Cardin Drake

Wow, this is huge. We will need both of those guys. I think it's the right decision for themselves and the team.

Lighten up, Francis. I'm red in a sea of blue. A democrat (or any politician, for that matter) is a hypocrite. Water is wet, hardly worth discussing. But I'm not here much to discuss politics-just not worth it. Nobody's mind is ever changed. But Sarah Palin always holds my interest.

We have a better team than they do, period. They are at home, so it's close. We win anyway. We may stumble once or twice prior to the big dance, but not tonight.

Ok, I admit it. Sarah Palin and pound, pound, pound sex is conjuring up a mental image that I rather enjoy....

That's pretty much exactly what happened. The "problem" was that he was a good enough QB that he deserved a shot. And half the people on here were pissed that he didn't get playing time and that was the primary reason he transferred. Gus deserves to be bashed for a few things, but Gatewood is just not one of them. If I had a nickel for everyone who thought he was our future at QB, even after he lost the QB battle, well, .... I'd have a lot of nickels.

Geez peoples. It's high school. You have a D1 QB on your roster and you have Gatewood. You are going to get them both on the field. Gatewood could start in high school at any number of positions and help your team. The other guy was a QB. Gatewood was a team player and went along with it, and it probably hurt his chances of being a QB in college. Gatewood had offers from almost everybody, including a late offer from Bama. If you feel a need to bash Gus, this is a bad example. Everyone on the boards was excited to get him.

Right now, there are only a few QB's in the portal that could help us. I can't see us taking 2. After spring practice, there will be more, but that's a little late. I'd like to get Cameron Ward. Casey Thompson likely headed to TCU.

FIFY

I really don't understand this and I'm sorry to see Bo go. If he stays healthy, we beat Miss State and Bama and it's a hell of a year. Yeah, I'd like to have Trevor Lawrence but he's not available.

Casey Thompson from Texas is good. I don't think TJ is the answer, and I'm hoping Davis is. Thompson would be a good insurance pickup, but I don't think he is interested in that role and I'll bet he winds up somewhere like SMU. I doubt there is a Joe Burrow available in the transfer portal, at least now that Ewers committed to Texas. Take it with a grain of salt, but I heard that Texas gave Ewers a multi-million dollar NIL deal.

Here's the deal. What Trovon did isn't going to go unnoticed. I'd bet a hundred dollars to a donut that he will be on a staff somewhere in the SEC next year. I hope it's with Auburn.

You can teach someone x and o's. It's not a rare skill. The personality that makes a great recruiter is not really teachable. And no coach can teach somebody who can't catch at the college level how to catch. Trovon needs a place on the staff, but you can't just fire a good guy to make room either.

They'll be all over the south soon enough.

These places have hundreds of people in them every time you stop. It's incredible, and you can guarantee somebody in the car will want to stop when you pass one. My hat's off to the marketing genius who stopped at a convenience store one day and said "You know, this place would be a gold mine if we just made it the size of a walmart, sold cheap ice and gas, with giant spotlessly clean bathrooms, and didn't allow truckers." Sadly, I would have laughed in his face had he come to me for an investment.

Looks like we are banking on the transfer portal again. Given how it played out last year, that's not all bad.

Rattler has talent. He also brings with him locker room cancer. Think John McEnroe as a QB. No thanks.

The CDC finds itself attempting to defend the indefensible--making people who have superior immunity from a previous infection (at least according to some good Israeli research) get a vaccine anyway. This has inspired them to do some truly embarrassing research which resulted in this paper (also released on Friday) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w This graphic and statement summarizes their findings: Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99). Now they know this will be widely reported and understood to mean that you if you have had covid but are unvaccinated, you are five times more likely to get infected again than somebody who is vaccinated. But if you actually look at the study, it says no such thing. They are comparing 2 ratios. Now I've taught high school math before, and I know firsthand ratios tend to confuse people. This seems to be the intent. You can make a ratio out of anything, but they don't always mean anything. You can make a ratio out of the number of people hospitalized with covid and compare that to the number of hot dogs consumed on Tuesday. You get a perfectly valid ratio, but does it actually tell you anything? That's kind of what they have done here. They have made a ratio out of the number of people who were hospitalized with covid and compared it to the number of people who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms." So let's look at unvaccinated people who have had a prior case of covid first. They found 89 people who were hospitalized again with covid out of a total of 1020 who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms". So roughly 8% of the total had covid. For people who were fully vaccinated, they found 324 who were hospitalized with covid out of a total of 6005 who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms". In this group, 5% had covid. Now if you follow what they are doing, they are saying fewer people tested positive who were vaccinated, so that is somehow better. But is it? There are two ways you can get a lower percentage. You can have fewer people hospitalized with covid. I think we can all agree that is meaningful. But you can also get a lower percentage by having more people hospitalized with "covid-like symptoms" And that really has no relevance at all to the question at hand. What does being hospitalized with the flu tell you about your immunity to covid? Nothing. And if more people in the unvaccinated group had been hospitalized with the flu, would that have somehow been "better". Even though it made the ratio "better". This is just a meaningless ratio. If it tells you anything, (and I don't think it does), it would be that fully vaccinated folks have a weakened immune response to other respiratory illnesses. But that graphic is all that will be ever reported out of this study and it will be repeated ad nauseum. And that is all before you get into the "adjusted odds" they used to translate 8% compared to 5% into 5x the chance of testing positive. That is not fully explained, but one can assume given the shoddiness of the premise, the adjustments can't be trusted either. This is an excellent example of why so many people don't trust the CDC anymore. This stuff ticks me off. It just undermines their credibility on everything. If they can't find valid reasons, why can't they just admit people who have had covid don't need to be vaccinated? TLDR: study from the CDC does not say what is being widely reported

I refuse to believe that he has changed, but he has gotten smarter when it comes to public relations. He probably has learned to lean on the advice of somebody more mature than he is, like his 12 year old daughter.

Eku is a junior. Could have 2 more years if he wants with the covid year. He has been an awesome addition.

This will be a challenging game for sure. But I feel good about our chances. Their QB Calzada looked good against Bama in the 1st half, and again on the last drive. But before Bama he was a 50% passer, and he barely cracked 50% against Missouri and South Carolina after the Bama game, and those are 2 awful defenses. A&M needs to run the ball effectively to win, and I think our defense can step up and stop them. We need to do whatever we have to to stop their run game, and make Calzada beat us. (You know, like our opponents do to us). He also throws a fair number of interceptions. If the offense can get us 28 points, we should win. 2 turnovers and a kick return killed Bama, and we have to avoid that. Looking at the box score, you'd assume Bama won. If I had to bet, I'd take us and the under.

I'll take "What do men lie about for $500, Alex.

With the new offense, punter fatigue is no longer a problem😁

I know that LSU contract was here a minute ago. What happened to it?

What Lane said....blah, blah, blah, blah......what Lane was thinking....damn it, if we would have won that game, I could of gotten the LSU job... Kiffen will never change.

Much respect for the defense in the 2nd half. They won the game. I said we needed 21 in the 2nd half to win and we got 3. And we won anyway. Awesome performance. Offense shined in the 1st half, thank god.