m2's steals of the 2009 draft .

[.m2]

After my Frank Gore in the 3rd round and Aaron Rodgers going late in the first round and having PRO BOWL numbers in his first year as a starter... not to mention DeSean Jackson going in the 2nd round... its safe to say


m2 knows more about the NFL Draft than ANYONE else.







1. Simply put... I had him as the top College Football player coming out in 2009 and EVERYONE had him in the TOP 3.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9aJZsjImymc&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9aJZsjImymc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]


Rack my 49ers.... and lets laugh at the Raiders once more.






2.





m2 is the truth

[poptart]

Trading down and landing Mack was a genius move by the Brownies.
Qualifies as a "steal," yes.
I suspect Mack will be a real solid pro ... at least.

Crabtee I'm not as sure about.
How is his foot, really?
I think the '9ers, under Singletary, are gonna look to grind it out with the running game.
Far cry from things at Barnyard Tech, were Crabtree was running some funky "bubble screen" every other play.
He's not going to beat people deep, because he rarely even did that in college.
The NFL is a different animal.

[BSmack]

Grabbing a guy with the 10th pick in the first round isn't a steal unless he starts putting up Randy Moss/Jerry Rice type numbers.

Now this guy might wind up being a real steal.



2008 Rimington Trophy winner goes in the 7th round. Now THAT's a steal.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

I watched a bit of the Crabtree highlight video. My favorite parts were the scores. Oka 52 Tech 7 in the 3rd quarter. He's Crabtree catching a ball in the flat for a 20 yard gain against the 3rd string scrubs. Yeah. :?

Oka 56 Tech 28 - watch as Crabtree catches a 5 yard out. Against the scrubs.

[Van]

It almost doesn't matter how good Crabtree is, or isn't. The fact that he's going to the Niner's ruins any chance he might've had to have a great rookie season. They have no QB, and no realistic passing game, and their offensive focus under Singletary will be ball control, field position, punt, and rely on the D.

Crabtree simply won't have much opportunity to shine.

Eventually, he might get the chance. It's going to take awhile, though, and in the meantime people will be calling him a bust.

Now, stick him on Arizona...different story. There, it's Beanie Wells who's doomed to being called a bust, regardless of there being any truth to it.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

It almost doesn't matter how good Crabtree is, or isn't.

I think he's going to be a very good NFL receiver. Possibly great. I just thought it was funny that whoever selected 'the highlights' didn't really put too much thought into the reel. It just seemed... random.

[Van]

There, it's Beanie Wells who's doomed to being called a bust, regardless of there being any truth to it.

Why is that?

Because Arizona can't run the ball to save their lives. They're a RB's graveyard. They're among the league's worst rushing teams, every year. With Warner at the helm, and with their crop of receivers, that isn't about to change.

Beanie simply will not have sufficient opportunity to put up big numbers there, at least not for awhile. It's no different than a receiver who gets stuck in Oakland or Frisco. They're not going to put up big numbers, not until things drastically change at those places.

[Diogenes]

There, it's Beanie Wells who's doomed to being called a bust, regardless of there being any truth to it.

Why is that?

Because Arizona can't run the ball to save their lives. They're a RB's graveyard. They're among the league's worst rushing teams, every year. With Warner at the helm, and with their crop of receivers, that isn't about to change.

Beanie simply will not have sufficient opportunity to put up big numbers there, at least not for awhile. It's no different than a receiver who gets stuck in Oakland or Frisco. They're not going to put up big numbers, not until things drastically change at those places.

You're a fucking idiot. Just ask anyone who saw last year's playoffs.

Of course in addition to Wells, they picked up a couple extra OL men for depth (last season being the first one since forever they actually had a healthy OL) and hopefully they'll have a healthy TE or two next season.

At 31, Beanie is absolutly a steal.

[peter dragon]

steal of the draft.. no question about it.. 38th pick wow!

[Diogenes]

Uh...the Cards were dead last in the league in rushing last year, Dio. That's not very good.

Which is why they adressed that in the draft. They did look quite a bit better in the playoffs after they had some TEs to put on the line.

Actually, they ran the ball pretty well until Edge got demoted after the Carolina game (appearently coughing up two fumbles in a game you lose by 4 on the road isn't very good either). Hightower is more on a 3rd down back, having a guy who averaged 5 yards a carry as Ohio State's primary weapon running up the middle should improve that a tad.

[BSmack]

steal of the draft.. no question about it.. 38th pick wow!

Just another SC linebacker for Hines Ward to light the fuck up.

[peter dragon]

beanie has deceptive speed. dude will go 4 then 3 then 4 then like 55 yds to the house.. its fun to watch and if he can stay healthy will be a bruiser in the NFL

[Diogenes]

Oh, and as far as the running game and possible steals...

5th round pick OG Herman "House" Johnson comes in at 6-7 380 lbs. Nice guy to run behind.

Okay, I don't know if he will be all that, but since the Cards' last two fifth round picks were named Hightower and Breston, I'm willing to give Grimm the benefit of the doubt.

[Van]

I agree that Beanie at 31 is a helluva good value pick. I wouldn't have been too shocked to see New Orleans pick him, rather than Jenkins. I also wasn't sure that Tennessee wasn't going to take him, what with the continued speculation about Lendale White.

Weird, that. White had a very good year last year.

Whatever.

I like Beanie. I thought he often ran like a pussy during his senior year, and some say he was merely being smart to do it, but fuck that. All big time NFL bound talents could use that excuse, and most don't, so why excuse Beanie for it?

Regardless, he's a major talent. The problem with Arizona and their running game (or lack thereof) is their culture. They just don't see themselves as a running team. It's hardly confined to last season, either. They've been at or near the bottom of the league in rushing every year, for a long time now.

Hell, has Arizona ever had a good running game?

It's not just a lack of big time RBs, either. Many teams manage effective running games, despite a lack of big name backs. RBs by committee, making do with what you have, whatever, they get it done.

Denver manages to burp up a good running game all the time, even as they constantly swap in their next no name back.

Besides, m2 swore that JJ Arrington was going to be a stud RB for Arizona, so Arizona has no excuses.

[Diogenes]

The problem with Arizona and their running game (or lack thereof) is their culture. They just don't see themselves as a running team. It's hardly confined to last season, either. They've been at or near the bottom of the league in rushing every year, for a long time now.

A) The problem with their lack of a running game has been their offensive line, or lack therof. Last season was the first one in memory where they had a healthy front five, and then they were struggling to find a healthy tight end all year.

B) If you think Whis and Grimm don't plan on running the ball up the middle, you might want to talk to Steelerfan. I'm not going to, I hate those fuckers.

Plus the fact they spent two draft picks on OGs kinda tells me we're going to be seeing Beanie up the middle all year long.

[Van]

Dio, by year's end, what do you envision as Arizona's running stats? Shoot me some actual numbers.

I'll say they remain in the bottom 5 in the league, and Beanie doesn't even approach 1000 yards. I'll also go out on a wild ass limb here and guess that Beanie gets hurt and misses quite a bit of action.

[Diogenes]

Dio, by year's end, what do you envision as Arizona's running stats? Shoot me some actual numbers.

I'll say they remain in the bottom 5 in the league, and Beanie doesn't even approach 1000 yards. I'll also go out on a wild ass limb here and guess that Beanie gets hurt and misses quite a bit of action.

Too early to predict. Ask me after the first couple games.

BTW I waited until midseason last year to predict thay would make the NFC title game at least. I just prefer to see them in action before deciding.

[Van]

How convenient. You do realize, don't you, that once the game begins you're no longer allowed to place your wager...

Calling your shot after you've already seen how it's playing out isn't exactly impressive.

[Diogenes]

How convenient. You do realize, don't you, that once the game begins you're no longer allowed to place your wager...

Calling your shot after you've already seen how it's playing out isn't exactly impressive.

That would be tragic if I gave a shit about impressing anyone. You stick to being impressively clueless, I'll wait till I see how training camp and preseason play out.

But for the record, I'm much more interested in seing how their secondary performs with Bryant McFadden in the mix, how well they rush the pass, and whether one of their tight ends steps up and claims the job. They were 12th against the run, dead last against the pass last year. The running game I'm not that concerned about at this point. If they go from 30th to 20th and are still in the top 1-3 overall offense, I'll be fine with that.

[BSmack]

How convenient. You do realize, don't you, that once the game begins you're no longer allowed to place your wager...

Calling your shot after you've already seen how it's playing out isn't exactly impressive.

That would be tragic if I gave a shit about impressing anyone. You stick to being impressively clueless, I'll wait till I see how training camp and preseason play out.

But for the record, I'm much more interested in seing how their secondary performs with Bryant McFadden in the mix, how well they rush the pass, and whether one of their tight ends steps up and claims the job. They were 12th against the run, dead last against the pass last year. The running game I'm not that concerned about at this point. If they go from 30th to 20th and are still in the top 1-3 overall offense, I'll be fine with that.

You do realize that their inability to run the football is one of the reason they had such a crappy defense?

[Van]

"Impressively clueless," right. I've given solid reasons for why I think Arizona will again have an anemic running game, and you say you want to wait and see how it plays out so that you can employ 20/20 hindsight before you even offer up an opinion...and I'm clueless.



For the record, quit getting bogged down in your 12th-through-20th league stats. Arizona is not a very good team, that's all you need to know. Take away the gimmes against the comically bad NFC West cripples and Arizona was a 3-7 team.

Don't be surprised if they're 7-9 or 8-8 this year, especially if it should turn out there's even a pulse within the rest of their sorry ass division.

This is all just part and parcel of the NFL Parity Lotto. These days, you don't have to be especially good to rise from dogshit to the penthouse, and you don't have to suddenly become horrible to go from the penthouse back to dogshit. It's all just the luck of the scheduling draw.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

This is all just part and parcel of the NFL Parity Lotto. These days, you don't have to be especially good to rise from dogshit to the penthouse, and you don't have to suddenly become horrible to go from the penthouse back to dogshit. It's all just the luck of the scheduling draw.

RACK!!! NE and Pittsburgh have been awfully lucky this decade.


By contrast, Oakland and Detroit have been very unlucky since the dawn of the new millenium, especially last year.


If the Patriots have an especially tough draw this year, we shouldn't expect too much from them. Got it. Let me analyze their schedule and get back to you....

[Diogenes]

I've given solid reasons for why I think Arizona will again have an anemic running game,

I remember...

The problem with Arizona and their running game (or lack thereof) is their culture. They just don't see themselves as a running team.

Of course their problems on the offensive line had nothing to do with it. And I doubt coach W will want to run the ball anymore now that he's not in Pittsburg. It's all the 'culture'.

Solid.

You do realize that their inability to run the football is one of the reason they had such a crappy defense?

Actually it had more to do with a rookie CB on one side and one who was playing hurt on the other.

Which is why we signed your boy Bryant and drafted for secondary depth and pass rushing.

[Van]

Ucan't, Pitt and NE don't go from the penthouse to the doghouse, back and forth, all the time. They've remained near the top. They're consistent. They're not merely subject to the whims of scheduling.

They're not the types of teams I'm talking about, in terms of this parity stricken league. They're exceptions.

Dio, the reasons I gave for predicting that Arizona will again have a crappy running game were these:

-They ALWAYS have a crappy running game. It's who they are, it's their offensive culture, to be a passing team.

-As long as they still have Warner and those receivers, they're going to remain a passing team.

-When they've been last in the league in rushing nearly every season, including last season, there's no reason to think that drafting two guards and Beanie will suddenly transform them. This is hardly the first time Arizona has drafted O linemen and RBs. Nothing there ever changes. Their intent is still to throw the ball.

Bsmack also correctly pointed out that Arizona's weak D is also an impediment to their ever having a good running game. If they're always giving up drives and points they won't be able to rely on a ball control/grind it out offensive attack.

The teams with good D's, ie, Pittsburgh, Tenneseee, Baltimore, etc, those are the teams who rely on strong running games.

Arizona isn't built that way.

Conversely, that's exactly how Singletary intends to build Frisco, which, along with Frisco's dearth of QBs and quality O linemen, pretty much guarantees meager numbers for Crabtree.

Now, what have you offered?

"I'll wait and see how Arizona does, before I hazard a guess on what they'll do."

Sterling stuff, Dio.

[Diogenes]

Nothing there ever changes. Their intent is still to throw the ball.

Thanks for the update. I'll make sure to let Coach Whisenhunt know what his intentions are.


I just hope he doesn't think his style of play is going to interfere with the Cards' 'culture'.

[Van]

They're not the types of teams I'm talking about, in terms of this parity stricken league. They're exceptions.

What a steaming pile. There have always been a few good teams, a few bad teams and a bunch of middle of the pack teams.

Come off it. What there used to "always" be were the same good teams, the same bad teams, and the same middle of the pack teams.

That's not what we have now. What we see now is induced parity, whereby just about everybody hovers around the .500 mark, and each season a new team goes from nowhere to the pinnacle, only to fall right back down the following season.

There's very little separation now between teams, from top to bottom. From one year to the next, teams are all over the map. There's very little separation, or consistency.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

There's very little separation now between teams, from top to bottom. From one year to the next, teams are all over the map. There's very little separation, or consistency.

Why is this bad? Everyone is equal... the teams with good owners/management/coaches are consistently good and the teams who don't really know what they're doing... suck. No one is "buying" a championship like they do at USC... I mean, the Yankees. No wait. The Red Sox.

[War Wagon]

I'll echo ucant and mv.

Van, are you Toejams troll or vice versa?

"Wah, there are no dynasties in this parity induced league of salary caps."

Pathetic.

I guess I see why you once called yourself a Dolphin fan... you're a frontrunning bitch.

[Van]

There's very little separation now between teams, from top to bottom. From one year to the next, teams are all over the map. There's very little separation, or consistency.

Why is this bad? Everyone is equal... the teams with good owners/management/coaches are consistently good and the teams who don't really know what they're doing... suck. No one is "buying" a championship like they do at USC... I mean, the Yankees. No wait. The Red Sox.

I know that some people prefer parity. I don't. I prefer consistency. I prefer dynasties. I like to know that real rivalries among real championship level teams will perpetuate, from one year to the next.

I liked the 70's, with the Steelers, Dolphins, Raiders, Cowpokes and Vikings. I liked the Niners facing the 'Pokes every season, in the 80s and 90s.

I like the Red Sox and Yankees rivalry. I liked the Celtics and Lakers, and the Celtics and Sixers.

I don't like smoke and mirrors 9-7 teams going to Super Bowls.

Granted, not everyone agrees with me. That's fine. I get that parity means more teams have a shot, so more fans stay involved, longer. That's great. Just don't try and deny though that things are in fact different in the NFL, these days.

I'm not saying you're denying it, Ucan't, btw, but some do.

[Van]

The problem with nostalgia is that you pine for days that never existed. Your take is pure bullshit.

Nonsense. The NFL used to be very different. Eddie DeBartolo and Carmen Policy were able to maintain Frisco's dynasty due to this difference. When the rules were changed, they were run out.

In the 70s and 80s you didn't see this growing trend of missing the playoffs---->go deep into the playoffs, even to the Super Bowl----->follow it up the next year by missing the playoffs again.

You didn't see 1 win teams winning 11 the following year. You didn't see 9-7 teams in ridiculously watered down "mini divisions" going to Super Bowls. You didn't see a concerted push towards parity.

The game has very definitely changed, by league design. It's obviously a success, too, as evidenced by the Cardinals one year, the Seahawks another, the Raiders going and then falling off the map, etc. It's what the league wants, this constant turnover.

It works. I think it sucks.

[Van]

Nope. WW, not a frontrunner, as I stick to the same teams. I do like dynasties though, yes. Rooting for them, or against them, either way, dynasties lend more import to the proceedings.

It's really easy to root for or against the Yankees or Cowboys. It's really difficult to give a flying fuck about Matt Hasselback or the Ken Whisenhunt Cardinals.

Case in point: I rooted for the Cardinals in this last Super Bowl. When they lost, I was very mildly irritated, and since their loss meant Troy Palomalu won another one I was fine with it.

When it was the Chuck Knoll Steelers vs the "America's Team" Cowboys, that shit mattered. I cared about those Super Bowls, and those AFC Title games, and all that.

Arizona, vs Carolina, and then a blah Philly team?

WGARA? I was way more interested in my Hooter's waitress. Fuck, I was way more interested in my sandwich.

[War Wagon]

...not a frontrunner, as I stick to the same teams.

Teams? What teams, and how did you come to choose those?

I do like dynasties though, yes. Rooting for them, or against them, either way, dynasties lend more import to the proceedings.

Fuck dynasties and whatever major media induced cock you're slurping. They don't lend more import to the event. The event stands, or falls, by it's own merit. And those merits are based on every other entity in the league, from the bottom feeders to the top.

I guess you'd be satisfied watching a never ending loop of ESPN Classic showing the 1972 SuperBowl, knowing that nothing ever changes. I guess you'd be satisfied with a league of 8 teams, as long as they were made up only of those teams you consider worthy of your consideration.

You disgust me, sir.

[Van]

Okay, mvscal, lessee here...

The Falcons, Carolina and Tampa Bay did it...

The '02 Raiders, '04 Iggles, '05 Steelers and '06 Bears went from the Super Bowl one year to missing the playoffs the next. So did the '07 Pats, but I won't hold that one against them.

The Ravens and Titans went from missing the playoffs one year to going to the Super Bowl the next...

The Cardinals just did the same, now they simply need to miss the playoffs again this year to complete the trifecta...

Whole lotta severe up and down swings, with nearly all of them occuring recently, ie, since the advent of planned parity. This is occuring with regularity now, even despite how much easier it is now to make the playoffs.

[poptart]

I agree with your general point, Van.

The league has basically gone "socialist" in modern times.
The league makes more money that way, bottom line.

Sort of amazing to see some of the "right wingers" in here arguing a point which is pretty obvious.

[Van]

The event stands, or falls, by it's (sic) own merit.

Exactly. The event has now now become a bloated corporate bacchanal, celebrating crass commercialism and planned mediocrity. The event often blows cock, these days.

The Super Bowl, in particular, has gotten to be almost unwatchable. Fortunately for the NFL the last two games ended up being good, but the events themselves sucked...hard.

Oh, and if you were turned on by Arizona-Pittsburgh, or Seattle-Pittsburgh, or Denver-Atlanta, or Carolina-New England, not to mention that scintillating Trent Dilfer vs Kerry Collins match up, hey, more power to ya'. You're more easily amused than I.

Anyway, you want to know who my teams are? Okay, here they are. I'll let you know right up front though that in some instances I've tended to support players more than teams...

College Football: USC. Hey, I was a kid in L.A., in the late 60's and early 70's. It was either going to be Ma & Pa Kettle Bruin and baby blue homos, or cardinal and gold, a warrior on a white horse and USC's cheerleaders. That one was pretty easy.

Pro Football: For some reason, despite growing up in L.A., I hated the L.A. Rams. Other than USC, I hated ALL L.A. teams, which drove my dad nuts. I grew up liking crack head Mercury Morris and Paul Warfield, so I became a Dolphins fan. I had a nice little run with the Dan Marino era, but mostly it's been nothing but disappointments.

Pro Baseball: Besides Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page, my idols growing up were Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell and, later, Ricky Bell. I've always been a Pirates fan, which stopped being worthwhile once Pittsburgh held their fire sale following the early 90's fuck ups against Atlanta.

NBA: Okay, here is why my allegiances have often changed, due to my rooting for players, not teams. My first favorite player was Tiny Archibald. Then, for the longest time, it was Julius Erving. I became a huge Sixers fan. I remained a Sixers fan until they shipped off Charles Barkley, leaving the team barren. I then became a Michael Jordan fan. Once I moved to Sac I eventually began to root for the Chris Webber/Vlade/Bibby/Peja/Christie/Bobby Jackson Kings, just because they're the only game in town here, and my brother and I went to a bunch of games. Mostly, I've just always rooted against the Lakers and Celtics.

College Hoops: Never had a real rooting interest, besides Patrick Ewing at Georgetown, Darrell Griffith of Louisville and MJ. I just watch, I don't have any great rooting interest.

Hockey: Growing up, my best friend was a huge fan of Gilbert Perrault, of Buffalo. I was a big fan of Guy LaFluer and Larry Robinson, so I became a Montreal fan. Nothing but a casual fan.

Auto Racing: In NASCAR I root for Jeff Gordon, if I root for anybody. Mainly, because everyone hates him. I don't give a crap. In F1 I always rooted for Ayrton Senna.

[War Wagon]

The Super Bowl, in particular, has gotten to be almost unwatchable. Fortunately for the NFL the last two games ended up being good, but the events themselves sucked...hard.

The game is the event.

Oh, and if you were turned on by Arizona-Pittsburgh, or Seattle-Pittsburgh, or Denver-Atlanta, or Carolina-New England, not to mention that scintillating Trent Dilfer vs Kerry Collins match up, hey, more power to ya'. You're more easily amused than I.

The only games that "turn me on" are the ones that involve my teams. Chiefs, Royals, Tigers.

But I wouldn't dream of being so arrogant or myopic as to dismiss any other championship event as being beneath my notice, simply because they didn't include my teams... or some pre-determined list of worthies that you've concocted.

Easily amused? Not at all. But I do appreciate decent competition on a level playing field. Seems to me you're the one easily amused in that if it doesn't involve some sorta' nostalgic stereotype of what teams should be involved (dynasties), you're changing the channel to American Idol reruns.

[Van]

Never even watched AI. I didn't say I switch the channel. I still watch. I just don't really care.

If you think these recent Super Bowls were as huge as the old Steelers-Cowboys Super Bowls, which pitted dynasties against each other, well, you're just wrong.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

The NFL used to be very different.

Is there anything... anything, that has not changed dramatically since the Steelers and the Cowboys Super Bowls of the 70s you still pine for?

Weren't Nebraska, Notre Dame, Penn St, and Alabama some of the most dominant teams of the 70s and 80s? Save for Bama, recently, these 4 institutions are okay at best now. They don't compete with your beloved Trojans for national titles anymore. Was there a contrived and complete bullshit national championship game back in the day when the Tide and USC were splitting the crown(s)? Oh my God. You must loathe college football. It sucks. How can you call yourself a USC fan?

Things change, Van. Do you hate... everything? Music? TV shows? Books? Art? Every sport is vastly different than it was 25 years ago. Nothing is the same. I pity your sad existence as you sit in front your 13 inch black and white TV watching Turner Classic Television all damned day with tears of joy running down your face. At night, you cry yourself to sleep as the 1979 Rose Bowl (Charles White did fumble, btw!) plays in the background on ESPN Classic.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

Bob Dylan. American poet.

[Degenerate]

I liked the 70's, with the Steelers.

I don't like smoke and mirrors 9-7 teams going to Super Bowls.

Yeah, it's not like the old Steelers ever played a 9-7 team in the Super Bowl, or anything.

[Van]

Degenerate, I didn't remember that the '79 Rams were 9-7. Guilty as charged.



Still, at least getting into the playoffs in 1979 was more difficult than it is now, and the Rams also went to the playoffs in '78 and '80. They were in the middle of a long streak which saw them making the playoffs eight straight seasons. They weren't a one year flukey wonder, like so many of the recent teams I listed. They were their own second tier dynasty.

In any case, like I said, I was referring to the Steelers-Cowboys Super Bowls.



Ucan't...

You must loathe college football. It sucks.

Yes, I do, and yes, it does, in many ways. There are elements of CF that I hate WAY more than anything that bothers me about the NFL. Not even close. Nothing about the NFL enrages me as much as CF scheduling, and all the political crap that decides everything.

The problem with the (modern) NFL is nothing there energizes me nearly as much as what's good about CF. What I love about CF, there's nothing in the (modern) NFL that can touch it.

To the rest of your point, yeah, I pretty much do "hate" everything; at least everything that's truly popular these days. I enjoy quite a few things, but at least where books/films/music/tv are concerned the things I enjoy usually aren't all that popular.

Obviously, I don't hate the NFL. Hate is the opposite of love. It requires equal passion. The current NFL doesn't inspire anything like passion for me. I still follow the NFL fairly closely, but I just don't care all that much about it now; not like I used to, anyway.