why would people be upset w/ Michael Griffin?

[dbair1967]

yes, we saw your uninformed opinion earlier

see comment in previous post

David

 

[Bob Sacamano]

TSN:

"Lacks instincts and often gets caught flatfooted in the open field. Misreads too many pass routes and gets caught out of position."

"...will struggle with the mental part of the game and be terribly inconsistent."

that's 1, 3 or 4 more to go

 

[Bob Sacamano]

do you have to work hard at being a prick, or does it come naturally?

David

naturally, no preservatives

 

[mschmidt64]

Well isn't the issue that even though it's grown intrastate that it's still in competition with interstate wheat because it shifts the supply curve to the right and therefor brings a new equilibrium point for the price of wheat? Even though the wheat was grown for personal consumption and never enters the market it still keeps a buyer out of the market and therefor has a direct effect on it.

Yes, but that's an absurd argument.

So growing tomatoes in my back yard is somehow interstate commerce because as a result I didn't buy any from the grocery store? Or didn't have to buy gas to drive my car to the grocery store? You can extrapolate backwards as far as you want to; hence, as you pointed out yourself, as long as you are willing to keep stretching, you can quote/unquote "legitimately" pass legislation for anything. Including the ridiculous US v. Lopez scenario, in which thankfully the court drew a line, which sought to argue that gun possession could create a "less safe environment," which could scare consumers, which could make them shop elsewhere, which could have some kind of effect on interstate commerce, so they can regulate it.

Convenient loophole that would have found a way around a right that is protected by the second amendment.

And what's worse, on top of it all, the court doesn't even argue that ONE person possessing a gun or ONE person growing wheat has an effect on interstate commerce. They create a fictional scenario where EVERYONE does it before they can even drum up an affect to regulate. Then they regulate the single action that doesn't really have that affect under that premise.

It's a complete falsification from start to finish! A total lie, and people like Cobra endorse it.

The bottom line is, lack of interstate commerce can't be interstate commerce. It's too broad. As such, the opinion was wrongly decided and should be amended. And the powers of the United States Congress should change with it.

That would cause a radical shift in our government today, but not one that would destroy the country. It would merely re-establish the meaning what is supposed to be the law in this nation.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It is just as uninformed as yours is.

facts have been provided that back me up, sorry

 

[MrMom]

It is just as uninformed as yours is.

but-but- I have these awesome combine numbers to look up...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

but-but- I have these awesome combine numbers to look up...

what have you got?

 

[masomenos]

Yes, but that's an absurd argument.

So growing tomatoes in my back yard is somehow interstate commerce because as a result I didn't buy any from the grocery store? Or didn't have to buy gas to drive my car to the grocery store? You can extrapolate backwards as far as you want to; hence, as you pointed out yourself, as long as you are willing to keep stretching, you can quote/unquote "legitimately" pass legislation for anything. Including the ridiculous US v. Lopez scenario, in which thankfully the court drew a line, which sought to argue that gun possession could create a "less safe environment," which could scare consumers, which could make them shop elsewhere, which could have some kind of effect on interstate commerce, so they can regulate it.

Convenient loophole that would have been around a right that is protected by the second amendment.

And what's worse, on top of it all, the court doesn't even argue that ONE person possessing a gun or ONE person growing wheat has an effect on interstate commerce. They create a fictional scenario where EVERYONE does it before they can even drum up an affect to regulate. Then they regulate the single action that doesn't really have that affect under that premise.

It's a complete falsification from start to finish!

I thought of the tomato issue too and the only thing I can think is that small production would have virtually no impact on interstate commerce but if people were planting fields and fields of tomatoes then it would. Filburn didn't just grow one or two bushels of wheat too many, he grew almost 250 more bushels than the quota. Now I have my doubts about even 250 bushels having a big effect on an entire wheat market but I guess that's where they create these fictional scenarios of "What if everyone overgrew by 250 bushels?" and that's where the need for regulation comes in. The gun control issue is completely ridiculous though and I don't know how it could have any real effect on commerce. And in reality I guess if they used the same scenario creation and said "What if everyone had a gun" then the argument could be made that all the extra guns would act as a deterrent from one person using a gun and would create a safer environment.

 

[mschmidt64]

I thought of the tomato issue too and the only thing I can think is that small production would have virtually no impact on interstate commerce but if people were planting fields and fields of tomatoes then it would. Filburn didn't just grow one or two bushels of wheat too many, he grew almost 250 more bushels than the quota. Now I have my doubts about even 250 bushels having a big effect on an entire wheat market but I guess that's where they create these fictional scenarios of "What if everyone overgrew by 250 bushels?" and that's where the need for regulation comes in.

Yes, but that didn't actually happen.

Someone made up a fake scenario and used it as justification.

In doing so, they violated the rights he DID have.

The gun control issue is completely ridiculous though and I don't know how it could have any real effect on commerce. And in reality I guess if they used the same scenario creation and said "What if everyone had a gun" then the argument could be made that all the extra guns would act as a deterrent from one person using a gun and would create a safer environment.

You're right.

It's completely ridiculous.

So remember that when Cobra gets back in this thread and tells me I'm pompous and ignorant for caring about our rights.

 

[Bizwah]

You simply cannot use combine numbers as an indicator of NFL success.

Otherwise Mike Mamula and Troy Williamson would be all-pros.

You cannot rule out what was done ON THE FIELD.

Admittedly, I know very little about Michael Griffin. I watched a ton of Texas games, but I really didn't pay attention to him.

I do remember what Parcells said.....and I gotta say that I agree with him.

He said something to the effect that choosing a DB from a conference like the Big 12 was tough due to the fact that the QBs and passing games are comparatively weak.

For every Terrence Newman you draft, there's another Brian Westbrook or Quentin Jammer. There haven't been a ton of great DBs come from the Big 12.

 

[Da Hammer]

being obviously a big Texas fan i have seen a lot of Griffin and i would say he is better suited at SS than FS although i dont think he would be bad at FS. He's a 1st rd pick at Safety and a 2nd to 3rd rd at SS so i probably wouldnt want him unless we are getting rid of roy williams

 

[silverbear]

4.4 40
1.49 10-yard dash
2.57 20-yard dash
4.10 short-shuttle-better than Merriweather, Landry and Nelson's times
6.6 3-cone drille-also better than those 3
10' long jump
39 1/2" vertical
16 reps of 225
can play both S positions
exceptional in coverage
big-hitter
covers alot of ground
7 INTs his final 2 years

not advocating him for our pick at 22, but I saw a couple of people say they would be pretty upset if he were our pick, why?

Because the Longhorns' pass defense this year was really, really bad, in spite of having all those "name" starters-- Griffin, Ross, Tarell Brown... can't blame it on a good DL that included Tim Crowder, Brian Robison and Frank Okam... the linebackers were pretty bad, it's true, but mostly the DBs got toasted on a regular basis...

If they told me Griffin was a 3rd or 4th round pick, I'd see value there, but no way he (or Ross) deserve to be drafted in the first round...

I'm sure you know, I'm a devoted Horns fan, so I WANT these guys to be first round talent, but they're simply not... I think what's happening is that Horns players are being overrated (some of them) because of winning a national championship so recently...

But how could Ross, who gave up 50 plus catches for over 700 yards, have ever won the Thorpe Award as the nation's best DB??

 

[silverbear]

yes, I have, and even if I haven't, I sure wouldn't take your word for it

This time, I've reluctantly gotta agree with Dave-- Griffin really isn't that good in coverage...

 

[WDN]

facts have been provided that back me up, sorry

No, all you have is some numbers. That doesn't translate to how he will play on the field.

He is not a cover safety.

 

[jobberone]

Maybe we should poll the forum. Doesn't prove anything but would be interesting.

 

[zeromaster]

Someone remind me again what the ongoing legal discussion has to do with the draft. It looked like it started as Cobra v. et al, but I may be misinformed.