with what I can only imagine also has an extremely high rate of prior infection. They state that they changed the definition based on recent updates from the CDC. You can dismiss the following as complaining about something that hasn't happened yet, but you know its going to have a trickle down effect. Lower, Middle and Upper schools are going to start to treat fully vaccinated students the same as unvaccinated. Cities that require vax cards or negative tests are going to start requiring fully vaccinated individuals to provide a negative test, same as unvaccinated. There's a huge difference between being vaccinated and unvaccinated. There is not a huge difference between being vaccinated and up to date.
  15. You're probably due for a 4th shot. That booster is at about 40% now.
  16. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm?s_cid=mm7104e2_w#T1_down Omicron data not out yet, but for delta, booster drops death rates for 65+ - 3.1 per 100,000 (fully vaccinated) to 0.5 (booster) 50-64 - 0.4 to 0.2 18-49 - 0.0 to 0.0 Still funny to me we often categorize 18 year olds with 49 year olds. I've always believed that was to make things look worse for young people.
  17. As you are quoting me, I have no idea what your "nuance" discussion has to do with any of my posts on this subject. Being fully vaccinated does not mean what it used to mean. Its just a statistic they don't want to change. For CDC protocols, up to date is the new fully vaccinated. Fully vaccinated is the new unvaccinated. Unvaccinated is still unvaccinated. A fully vaccinated 20 year old that recovered from alpha or delta is treated the same as an unvaccinated 55 year old.
  18. I linked the article so not exactly trying to hide it. She's changing it without changing it. As the article says, Walensky previously stated they would not change the definition of fully vaccinated, so they can't really do that. All they are doing is creating a new category "up to date" that has all the benefits of the previous "fully vaccinated" and the people who are fully vaccinated with just 2 shots will now be treated similarly to unvaccinated.
  19. Sounds like CDC is about to change a few definitions. First, "fully vaccinated" will no longer be used. Will now be "up to date." Second, fully vaccinated/up to date will include a booster if you are eligible. Not going to go over well when you start treating people with two shots and prior infection like they are unvaccinated. And the fully vaccinated/up to date percentages in the US are going to plummet. https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-plans-apos-pivot-language-160632718.html
  20. Its been my elliptical go to lately. Perfect for a 45 min workout. I'm about halfway through season 2.
  21. Some of y'all are probably excited about this
  22. Federal system, no. But places require it and just accept your card or a photo of it. That's pretty easy. And I agree/defer to you on NYC in March 2020, which was a whole different animal. Beyond that, most anyone that tested positive was known for a period of time.
  23. You travel a lot and that's just part of it. May be too early to comment, but I'm interested to know if you believe you need a booster in May or if you'll just do it because of requirements. Personally, I make health decisions based on what I believe I need (my doctor plays a large role in that) not what someone is requiring. For example, I'm vaccinated, not boosted, just had a mild case of Covid two weeks ago and will likely get a booster at some point. But I feel that I'd like to stretch that out longer than some policies might allow/recommend (especially as my results are from an at home test). And I'm not going to change my mind based on policy that tells me my recent case doesn't matter or doesn't count because it wasn't documented.
×
×
  • Create New...