1. Detroit- Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia
2. St. Louis- Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
3. Kansas City- Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest
4. Seattle- Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia
5. Cleveland Browns- Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech
6. Cincinnati- B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College
7. Oakland- Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri
8. Jacksonville- Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss
9. Green Bay- Brian Orakpo, LB/DE, Texas
10. San-Francisco- Everette Brown, DE/LB, Florida State
11. Buffalo- Brandon Pettigrew, TE, Oklahoma State
12. Denver- Mark Sanchez, QB, USC
13. Washington- Aaron Maybin, OLB/DE, Penn State
14. New Orleans- Chris Wells, RB, Ohio State
15. Houston- Peria Jerry, DT, Mississippi
16. San Diego-Rey Maualuga, LB, USC
17. New York (J)- Darrius Heyward Bey, WR, Maryland
18. Denver- (from Chicago) Malcolm Jenkins, DB, Ohio State
19. Tampa Bay- James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State
20. Detroit- Andre Smith, OT, Alabama
21. Philadelphia- Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia
22. Minnesota- Alphonso Smith, CB, Wake Forest
23. New England- Brian Cushing, LB, USC
24. Atlanta- Robert Ayers, DE, Tennessee
25. Miami- Larry English, DE/LB, Northern Illinois
26. Baltimore- Clint Sintim, LB, Virginia
27. Indianapolis-Brian Robiskie, WR, Ohio State
28. Philadelphia- Louis Delmas, S, Western Michigan
29. New York-(G)- Clay Matthews, LB, USC
30. Tennessee- Hakeem Nicks, WR, North Carolina
31. Arizona- Vontae Davis, CB, Illinois
32. Pittsburgh- Eben Britton, T, Arizona
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Indy's Mock Draft 1.0
Usually, I don't like to do Mock Drafts so soon, but I figured since I am bored I would shed a light to some of these horrible mock drafts I have seen. Since this one is done so early, I will not share pro's, cons, and analysis. I will type a small paragraph at the bottom about some of my "shocker" picks.
1. Detroit- Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia
2. St. Louis- Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
3. Kansas City- Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest
4. Seattle- Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia
5. Cleveland Browns- Brian Orakpo, DE/LB, Texas
6. Cincinnati- B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College
7. Oakland- Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri
8. Jacksonville- Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech
9. Green Bay- Aaron Maybin, DE/LB, Penn State
10. San-Francisco- Everette Brown, DE/LB, Florida State
11. Buffalo- Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss
12. Denver- Rey Maualuga, LB, USC
13. Washington- Andre Smith, OT, Alabama
14. New Orleans- Malcolm Jenkins, CB/S, Ohio State
15. Houston- Peria Jerry, DT, Mississippi
16. San Diego- Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU
17. New York (J)- Mark Sanchez, QB, USC
18. Chicago Bears- Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR, Maryland
19. Tampa Bay- Josh Freeman, QB, Kansas State
20. Detroit- Vontae Davis, CB, Illinois
21. Philadelphia- Hakeem Nicks, WR, North Carolina
22. Minnesota- Alphonso Smith, CB, Wake Forest
23. New England- James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State
24. Atlanta- Larry English, Northern Illinois
25. Miami- Louis Delmas, S, Western Michigan
26. Baltimore- Percy Harvin, WR/RB, Florida
27. Indianapolis- Clay Matthews, LB, USC
28. Philadelphia- Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia
29. New York-(G)- Kenny Britt, WR, Rutgers
30. Tennessee- Darrius Butler, CB, Connecticut
31. Arizona- Chris Wells, RB, Ohio State
32. Pittsburgh- Max Unger, C/OT/OG, Oregon
Ok, so the first one I might get ripped for is having Oakland take Maclin over Crabtree, but Al Davis loves speed, and Crabtree lacks it. Aaron Maybin's potential has him drafted so high, key word is POTENTIAL, Everette Brown going to SF is because Lawson cant stay healthy and is never consistent, Jason Peters isn't happy in Buffalo and had a regressed year and wants a new contract so offensive lineman makes sense to me. Houston is said to be looking hard, and reaching for a DT in round one. Anything else ask away and I will give you my input.
1. Detroit- Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia
2. St. Louis- Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
3. Kansas City- Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest
4. Seattle- Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia
5. Cleveland Browns- Brian Orakpo, DE/LB, Texas
6. Cincinnati- B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College
7. Oakland- Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri
8. Jacksonville- Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech
9. Green Bay- Aaron Maybin, DE/LB, Penn State
10. San-Francisco- Everette Brown, DE/LB, Florida State
11. Buffalo- Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss
12. Denver- Rey Maualuga, LB, USC
13. Washington- Andre Smith, OT, Alabama
14. New Orleans- Malcolm Jenkins, CB/S, Ohio State
15. Houston- Peria Jerry, DT, Mississippi
16. San Diego- Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU
17. New York (J)- Mark Sanchez, QB, USC
18. Chicago Bears- Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR, Maryland
19. Tampa Bay- Josh Freeman, QB, Kansas State
20. Detroit- Vontae Davis, CB, Illinois
21. Philadelphia- Hakeem Nicks, WR, North Carolina
22. Minnesota- Alphonso Smith, CB, Wake Forest
23. New England- James Laurinaitis, LB, Ohio State
24. Atlanta- Larry English, Northern Illinois
25. Miami- Louis Delmas, S, Western Michigan
26. Baltimore- Percy Harvin, WR/RB, Florida
27. Indianapolis- Clay Matthews, LB, USC
28. Philadelphia- Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia
29. New York-(G)- Kenny Britt, WR, Rutgers
30. Tennessee- Darrius Butler, CB, Connecticut
31. Arizona- Chris Wells, RB, Ohio State
32. Pittsburgh- Max Unger, C/OT/OG, Oregon
Ok, so the first one I might get ripped for is having Oakland take Maclin over Crabtree, but Al Davis loves speed, and Crabtree lacks it. Aaron Maybin's potential has him drafted so high, key word is POTENTIAL, Everette Brown going to SF is because Lawson cant stay healthy and is never consistent, Jason Peters isn't happy in Buffalo and had a regressed year and wants a new contract so offensive lineman makes sense to me. Houston is said to be looking hard, and reaching for a DT in round one. Anything else ask away and I will give you my input.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
ET Says: "The War on Weed - Financially Irresponsible"
"Job cuts exceed 100,000 for the week." - February 2nd, CNN
"... the worst economic crisis in decades." - February 24th, Reuters
"U.S. Stocks Fall, Sending Market to Its Lowest Close Since 1997 " - February 23rd, Bloomberg
There's no questioning this matter; the United States is experiencing some of the worst economic times that we have seen since this country was founded in 1776. Ben Bernanke, a member of the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve, has assured the public that the Federal Reserve is "committed to using all available tools" in order to fix this growing problem.
Mr. Bernanke, I would like to present a "tool" that could be of use in this situation.
No, no, I'm not referring to Michael Phelps; that's a story for a different time. Instead, I'm referring to Marijuana, and its economic value to the United States.
Nineteen billion dollars was spent on the "drug war" in America in 2003. Since 2003, this number has risen due to numerous causes, including the drug arrest rate growing larger with each passing year. Understandably, these laws require a lot of money in order to catch "underground market" perpetrators. Is it necessary spending, however?
To understand this, we must first understand where Marijuana lies when compared to other mood-altering substances.
Alcohol is the most popular substance of comparison when referring to this debate. And why not? In 2004, Alcohol-induced Liver Disease (ALD) was among the top 10 leading causes of death among adults in the United States. There is also the issue of drinking and driving, the number one cause of death amongst teenage drivers, as well as many other health risks involved with alcohol. Let's face it, booze is bad for our health. As far as its mood-altering effects? It varies with the individual, but it has been known to cause violenece, as well sexual encounters with people that have a striking resemblance to Rosie O' Donnell.
Then, of course, there is the comparison of cigarettes (and the implied nicotine drug) - a product that has resulted in nearly 1/5 of all deaths in the United States. Though cigarettes have little mood-altering effects, it is highly addictive, and extremely deadly. This product is known to be smoked in "packs" (20 cigarettes). An average smoker usually goes through a pack a day, but it is known to be smoked in even larger quantaties (sometimes ranging to 5-packs (100 cigarettes), or more).
The above comparisons are the most common ones used in this debate, but I don't believe they are the most effective (though they do tell a story). I present the drug Salvia. Currently a legal drug in the US (at the federal level, some states have outlawed its use), Salvia's potency is known to be much higher than that of Marijuana's, and is considered to be nearly as potent as LSD. The health risks are that of Marijuana's - inhaling a carcinegous smoke into your lungs can lead to lung cancer. However, the reason that Marijuana and Slavia aren't normally linked to cancer, while cigarettes are, is due to the amount of smoke that is inhaled in the habit. Even a daily Marijuana smoker can't touch the 20-40 cigarettes inhaled on a daily basis by an average cigarette smoker. While the effects of Savlia are short-lasting (about 10-20 minutes), it still alters the body's perception to a much further point than Marijuana. This begs the question as to why Marijuana was made illegal in the first place.
In short, Marijuana was made illegal in 1937 due to the "Marijuana Tax Act". This court case was decided between two factors: science and yellow journalism. Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association, represented science, while Harry Anslinger represented yellow journalism. In court, Woodward argued in favor of keeping Marijuana legal in the states, by notifying that the propoganda that surrounded Marijuana at the time was shown to be either completely false, or highly inconclusive. Below are some of his direct quotes from the case:
"We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.
But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.
You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.
Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.
Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it."
Woodward was unsuccessful in his attempt to re-educate the court on this issue, however, and lost the case in favor of the yellow journalism that had surrounded the Mexican culture, and its use of Hemp and Marijuana at the time. Below is a quote that summarizes the court's feelings on this case:
I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:
Ladies and gentleman, Marijuana was made illegal due to racism and yellow journalism.
(For those that are more interested in this issue, and would like to pursue the specifics, I would suggest reading this website: http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com)
Now then, all of this may be true, but what purpose does Marijuana serve in this country? Well, I would be happy to demonstrate that purpose.
As stated previously, the government spent nineteen billion dollars on the "drug war" in 2003. In 2005, it was reported that 42.6% of all drug arrests were due to the use of Marijuana. Using my "California Math" - as Bert would call it, this would mean that $8.094 billion dollars was allocated towards the effort to stop Marijuana. This number has increased since those times, due to the rate of Marijuana arrests, as well as the amount of money spent on the "drug war", rising each year. At this point, we can estimate that the government can save nearly $10 billion dollars in annual spending by eliminating Marijuana as a crime.
Take into account that by doing so, this would create an entirely new industry that would rival the alcohol and cigarette's importance to the economy. Considering the tobacco industry has employed over a million individuals in the United States, we could potentially create millions of jobs in this process, as well as provide an untapped source of revenue for the government, if they should choose to tax it. Consider the fact that this drug is widely used by Americans today; in fact, in a recent "Time" poll, 42% of participants stated that they had "tried Marijuana at least once". The fact that this drug is used by nearly half of our nation today allows one to believe that if Marijuana were to become an industry, it would be an extremely popular one.
So, in summation:
-The government can save nearly 10 billion dollars in annual spending, as well as receive a large portion of revenue by taxing this product.
- The Marijuana industry could potentially create millions of jobs, as well as allow for an increase in consumer spending (considering nearly half of the nation has admitted to using this drug).
- When comparing health risks, Marijuana is towards the bottom of the list of mood-altering substances.
- Marijuana had no judgement in it's criminalization in 1937.
So instead of spending 800+ billion dollars on a stimulus bill, maybe America can think outside of the box when tending to the economy. By doing so, they may just find the one untapped resource that can boost us out of this rut... and back into our homes.
"... the worst economic crisis in decades." - February 24th, Reuters
"U.S. Stocks Fall, Sending Market to Its Lowest Close Since 1997 " - February 23rd, Bloomberg
There's no questioning this matter; the United States is experiencing some of the worst economic times that we have seen since this country was founded in 1776. Ben Bernanke, a member of the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve, has assured the public that the Federal Reserve is "committed to using all available tools" in order to fix this growing problem.
Mr. Bernanke, I would like to present a "tool" that could be of use in this situation.
No, no, I'm not referring to Michael Phelps; that's a story for a different time. Instead, I'm referring to Marijuana, and its economic value to the United States.
Nineteen billion dollars was spent on the "drug war" in America in 2003. Since 2003, this number has risen due to numerous causes, including the drug arrest rate growing larger with each passing year. Understandably, these laws require a lot of money in order to catch "underground market" perpetrators. Is it necessary spending, however?
To understand this, we must first understand where Marijuana lies when compared to other mood-altering substances.
Alcohol is the most popular substance of comparison when referring to this debate. And why not? In 2004, Alcohol-induced Liver Disease (ALD) was among the top 10 leading causes of death among adults in the United States. There is also the issue of drinking and driving, the number one cause of death amongst teenage drivers, as well as many other health risks involved with alcohol. Let's face it, booze is bad for our health. As far as its mood-altering effects? It varies with the individual, but it has been known to cause violenece, as well sexual encounters with people that have a striking resemblance to Rosie O' Donnell.
Then, of course, there is the comparison of cigarettes (and the implied nicotine drug) - a product that has resulted in nearly 1/5 of all deaths in the United States. Though cigarettes have little mood-altering effects, it is highly addictive, and extremely deadly. This product is known to be smoked in "packs" (20 cigarettes). An average smoker usually goes through a pack a day, but it is known to be smoked in even larger quantaties (sometimes ranging to 5-packs (100 cigarettes), or more).
The above comparisons are the most common ones used in this debate, but I don't believe they are the most effective (though they do tell a story). I present the drug Salvia. Currently a legal drug in the US (at the federal level, some states have outlawed its use), Salvia's potency is known to be much higher than that of Marijuana's, and is considered to be nearly as potent as LSD. The health risks are that of Marijuana's - inhaling a carcinegous smoke into your lungs can lead to lung cancer. However, the reason that Marijuana and Slavia aren't normally linked to cancer, while cigarettes are, is due to the amount of smoke that is inhaled in the habit. Even a daily Marijuana smoker can't touch the 20-40 cigarettes inhaled on a daily basis by an average cigarette smoker. While the effects of Savlia are short-lasting (about 10-20 minutes), it still alters the body's perception to a much further point than Marijuana. This begs the question as to why Marijuana was made illegal in the first place.
In short, Marijuana was made illegal in 1937 due to the "Marijuana Tax Act". This court case was decided between two factors: science and yellow journalism. Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association, represented science, while Harry Anslinger represented yellow journalism. In court, Woodward argued in favor of keeping Marijuana legal in the states, by notifying that the propoganda that surrounded Marijuana at the time was shown to be either completely false, or highly inconclusive. Below are some of his direct quotes from the case:
"We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.
But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.
You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.
Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.
Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it."
Woodward was unsuccessful in his attempt to re-educate the court on this issue, however, and lost the case in favor of the yellow journalism that had surrounded the Mexican culture, and its use of Hemp and Marijuana at the time. Below is a quote that summarizes the court's feelings on this case:
I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:
The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.
The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.
The result is tragic.
School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.
High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.
This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.
The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.
Ladies and gentleman, Marijuana was made illegal due to racism and yellow journalism.
(For those that are more interested in this issue, and would like to pursue the specifics, I would suggest reading this website: http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com)
Now then, all of this may be true, but what purpose does Marijuana serve in this country? Well, I would be happy to demonstrate that purpose.
As stated previously, the government spent nineteen billion dollars on the "drug war" in 2003. In 2005, it was reported that 42.6% of all drug arrests were due to the use of Marijuana. Using my "California Math" - as Bert would call it, this would mean that $8.094 billion dollars was allocated towards the effort to stop Marijuana. This number has increased since those times, due to the rate of Marijuana arrests, as well as the amount of money spent on the "drug war", rising each year. At this point, we can estimate that the government can save nearly $10 billion dollars in annual spending by eliminating Marijuana as a crime.
Take into account that by doing so, this would create an entirely new industry that would rival the alcohol and cigarette's importance to the economy. Considering the tobacco industry has employed over a million individuals in the United States, we could potentially create millions of jobs in this process, as well as provide an untapped source of revenue for the government, if they should choose to tax it. Consider the fact that this drug is widely used by Americans today; in fact, in a recent "Time" poll, 42% of participants stated that they had "tried Marijuana at least once". The fact that this drug is used by nearly half of our nation today allows one to believe that if Marijuana were to become an industry, it would be an extremely popular one.
So, in summation:
-The government can save nearly 10 billion dollars in annual spending, as well as receive a large portion of revenue by taxing this product.
- The Marijuana industry could potentially create millions of jobs, as well as allow for an increase in consumer spending (considering nearly half of the nation has admitted to using this drug).
- When comparing health risks, Marijuana is towards the bottom of the list of mood-altering substances.
- Marijuana had no judgement in it's criminalization in 1937.
So instead of spending 800+ billion dollars on a stimulus bill, maybe America can think outside of the box when tending to the economy. By doing so, they may just find the one untapped resource that can boost us out of this rut... and back into our homes.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Indy says "Sage Rosenfels or Tarvaris Jackson, we will find out."
The Minnesota Vikings were in need of an upgrade at the quarterback position. Some might say "desperately" others might say that term is a nice way of putting it. But we do know this. As of Friday, the Vikings sent a 4th round pick to the Texans for Sage Rosenfels and preceded to sign him to a 2 year, 9 million dollar deal. But, as some of you come to know about being Vikings fan, this isn't good enough for most. We always want that IMMEDIATE fix, I mean, really, it does seem as if we are cursed as a franchise. But what exactly does Sage Rosenfels bring to the table?
From many football sites here is what I have gathered.
Positives:
+ Above average arm
+ Good athlete
+ Very good in the short to intermediate passing game
+ Gets good air under his throws
Negatives:
- Tries to force the ball too much leading to interceptions
- Inconsistent delivery
- Inconsistent at reading coverages
To me, the negatives are very coach able. And the one thing I like to hear is he has strengths that match our offense. Sure we don’t run a full-blown west coast offense, but some of the terminology is similar. It is mostly the Brad Childress at Wisconsin offense (the similarities are freaky)
So as you can see, this signing has the potential to be of the Visanthe Shiancoe, Bobby Wade (say what you want, he has led the team in receptions the last two years) type. And we get to keep our first day picks.
-Indystbn
From many football sites here is what I have gathered.
Positives:
+ Above average arm
+ Good athlete
+ Very good in the short to intermediate passing game
+ Gets good air under his throws
Negatives:
- Tries to force the ball too much leading to interceptions
- Inconsistent delivery
- Inconsistent at reading coverages
To me, the negatives are very coach able. And the one thing I like to hear is he has strengths that match our offense. Sure we don’t run a full-blown west coast offense, but some of the terminology is similar. It is mostly the Brad Childress at Wisconsin offense (the similarities are freaky)
So as you can see, this signing has the potential to be of the Visanthe Shiancoe, Bobby Wade (say what you want, he has led the team in receptions the last two years) type. And we get to keep our first day picks.
-Indystbn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
