ADVERTISEMENT

Borghi

Comparing Black and Borghi is like comparing apples and oranges. One was a feature back in a QB under center offense, running a TE and tight splits, the other was a pass catching/run on a favorable box count, ultra wide split offense.

That said, Michael Black was on the Seahawk roster for two years (practice squad), demonstrating lower level NFL talent. Borghi, hasn't accomplished that, at least yet.
 
Ummm didn't need that extra gear. Had a qb that could spin it. He got yards....one cut and done. For 20 yards looked way quicker than borghi. And he could read a block. I could go probably 6 runs a game where borghi misread where the hole was opening up.
Go ahead and compare their longest runs and receptions from scrimmage.
 
My thought for Max over the past 2 seasons was that if he wanted to play in the NFL, he should get switched to slot/inside receiver while at WSU and have at least one full season (if not 2) developing a body of work (as well as personal experience) at that position. The decision to bail out early for the draft, when you clearly don't fit 80-90% of the NFL RB opportunities (and are not a slam dunk at the other 10-20%) was never grounded in reality. M-I asked earlier in the thread who counselled Max; clearly, the answer is either no one competent, or if he got competent advice, he ignored it.

The chances of Max making it as a receiver in the NFL were always much higher than his chances of making it as a RB. He would likely be a good back up receiver who could also block a DB, and who also returned kicks & punts. His pass catching body of work at WSU shows he has hands, but it does not show that he can catch & hold a pass over the middle. That, and experience in that environment, is IMHO what Max needed to catch on with an NFL team. He certainly has the physical tools needed to play slot in the NFL.
 
People with the right personality would have good job prospects going to law enforcement with some social work in their background, or becoming one of the social workers attached to law enforcement....which is how I see things going. People are finally starting to realize that sworn officers are not social workers, but that social workers are needed for many of the things for which we are now using law enforcement. My sister (another Coug) has spent her 35 year career (and 10 more to go) in social work (various forms), including a recent 5 year stint as a counselor in the WA state prison system. Her prediction, for what its worth, is that social workers will become adjunct/attached to law enforcement at the stationhouse level. They will be involved in a wide range of things, from substance abuse to domestic violence to PTSD response to homeless response & treatment referral. I can offer that in the areas in SoCal where that is currently being tried the biggest supporters are the sworn officers, who did not go into the career to be social workers...but recognize the value in having that resource quickly available.

As a side note, we've also already integrated animal control folks here into an adjunct role in some departments (Long Beach is an example), where the officers call the "on call" animal control person for most of the pit bull and other higher risk canine situations. That has been very effective in diffusing situations where the presence of a canine or canines has either caused or complicated a law enforcement situation.

Law enforcement is evolving, just like the rest of society. Our current LA county sheriff election is between a guy who wishes that we could go back 50 years and a guy who recognizes that the reason we can't go back is that law enforcement can't effectively manage those within who cheat the system. We live in interesting times.
 
People with the right personality would have good job prospects going to law enforcement with some social work in their background, or becoming one of the social workers attached to law enforcement....which is how I see things going. People are finally starting to realize that sworn officers are not social workers, but that social workers are needed for many of the things for which we are now using law enforcement. My sister (another Coug) has spent her 35 year career (and 10 more to go) in social work (various forms), including a recent 5 year stint as a counselor in the WA state prison system. Her prediction, for what its worth, is that social workers will become adjunct/attached to law enforcement at the stationhouse level. They will be involved in a wide range of things, from substance abuse to domestic violence to PTSD response to homeless response & treatment referral. I can offer that in the areas in SoCal where that is currently being tried the biggest supporters are the sworn officers, who did not go into the career to be social workers...but recognize the value in having that resource quickly available.

As a side note, we've also already integrated animal control folks here into an adjunct role in some departments (Long Beach is an example), where the officers call the "on call" animal control person for most of the pit bull and other higher risk canine situations. That has been very effective in diffusing situations where the presence of a canine or canines has either caused or complicated a law enforcement situation.

Law enforcement is evolving, just like the rest of society. Our current LA county sheriff election is between a guy who wishes that we could go back 50 years and a guy who recognizes that the reason we can't go back is that law enforcement can't effectively manage those within who cheat the system. We live in interesting times.
My reply is more appropriate for another OT thread, but I agree that a better handoff between social work and police work is a better arrangement. However, I think the problems we face are much deeper than dialing in an optimal mix of social/LE work. IMO we are experiencing a total collapse of shared cultural values and norms, of objective truth and reality, creating an un-bridgeable gap between our understandings of root causes and preferable outcomes, and as a result, the worst is yet to come.

I used to visit Venice/Santa Monica/Culver City a lot for work and loved getting up early to jog north to the pier and back before work (I was on east coast time). After work I'd rent a bike and ride and walk around the canals. It is a truly special place. But 3-5 years ago the "campers" in Venice started making it pretty sketch for pre-dawn runs, and after enough encounters I just stopped. To me it's an objective disaster. But I know someone who lives in Venice, and despite having watched it turn from Paradise to Escape From LA in <10 years, he regards it as a morally optimal outcome, and truly believes he is morally superior to people like me who felt it was avoidable. Even when his neighbor was murdered with a hammer. No amount of squalor, crime or money spent can change his mind. And this is played out in every major city now where local leaders forbid anyone from interfering with the descent to Travis Bickle's NYC.

I'm not here to convince you my view is the correct one; only that I don't believe there is a middle ground between my midcentury social/moral expectations, and my friend who thinks urban ruin is the only morally acceptable outcome. In that environment, there is no mix of social/LE work that is going to make a dent.

How did I get on this from Borghi? :/
 
Nothing that hasn't been said before, however, today I came across this Proverb and thought of Max:

Proverbs 15:22​


22 Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

We really don't know why Max made the decisions he made, but it's pretty certain that
the majority would have advised him to finish out, play the bowl game, and don't leave your teammates.
 
Nothing that hasn't been said before, however, today I came across this Proverb and thought of Max:

Proverbs 15:22​


22 Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

We really don't know why Max made the decisions he made, but it's pretty certain that
the majority would have advised him to finish out, play the bowl game, and don't leave your teammates.

Some of these kids have been thru a lot at WSU.

3 diff head coaches.
Covid nightmare year.
Lost a teammate.
Revolving door of teammates coming and going.
Some may have hard feelings with the way Turd was removed.
Friends could have all graduated or left.
Some guys may not actually like the new HC.

It’s hard to finish 4-5 years of football. And with the covid year potentially 6 seasons. There is more going on in these kids/Max’s lives then we know about.

All that being said, someone is feeding WSU kids bad advice about their draft potential. Dickert would be wise to find out who it is and shut it down asap. It doesn’t help the kids or WSU.
 
My reply is more appropriate for another OT thread, but I agree that a better handoff between social work and police work is a better arrangement. However, I think the problems we face are much deeper than dialing in an optimal mix of social/LE work. IMO we are experiencing a total collapse of shared cultural values and norms, of objective truth and reality, creating an un-bridgeable gap between our understandings of root causes and preferable outcomes, and as a result, the worst is yet to come.

I used to visit Venice/Santa Monica/Culver City a lot for work and loved getting up early to jog north to the pier and back before work (I was on east coast time). After work I'd rent a bike and ride and walk around the canals. It is a truly special place. But 3-5 years ago the "campers" in Venice started making it pretty sketch for pre-dawn runs, and after enough encounters I just stopped. To me it's an objective disaster. But I know someone who lives in Venice, and despite having watched it turn from Paradise to Escape From LA in <10 years, he regards it as a morally optimal outcome, and truly believes he is morally superior to people like me who felt it was avoidable. Even when his neighbor was murdered with a hammer. No amount of squalor, crime or money spent can change his mind. And this is played out in every major city now where local leaders forbid anyone from interfering with the descent to Travis Bickle's NYC.

I'm not here to convince you my view is the correct one; only that I don't believe there is a middle ground between my midcentury social/moral expectations, and my friend who thinks urban ruin is the only morally acceptable outcome. In that environment, there is no mix of social/LE work that is going to make a dent.

How did I get on this from Borghi? :/
I think you’re both right. I think a majority of cops would also agree that they’re not the right tool for addressing the social work aspects. I think they’d also agree that a major (and continually growing) problem is a lack of consequences for offenders, a lack of support for those with mental issues, and a lack of alternatives for addicts.

I’m not sure where it started, or where the root is, but when we stopped punishing bad people and started ignoring the crazies and the crackheads, they started to accumulate. Nobody minded too much when they were spread out or were “somewhere else,” but now they’re everywhere. It’s a problem that’s too big to ignore, but that nobody knows how to fix…or at least nobody wants to be the first one to talk about what it will cost.
 
My reply is more appropriate for another OT thread, but I agree that a better handoff between social work and police work is a better arrangement. However, I think the problems we face are much deeper than dialing in an optimal mix of social/LE work. IMO we are experiencing a total collapse of shared cultural values and norms, of objective truth and reality, creating an un-bridgeable gap between our understandings of root causes and preferable outcomes, and as a result, the worst is yet to come.

I used to visit Venice/Santa Monica/Culver City a lot for work and loved getting up early to jog north to the pier and back before work (I was on east coast time). After work I'd rent a bike and ride and walk around the canals. It is a truly special place. But 3-5 years ago the "campers" in Venice started making it pretty sketch for pre-dawn runs, and after enough encounters I just stopped. To me it's an objective disaster. But I know someone who lives in Venice, and despite having watched it turn from Paradise to Escape From LA in <10 years, he regards it as a morally optimal outcome, and truly believes he is morally superior to people like me who felt it was avoidable. Even when his neighbor was murdered with a hammer. No amount of squalor, crime or money spent can change his mind. And this is played out in every major city now where local leaders forbid anyone from interfering with the descent to Travis Bickle's NYC.

I'm not here to convince you my view is the correct one; only that I don't believe there is a middle ground between my midcentury social/moral expectations, and my friend who thinks urban ruin is the only morally acceptable outcome. In that environment, there is no mix of social/LE work that is going to make a dent.

How did I get on this from Borghi? :/
Can you elaborate on how anyone could rationalize that urban ruin is the only acceptable outcome? I'm truly struggling with making a case for that.
 
Can you elaborate on how anyone could rationalize that urban ruin is the only acceptable outcome? I'm truly struggling with making a case for that.
This individual's POV - which is not uncommon in his area and areas like it - is that, though the descent of once beautiful and vibrant areas into gritty 1970s hellscapes may not be visually pretty, and objectively comes with more crime etc, the alternative (zero tolerance policy for open drug use, urban camping, petty crime, etc backed up by law enforcement) is morally reprehensible.

Thus, we have to let this happen, because it makes us good, tolerant people, and anyone who says differently, or pretends this can be solved using a callous old-fashioned Victorian approach, is a morally loathsome scrooge to be ignored or run out of town.
 
Well, if NFL success is the talent barometer, Chris Ivory was the best running back we've had since Rueben Mayes, and he played linebacker for us.
 
In 2008 under "The Plan", Chris Ivory had more solo tackles than rushing TDs.
This is actually true. He had 2 solo tackles, 1 rushing TD. Only played 5 games.

If I’m remembering him correctly, he had an annoying habit of keeping the ball in his right arm. Every time he ran left, I was sure he was going to put it on the ground.

But he was still an RB.
 
This is actually true. He had 2 solo tackles, 1 rushing TD. Only played 5 games.

If I’m remembering him correctly, he had an annoying habit of keeping the ball in his right arm. Every time he ran left, I was sure he was going to put it on the ground.

But he was still an RB.
But on INT return defense (of which WSU played plenty in 2008) wasn't Ivory essentially playing LB?

In the 66-3 loss to Cal, Chris Ivory had the same number of tackles as Andy Mattingly.
 
But on INT return defense (of which WSU played plenty in 2008) wasn't Ivory essentially playing LB?

In the 66-3 loss to Cal, Chris Ivory had the same number of tackles as Andy Mattingly.
You guys are truly fcking masochists.

AKA "true Cougs".
 
In 2008 under "The Plan", Chris Ivory had more solo tackles than rushing TDs.
I knew Chris (not super personally but knew him none-the-less) and that guy is a beast. He easily could've been our best LB if that was where he played.
 
Borghi has a tryout with Denver, per a 6/13 article from SI

Borghi is participating in minicamp with the Broncos on a tryout basis, Aric DiLalla of the team's official site reports.

The 23-year-old Washington State product was waived by the Colts about a month ago and still is trying to find some footing in the NFL. Borghi excelled as a pass-catching back in college, but even so he's a long shot to land a spot with the team.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT