91 thoughts on “April 28, 2017: I’m feeling a Draft”

  1. All of that is a long way of saying Deshaun Watson was this close (*ohsoveryclose*) to going to Cleveland. It seemed set. Dude was going to be a Brown. He was about to be Cleveland's next-ex QB, the latest in an illustrious line of NFL legends like Tim Couch, Ty Detmer, Doug Pederson, Spurgeon Wynn, Kelly Holcomb, Jeff Garcia, Luke McCown, Trent Dilfer, Charlie Frye, Derek Anderson, Brady Quinn, Ken Dorsey, Bruce Gradkowski, Colt McCoy, Jake Delhomme, Seneca Wallace, Brandon Weeden, Thad Lewis, Jason Campbell, Brian Hoyer, Johnny Manziel, Connor Shaw, Austin Davis, Robert Griffin III and Cody Kessler. [link not provided to story, so as to save you more No Fun League discussion]

    1. Dumb luck (I know) but I'd somehow managed, without any effort on my part, to maintain an obliviousness to the draft. So much so that, while looking for the April 27th Twins Wild Wolves game that wasn't, I stumbled across the radio coverage. I still enjoy watching football, but the amount of effort spent on the product in the months it's not being actively played is perplexing.

      I'm a huge fan of the outdoors - camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, you name it, and I've been impressed to see Minnesotan's work hard to support it [1]. This may seem completely unrelated to the No Fun League draft, but I read an opinion piece by former MN Gov. Arne Carlson and former Mpls. City Council Pres. Paul Ostrow, which, under a photo of a beautiful (unidentified) waterfall* captioned," The Legislature intends to reduce spending on state parks at a time when public need is significantly growing." lead with the following paragraph:

      Minnesotans have traditionally seen their quality of life as something uniquely special to our state. An iconic Hamm’s beer commercial showed waterfalls and lovable bears dancing to "from the land of sky blue waters.”

      This is a complete head-fake. Here's the meat & potatoes of the piece (spoilered because, I guess political, though arguably not):

      Civic-minded pseudo-forbidden zone SelectShow
      1 SelectShow
      * SelectShow
      1. I wanted to post a photo of me in front of those falls, but I don't know how to upload photos to the site from my phone.

        Actual Spoiler SelectShow
      2. Wow. Makes we wonder if the photo was an intentional licensing thing. (Keeps foil hat on for another day)

  2. No draft here. My office turned into a sauna overnight. If only I knew how to turn off [redacted] radiator . . .

    1. When it comes to greatest post-Presidency, I'm fairly convinced the only real competition is between Jimmy Carter & John Quincy Adams.

        1. Taft's post-Presidency government career is perhaps the most notable, but I'd have to review the decisions of his Court before I put him on the level of Nobel Peace Laureate and the guy who represented the defendants in US v. Amistad Africans.

  3. The Chiefs took Texas Tech QB, Patrick Mahomes at #10. Turns out he is the son of ex-Twin Pat Mahomes. I never knew this.

          1. Sorry, I haven't been around here too much lately. We haven't seen the new Misties yet, we don't netflix.

      1. I guess the Twins don't hold a grudge against the elder Mahomes (which is good). I wonder how the the elder Mahomes feels about his first club.

          1. My memory is that TK had issues with Mahomes (and Banks?) similar to those with Erickson. Not quite to the Lohse/Gardy level, but close.

    1. I don't watch college football, but for some reason I walked in front of a TV during the second half of this game:

      http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/10/23/13369610/oklahoma-texas-tech-2016-final-score-recap

      Mahomes would basically avoid would-be tacklers and, no matter where his momentum was taking him, loft a 40-yard pass down field. I decided I'd watch until one of the teams doesn't score. Ended up watching the rest of the half. Mahomes would be getting calls in his helmet, standing still with his right arm in front of him, and his hand and forearm would be slightly shaking. Pass after pass after pass.

      It was an enjoyable night.

  4. LTE (and thus this response) was deleted when my issue was fixed

    ubelmann: Were you trying to sell Viagra?

    Can of Corn: ....maybe....

    1. I approved the prior comment. I think it was probably the # of links 3 is the threshold in a comment for most default WordPress install, but Sean would have to say one way or the other for me to be sure. It wasn't caught for spam via askimet so maybe it was just a random thing.

      1. Someone may have accidentally sent it to the spam folder. The LTE log shows Akismet clearing it an hour before you cleared it again.

  5. From LEN3:

    Twins personnel have indicated that with Gibson off to a poor start in his followup effort to last year’s unsuccessful and injury-plagued year, tonight’s start could impact his standing in the club’s rotation.

    Tepesch might end up stepping into Mejia's spot in the rotation when it comes up. If Gibson is demoted, it would almost have to be Berrios called up unless the Twins decide to try to stretch Duffey out.

  6. If anyone has the time, ability and interest, Matt and Becca Hamilton (of Madison) are currently playing Finland in the round of 16 at the mixed doubles world championship. They swept the round robin. It can be seen on the World Curling TV youtube channel.

    1. And oof, after being up one in the last end with hammer they gave up two steals in a row to lose. Very Wolvesy.

      1. As much of a blight on humanity it is from the outside, it really is worse on the other side of the doors. I haven't understood a word of praise that's come the way of the stadium. It's without interest or identity. It's just...big.

        1. I wish there wasn't any public financing for target field so I could say, with a clear conscience, that it is the exact opposite of this one.

    1. leaky walls...gives me PTSD.

      On the bright side, all of our new windows have been installed and they are now prepping to re-stucco around the windows.

      1. Real PTSD, huh? The kind that makes you nearly slug your spouse when they accidentally sneak up on you? The kind that leaves you soaked in sweat on the bus after a loud bang? The one where an HVAC smell conjures images you want to forget in the middle of a staff meeting, increases likelihood of substance abuse & suicide?

        That PTSD?

        1. Obviously not. Sorry if you took this as making light of actual traumatic experiences.

          Of course, no one here has ever employed hyperbole before. So I guess I should have put that comment in a spoiler.

          C'mon, dude.

          1. No, not "c'mon, dude." I don't take it as a matter of hyperbole any more than I would someone asking a colleague who made an unfortunate mistake "Are you retarded?," or someone describing themselves as a "crip" because they're sore from overdoing leg day. Neither is ever appropriate.

            Doc, I'm sorry for the situation you're dealing with on your house and the way it's affecting your finances & your ability to do fun stuff like vacations. (Hopefully not retirement, but I might've missed something there.) It sucks, and I very much am empathetic to that. But unless you're dealing with an actual trauma-induced* mental disorder and its attendant intrusive symptoms, equating it with that kind of suffering – even as hyperbole – is pretty inappropriate.

            (And, to be clear, I don't just mean vets here. People who have PTSD from sexual violence are very much invisible and implicated in this language. I can't speak to their experience, but I can speak to what I know from my own.)

            1. I am sorry that you took such offense.

              I said nothing that trivialized actual trauma, a topic with which I have only indirect, but extensive, professional experience.

              I mocked no one. I did not make the equivalent of a rape joke here. I did not imply that PTSD is not a serious issue.

              I am well aware that words matter and that sometimes people can cross lines unthinkingly that should not be crossed. I am aware that each of us has to bear some responsibility for how our words are interpreted, because communication is a two-way street.

              But, communication is a two-way street. People of good will in long-term relationships don't generally bring flame thrower to bear in response to minor, perceived transgressions not even directed at them. At the very least, they start with gentle correctives designed to improve communication.

              Obviously, you regarded my transgression as so egregious it was worth publicly jeopardizing a relationship, virtual though it might be. I am sorry for that. And offended by your response, because it so forcefully ignores so many other interactions we have had.

              1. I'm very willing to believe that you had no intent to trivialize trauma, Doc. I know you're not a meanspirited person. But I'm not sure how to interpret "leaky walls...gives me PTSD" as a comment that doesn't (even unintentionally) minimize the event that inflicts PTSD or what happens when PTSD is triggered. I specifically avoided equating it to the expression "Our incompetent builder is raping us/our bank account," because I felt that was excessive when making a connection to formerly common expressions which have become agreed-upon taboo uses sufficiently illustrated my point. But saying "Hassle X is giving me PTSD" sounds an awful lot like using the verb "rape" to mean "compromise" or "take advantage of" in a way disproportionate to what rape is, which is a horrific experience.

                Hearing about leaky walls probably surfaces some unpleasant feelings you'd prefer lie dormant. Those feelings might elicit an unpleasant & unwelcome physical response within your body, like nausea or an ulcer. In those limited ways, there's a small similarity. But I doubt they dump you into a fight-or-flight cascade, or cause you to act in a way that makes the people you love most afraid of you, and you ashamed for making them feel that way.

                At some point in my child's life, I'm going to respond to a stimulus she accidentally makes in my vicinity in a way that frightens & possibly endangers her. Her own dad is going to do what he exists to prevent. It won't happen just once. I already know I'm going to wear that shame, because I've already put it on with others in my life. The less-aggressive manifestations of PTSD will be a force she & I try to manage our whole lives.

                At least two guys from my unit are dead – one violently , one suicide – because PTSD claimed parts of them that they tried to fill with drugs, or couldn't fill with enough love from others. One was my squad leader, the other was in my section. They both left kids behind.

                In the last year I've been part of a group of practitioners having conversations about intent vs. impact* in the way we talk to students. It's a really thorny knot to untangle, because so much of the misunderstanding between them gets filtered as as judgment on what someone is instead of what they did. I want you to be absolutely assured that I think you're a good person, a competent professional (I didn't know you have professional familiarity with PTSD), and that you didn't mean for what you wrote to be offensive. But it was, and being cajoled as the unreasonable one (the "c'mon dude") for reacting to it, or soft-pedaling the transgression as "perceived" (which suggests it's my fault for not reading your mind), doesn't really help.

                My response to you was meant to be provocative, but I misjudged by how much. It was, in baseball terms, a purpose pitch. My intent was to move your feet in the box, like Bob Gibson, to point out exactly how outrageous invoking a PTSD comparison was for that joak. Your reply tells me I actually threw behind you instead of throwing the brushback I'd intended. For that, I apologize in total sincerity. My actions' impact on you is more important than my intent behind them.

                If you're thinking "Given our longstanding relationship, was an immediate brushback really necessary?," I think that's a reasonable place for us to disagree. Obviously I thought it was, not in the least because my experience of disclosure of my own PTSD to colleagues frequently results in dismissive stories about "my friend with PTSD" or abrupt shifts in the conversation, even when colleagues remark on something about my behavior and I then feel I must out myself. (I'm not "out" at work as having PTSD except in very limited circles.) That experience has made me disinclined to allow off-hand remarks to pass without a very serious challenge. That approach means I'm responsible for making amends when I challenge with too much force, and perhaps you feel our relationship merits a more restrained approach than with people in my professional life. Again, I'm not trying to blow up a friendship over a poor taste comment offered in jest. I will take my share of fault here and say I'm sorry for hurling an excessive response your way without enough consideration of a relationship we both seem to value for its collegiality, mutual interests, and longevity.

                But I'm not backing off saying that invoking PTSD (or any disability or trauma) in levity (even as hyperbole) inflicts unnecessary hurt, and that this hurt can be particularly volatile when the disability or trauma is invisible – often because people choose to not disclose them as a way of exerting some control over them & how they shape their identity.

                * I don't like using "impact" this way, but that's apparently the agreed-on formulation for this subject.

                1. So there are two separate things going on here I think.

                  1. CH you have a valid point I very much agree with. I don't feel PTSD should be thrown around willy nilly. In a similar vein, I don't call something erratic "schizophrenic" or "bipolar." That kind of language only serves to minimize or stigmatize people living with mental illness.

                  2. Brian is a staunch supporter of social and mental health policy and wishes your first response wasn't sarcastically implying he meant to harm you.

                  3. It's okay that you were hurt by the way he used the word. Thank you for sharing your perspective and educating us.

                  1. I realize my initial response to Brian was excessive & hurtful. I'll own that, and I hope he's inclined to forgive.

                2. Gentlemen, I very much appreciate the candor and your willingness to engage (and thoughtfully discuss) so the entire basement can learn something.

                  I'm no expert (not even remotely) but in both professional and personal settings, I've been exposed to the multifaceted PTSD and TBI challenges and realities facing current and former service members and the committees they live and work in. An astonishingly small percentage of the population serves or knows someone who served and even fewer know someone experiencing PTSD. It seems like just getting to the point of diagnosis and acceptance of that reality can be a challenge. Moving from quips to actual dialogue is more difficult (and hazardous ?) than most people realize, so I thank you both - again - for doing so openly.

                  CH - thanks for putting yourself out there.

  7. Not about the NFL. Even better. It's about Tim Tebow!!!111one111!!! And Canada.

    Ismail. Tim, you're a celebrity up here, but that's not why everyone's excited. You were one of the best college football players of all time. Why do you think you didn't work in the NFL?

    Tebow. I just wasn't good enough.

    Ismail. I don't think that's true. We don't think so. We think the NFL is built to nitpick and micromanage and legislate guys like you into uselessness. They didn't let Timmy be Timmy.

    Tebow. You sound like everybody in Gainesville.

    Ismail. I mean it, man. You have autonomy. We do not have a head coach. We don't have any coaches. Up here, we reject the oppressive hierarchies of authority. You will be the quarterback, so you will be the boss, and the only boss. You're calling every play. Are you comfortable with that?

      1. whaaa?

        did I miss a link earlier? Because I saw in on my Bookface feed from an historian I know at UC-Davisville.

  8. The Vikings passed on the RB convicted of punching a woman and drafted the RB acquitted of punching a woman.

    1. When I wouldn't play football in high school I was called every brand of expletive and branded a homosexual (as it turns out for life*). The culture of football seems to have a pretty big problem.

      *there are folks in my hometown that will to this day refer to me as a fag because I refused to play football, and because I was interested in art.

        1. Yes. Football culture has plenty of problems, but that particular one is not universal, thankfully.

              1. ... one could surmise that if you've risen to the top of the game you are a product of the larger football universe...

      1. Football's biggest problem is it is very hard to teach young men how to be violent and aggressive on cue and to switch it off when it is no longer needed or wanted.

          1. With that thought, are these players less of a threat to society since they have an outlet or more because it gets reinforced?

            I've heard the argument that porn actually reduces sexual assault.

            I have no idea.

            1. As far as I know, Kelly Wells hasn't sexually assaulted any of us!

              I remember people saying boxing helped Mike Tyson redirect his violent tendencies. It probably did a little bit but I'd hazard to guess that the deep seeded issues he had needed more therapy then just a job hitting others.

Comments are closed.