Recent Comments

Reading only the tweets, I thought it was dbag kid pulled a fast one.

Nope. Kid has a sick dad in Florida, and school refused to put him in the portal because he signed paperwork BEFORE his dad's stroke.

Add Wisconsin to the list of schools I will always root against.

@DC

NCAA stepped in and said yeah we can't stop him from transferring schools (even though he didn't use the portal)

I think it's a pipe dream as long as the players have lawyers now. They will sue the NCAA saying it limits their ability to earn compensation in the event they don't have a starting role in Spring or someone tampers and offers them a big check due to injuries or other portal entries.

Everybody is tossing names around and nobody knows anything except the people in Merryman. Claiming the sky is falling because some brother's wife's cousin's former roommate throws a name out on Twitter is tiresome.

I'll Judge the hire when the hire is announced.

I don't know who it's going to be. Sounds like we have a group Pry is talking to at this point - those mentioned above like Walton and Guerrieri, Adam Fuller's name I've seen tossed around, as well as the DC from JMU, and Geoff Collins. That's kind of the tier we seem to be talking to at this point.

So since we are "officially" to some level, you must know who the next DC is going to be? Please enlighten us.

From DC:

Fuente lost to 3-8 ODU, got shellacked by Duke, and his DC was a scum bag that was fired in disgrace

This makes it sound like the current DC who was coaching and actively playing a part in losing games to inferior competition was who was the scumbag.

The original point of the thread was Whit not providing enough funding to hire good coordinators. So, even though Scott was Fuente's intended future DC, bringing him up doesn't factor into whether Whit was ponying up cash for who we'd consider a good DC. I'm assuming Whit would not have had to pay Scott a high salary, so doesn't advance the argument either way about whether or not Whit will fund big salaries for good coordinators. So not sure what point bringing up Scott makes, other than just to point out he slept with someone on a recruiting trip (and "fuck Odom" was part of the same message).

So, fine that Scott is the scumbag, but it doesn't address whether Whit pays DCs well because he never paid Scott as a DC. My point holds true that Whit only ever oversaw the HIRING of 2 DCs (maybe 3 if you count retaining Foster, but otherwise it was JHam then Marve, with some unknown 3rd on the way). It's still way too small a sample to say whether what we pay DCs is competitive.

This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.

It's not secretive. The metric is described on Wikipedia:

PFF grades every NFL player on every play on a scale of -2 to +2 using half-point increments.[1] The grades are based on context and performance. A four-yard run that gains a first down after two broken tackles will receive a better grade than a four-yard run on third down and 5 yards left to go, where the ball carrier does nothing more than expected. A quarterback who makes a good pass that a receiver tips into the arms of a defender will not negatively affect the quarterback's grade on that play, despite the overall negative result for the team.[1]

The evaluations are then extrapolated onto a 0โ€“100 ratings scale that is sorted by position and free for anyone to view. These grades appear in many areas of NFL media, including NBC Sunday Night Football player introductions.

Furthermore, grades are separated by play type. Beyond just an overall grade, an offensive lineman receives one grade for pass-blocking and one for run-blocking.[8] The average grade for every position and play type is meant to be a 60, with raw grades being normalized.[1]

PFF Wikipedia

Perhaps you meant subjective.

If you have a water or sewer plumbing problem, I am your guy. But medical plumbing...

My doctor has always told me that my LDL is good, and my total cholesterol was under 150 so I was told that I had a lower than normal chance of issues (blockages). Should I be asking about a CT calcium at my next annual checkup? Is that a standard health covered test?

^100% on this.

I have all my patients get a CT calcium cardiac score as you recommended. There is a tight correlation with the score and risk of hemodynamically significant blockages.
Interestingly not as tight of a correlation with cholesterol level and blockages.
So.... my algorithm now is CT heart score to screen first, then cholesterol levels etc to monitor treatment interventions.

I was taught 15-20% of cholesterol is dietary, rest is genetically determined. (This varies with diet, age, etc but a decent rule of thumb). So, while dietary changes are important, patients get frustrated when they try aggressive dietary changes and likely STILL have elevated lipids. Remember, as a species, we are designed to have cholesterol. When they unearthed Neanderthals...they had blockages. Even though they had paleo diets, 10,000 steps a day, no McDonalds, Krispy Kreme etc. That's what we do as humans.

So, diet is important, but if a patient has a concerning CT heart screen report (ie there's blockages), they need aggressive interventions (ie meds and no, I make no $ from pharmaceuticals) with the goal of getting their LDL cholesterol to < 70 (lower is better)

Pages