Bobref

As a matter of historical accuracy, that was 2006. And Sheridan won by 30 pts. The game was never close. But the Rebels’ QB was phenomenal.

Giving the President either credit or blame for these statistics - regardless of which President you’re talking about - is lunacy.

This one’s for you @Howe.

Whoa! I never said Valpo was 21 pts. better than Dwenger. What I said was that if the Valpo QB had played even a halfway decent game that night, Valpo would have won that game by 3 TDS. I’m sure you understand the difference. And as for bias, I was there to observe and evaluate the officiating crew, not as a fan. I spent 40 seasons on the field being unbiased on a professional level. I’m probably the least biased guy on the GID.

I was there, on the sidelines. I know what I saw. It’s just an opinion.

I thought that if he had played even halfway decent against Dwenger, it would have been a 3 TD game.

Hahahaha! Hilarious. ... Wait ... you’re serious? 🙄

5A state runner-up Valparaiso just solidified their role as the favorite in the Duneland, and to come out of the North on Thanksgiving weekend, with the transfer of 2 yr. starter Maximus Grimes from Lafayette Jeff ... where he threw 66 TDS vs. 9 interceptions over the last two seasons. https://www.nwitimes.com/high-school/update-former-lafayette-jefferson-star-quarterback-maximus-grimes-transfers-to-valparaiso/article_c9a29116-bd5e-5405-b1c1-56765a9b2737.html UPDATE: Former Lafayette Jefferson star quarterback Maximus Grimes transfers to Valparaiso James Boyd May 28, 2020 Updated 48 min ago Valparaiso is in search of a new starting quarterback for the first time in two years, and the Vikings just received a big reinforcement. Former Lafayette Jefferson star Maximus Grimes has transferred to Valparaiso for the final season of his prep career. He confirmed the news Thursday and explained that the move was family related. Grimes' father got married last summer on July 4, and his stepmother — who lives in Valparaiso — gave birth to identical twin girls a few months ago. To make things easier logistically, Grimes and his dad will join the rest of their family in the Region. "Those have been my guys since I was young," Grimes said of leaving his former teammates in Lafayette. "But at the same time, I'm excited for a new experience." Vikings coach Bill Marshall corroborated the transfer and added that Grimes is eligible to compete. The IHSAA plans to resume school sponsored athletic activities on July 1. "He is in fact enrolled at Valparaiso High School and has had his athletic transfer cleared by the IHSAA," Marshall wrote in a text message to The Times. After a runner-up finish in the Class 5A state final last season and losing two-year starting quarterback CJ Opperman to graduation, Grimes should receive heavy consideration as the Vikings' new leader under center. During his junior campaign in the fall, Grimes commanded one of the most high-powered offenses in the state. The Bronchos averaged 52 points per game and scored over 60 points on three occasions. Grimes led the way through the air with 235.8 passing yards per game, 19 touchdowns and two interceptions. He also rushed for 139 yards and three scores. As a sophomore in 2018, Grimes was even more potent. He averaged 314 passing yards per game and threw a program-record 49 touchdowns and seven interceptions. Grimes picked up 174 yards and two more scores on the ground. Beyond his gaudy stats, he believes his intangibles are what will allow him to have a successful senior season at Valparaiso. "I think that I can bring passion and competitiveness just by being somebody who loves to play the game," said Grimes, who stands 6 foot 2 and weighs 200 pounds. "Whether it's in practice, a scrimmage or the state championship game, I want to win." According to 247Sports, Grimes is a pro-style quarterback with interest from Indiana, Miami (Ohio) and Purdue. He announced via Twitter on May 15 that he received a scholarship offer from Valparaiso University. Last year, Grimes led Lafayette Jefferson to a 9-1 record. The Bronchos were undefeated heading into the playoffs but had their season ended in a 27-20 loss to Merrillville in a Class 6A sectional semifinal on Nov. 1. Grimes played against the Pirates with a torn right ACL, which he initially ruptured against Anderson on Sept. 27. He still completed nine passes for 75 yards in the first half. But on a Hail Mary attempt in the closing seconds of the second quarter, Grimes' right knee finally gave out. He did not return to the contest and underwent surgery a few days before Thanksgiving. Grimes said his right knee is about "90-95%" healthy, and he expects to be at full strength for the Vikings' season opener against Penn on Aug. 21. In the meantime, Grimes has remained in contact with Marshall and recently met up with his new receivers for a couple of throwing sessions. "Obviously, everybody wants to win a state championship. That's the only thing that matters," Grimes said. "Anything less than that would be a loss in my book."

Good bloodlines will always tell. 😉

@DT, I love this idea. But that’s not the same thing as saying it’s likely to happen. From a competitive standpoint, it makes all the sense in the world. Unfortunately, it doesn’t make much sense economically. Hammond and Morton are unlikely to travel well, and I don’t expect the folks from KV and Lowell to be too excited about those road trips. Hanover Central is a more likely candidate. Growing population. Good community support. Nice facility. More centrally located. An up and coming football program.

😂🤣😅😜 I assure you, I am not a “typical” official ... whatever that is. But that is neither here nor there. It’s hard to interpret your response as anything other than throwing in the towel. In the final analysis, though, I think you’re right about at least one thing. There really is no obviously correct answer to many of these questions. The difference between us is that I care about the answers, and you don’t.

Smart. If the referendum passes, he’ll have earned it many times over.

Of course we can. That’s the whole point. We’ve been protecting the whole population — one of the reasons the death rate is so far below some of the projections. The problem comes when you try to protect some of the population, while allowing the remainder to go unprotected and unfettered. If there’s any other way to actually accomplish that goal besides completely isolating the vulnerable population — and their caregivers — and their families/support systems — I have yet to hear it.

And just how do you protect the vulnerable population while essentially allowing the virus free rein in the population at large? I asked in an earlier post that began this thread: “You’re going to essentially cut a sizable segment of the population off from anyone else. You do realize that 1 in 7 Americans is over 65? Add to that the other vulnerable people, like poorly-controlled diabetics, those with auto-immune diseases, the immune-suppressed, those receiving chemotherapy (650,000 every year), and you’re talking well over 15% of the population, i.e., more than 50 million people. I would like to hear someone explain the “protective measures” for these 50 million people that will allow the other 275 million to just go about their business as if nothing had ever happened. Maybe we should just relocate all these people to a single geographic area where we can more easily protect them? You know, like concentration camps, but with internet and cable TV.“ Still waiting for an answer.

You would think if you were trying to restart a program, you’d want to encourage linkage to great tradition. Those Hammond High teams of the early 60s were as good as it gets in Indiana at the time.

To be honest, I thought it was funny ... but any deeper significance escapes me. Sorry, I’m reading this early in the morning.

Sounds like the intro to a @DT contraction argument.

= illogic

“My” logic? A statement is either logical or it isn’t. That one isn’t. My remark was not intended to comment on any political issue one way or another.

One of the great non sequiturs I’ve ever seen.

That’s what everyone says: “I’m sure there are ... things we can do.” As I said, the devil is in the details. Protecting the vulnerable, while allowing the less vulnerable to resume normality, is not a plan. It’s a goal. Now it’s time to come up with a plan to achieve that goal. So far, all I’ve heard is a lot of people pounding the table to get back to “normal.” I want to hear how we get there. How we deal with the elderly living in facilities. How we deal with people in high rise building elevators, in doctor’s offices, hospitals, clinics, etc,, in government offices and courthouses, on airplanes, etc. We all want to get “back.” What we disagree on is what we need to do going forward.

Sounds logical. Makes sense. But, of course, the devil is in the details. Just how is this going to happen? You’re going to essentially cut a sizable segment of the population off from anyone else. You do realize that 1 in 7 Americans is over 65? Add to that the other vulnerable people, like poorly-controlled diabetics, those with auto-immune diseases, the immune-suppressed, those receiving chemotherapy (650,000 every year), and you’re talking well over 15% of the population, i.e., more than 50 million people. I would like to hear someone explain the “protective measures” for these 50 million people that will allow the other 275 million to just go about their business as if nothing had ever happened. Maybe we should just relocate all these people to a single geographic area where we can more easily protect them? You know, like concentration camps, but with internet and cable TV. I’ve got news for you. Things have changed forever. We’re not “going back” to the way things were.There will be a “new normal,” and it’s going to include at least some of the protections that have been employed in the last 2 months. These various measures fall at different places along the most protective/least restrictive spectrum. The choices that are made in the next 6 months will determine what the “new normal” is.

It was only a matter of time before Biden stepped in it. The real issue is whether anyone who was offended by his totally tone deaf remark, and who would have voted for him, will now vote for Trump as a result. My guess is not very many. So, in that sense, Biden was right. He does own those votes.