HardyBoy

Any news on offset language? That's usually what holds these deals up, not a 'desire' to play.

Well that's a downer...

So homer radio ultimately is being ingrained in a certain point of view regardless of facts, or always giving the benefit of the doubt one way, even when it isn't warranted, in my opinion. That's what WGR does whenever I hear them, just tobthe negative side...it's all click bait...granted I only listen to the pre and post games, but I can't imagine it changes...they're all just gas bags trying to fill air apace relying on callers to do their jobs for them. Makes me think of what my man Leo says: I'm needing less restraint before I'm needing to hit the lights and close the door I'm fine, I'm fine cause I'm... Dripping in this strange design None is yours and far less mine Hold the wheel, read the sign Keep the tires off the line Just relax, you're doing fine Swimming in this real thing I call life Can I bring a few companions on this ride? I'm feeling, my heart's not beating anymore I'm feeling. it's alright, this happened once before I'm fine, I'm fine cause I'm... Dripping in this strange design

And that right there is the entire premise of the Dan Le Batard Show w/ Stugotz You might actually get the show! Seriously, if you listen to Le Batard Show with that in mind you're in on the inside joke and will get it.

Good rebuttal, and valid point to an extent on the slice of 1% certainly seems like it is more than the tiny relative amount I thought it was (though still minuscule compared to an owners take of 1%). The one piece you're missing is that the majority of the increse of the pie would go to the top players, so most of the members of the union would not see a near $1m bump in salary (using my random 3000 number). I would be interested if they raised the minimum salaries across the board (including practice squad and camp players) how that would look. I think where I really struggle is two players do the exact same thing (hit a defensless receiver for example) and they get fined the same amount. One player makes $10m a year, the other $500k, the punishment is much stronger on the less valuable player. I think they should focus on making fines based on % of salary, and that would be a good first step on getting the lower salaried players to buy into fixing the franchise tag (which is basically the same argument I'm making flipped to just players...why the heck would the lower valued players, who will never get tagged, vote for giving up something to help the stars avoid getting tagged). Anyway, I think this is an interesting conversation, looks like I was wrong most likely on the small amount the players would get of they increased the revenue a tiny but, so I am wrong on my assumption of your though process, my bad on that. I think we potentially align on this pretty closely actually, but would still want to see assurances that lower level players are seeing a fair share of the increase, and it doesn't just go to raise the salary cap allowing for more huge contracts offset by rookie deals and low minimum vetran contracts.

Come on, stop being niaeve. There's around 32 majority owners over a 5 year span and what 3000 players probably over that span. A suspension is a massive percentage of a contract for a player. The Colts owner got fined a bunch a bit back, did that hurt his wealth in any real way? No, didn't touch it. NFL player gets suspended a week, that's a crazy big percentage of his contract. The 'poor' owners are scamming you man, all of us actually. They get so many tax breaks, so many, and pass it forward by squeezing your opportunity by all the hand outs they get. And we complain about a dude literally killing himself trying to make it so they damn owners don't keep them in their place through arbitrary crap that they themselves do consistently. Please, wake up.

Don't they get suspended for every single one of those and lose money while suspended?

? They're talking about minimizing things like having one team disproportionately play more teams coming off byes than other teams, not strength of schedule stuff.

I think his knee issues are impacting his game much more than being lazy. Watch how he breaks out of curl routes, he has to take 4 or 5 real tentative steps consistently to turn around with a super wide base. Looks like a washed beer league player, and no way that's an effort thing, not entirely at least, he has no explosion in his legs left. It's actually really sad and unfortunate, and hopefully he can keep out of the same mind traps that ended up overtaking Hardy.

I just got to the bottom of page one, so not sure if it came out on the next 5 pages, but gotta be Gentlemen right?

It's also about figuring out how to take the test. So there are 50 questions, say 27 can be done in 5 seconds by basically everyone, some can be done in 5 seconds by some people and others take a lot longer and there are some that take 10 minutes for the smartest, most knowledgeable person alive. If you put a few of the harder problems early, and the real tough one at like #15, then a 27 therefore shows you know how to take a test, because you skipped problems and are a good test taker. That said, you could be really smart, get through the first 14 and just have to figure out the #15 problem...not necessarily a bad thing, not near as bad if you get a 13 and skipped all the hard ones (having the desire to solve complex problems is a good thing to have, but doing that on this test probably shows you have adhd, or did not prepare for the test in anyway...the lack of prep would be more of a concern by far).

Prob depends on how the deal is structured. Goeff is still on his rookie deal, so if they front loaded Gurley, it would make the last years of the deal cheaper for the qb contract, than waiting to resign him when his contract expires.

Roethlisberger

Six wins, all loses basically one score games and many lost in heart breaking whoever had the ball last fashion, and the team looking much better in all phases especially oline. I would take that.

Leohnard had a real nice career.

Jim Leonhard anywhere near the top of this list?

Third place schedule impacts two games, that's it, you play 7/8ths the same schedule as the rest of you division. Plus teams going from third in a division to first each year is really common (except the AFC East...fml).

No, they accelerated the dead cap, there is a difference. It's like if you have credit card debt and continue paying the minimum due and keep living a somewhat decent lifestyle vs suffering for two years and paying it all off and living a real nice lifestyle long term.

This is the season that is going to break you? I know it's tough, but it's a rebuild, you need to find other things to focus on other than wins, losses and the typical stats. Adjust your expectations, because right now they're not realistic. Or, you are intentionally setting them where they are because you are hoping to be made upset so you can be angry. The Chiefs aren't going to make you happy if you are looking to be unhappy, you'll find something else to empower as your negativity talisman. Funny, isn't that basically the moral of the Big Lebowski (it's just a fing rug man).

Like last year?

Greatest satire thread ever?! Five pages in three hours! Look in the mirror all the people actually debating this. The hell is wrong with you. You really crave the little red number in the top right with how many people agree with you so much that you would stoop yourselves to this level?!

Why the dehumanizing language on McDermott? Not just you, so many people on here use really lame dehumanizing nicknames about him. He is a person, he has a name, and he's on your team. You named Rex by name twice, who was a con man who wasn't putting in the work, but Sean...nope. Just confusing, and it's really widespread on this board, very clear from that that so many here have no genuine intention of ever supporting him.

Didn't mean to, was just going to write a quick thing with a link or two, but this got long. Wrote it on my phone the last hour or two, so sorry for any typos. Would normally reorganize some of the flow, but maybe one day when I finally go and start that blog I've been putting off for five years, I'll do it right. Hapless, thank you for listening and considering my point of view, I really really mean that. I fully agree his behaviors were awful. Not at all defending them or giving him an excuse to act that way. However, as an explanation of why he acted that way, and why, in my opinion, we should condemn his behaviors, while separately viewing his story as sad, and as a human worthy of recieving compassion, I think it was largely out of his control, even before the mental illness (I promise I give reasoning to back this thought up below). Attachment disorder is interesting stuff (was actually just watching a youtube video on it yesterday). I think you're right that attachment disorder could be a great lens to see this through. Could actually be the behavioral manifestations of the consequences of synaptic pruning. Article on synaptic pruning: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722610/ (there are less dry articles out there for sure, but once you get past the baby brain development it's really a pretty interesting read). So what is synaptic pruning based on my understanding (I'm a psych major, but mostly I read a lot about things I find ingesting like this and watch a lot of youtube videos, so take my qualifications with a grain of salt, since I don't really have any, other than I have thought about it a lot): When a kid is born, their brain is a tangle of potential pathways. Think of it like roads on a map, but arranged like a bowl of angel hair pasta, times a million. So their brain has all these tangled roads, which means they can basically get from almost any one spot to any other spot, but it's super inefficient and easy to get lost (they don't get a map). As they have more experiences, based on their environment, they travel between one set of points more than a different set of points, and they use certain roads more than other roads. As those roads get used more, they get bigger and wider, so they can move faster on them, but the unused roads are taking up space so they go away to make room for parking or just so they have to spend less money on maintaining roads that are not traveled. As a side note, it's a bit funny and ironic how much of that happens before you have the ability to reason and remember, but it's probably a large part in why we can reason and remember, since without pruning things are tangled up. Also, research is pointing to issues with synaptic pruning could be at play in autism, especially regressive autism, where a kid is developing typically, but suddenly losses a bunch of skills (coincidently coincides timing wise with certain vaccines too, which has lead to a lot of correlation jumping to blaming vaccines) synaptic pruning potentially implicated in autism: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25845529/. Anway, as certain points on the analagous brain map are traveled to more and more, they become key hubs that all the roads lead to, while the roads leading to the non-traveled spots, get pruned to make space for a highway that runs through the non-traveled to town, and there is no exit (sort of like parts of Chicago). That first pruning starts early on, but higher level pruning happens into adolescence, because things like higher level emotional regulation and delaying gratification develop later on. You mix Hardy's early life, with a lack of any demands to fight through short term adversity to achieve a long term goal (he was a sports natural) in adolescence and you have a situation where it's not necessarily in his hands how he reacts, at least not without significant work with a behaviorist to apply habits that over a long time rewire his brain. It's doable as an adult to an extent, but it's damn hard and takes a lot of time and delaying gratification, things he literally might not have had the brain mechanisms to do (like someone who is blind can't see, but can learn straregies to navigate their environment super effectively). Sort of like addiction in a way actually. You can identify the individual's negative behaviors, and label the behaviors as awful, and as the behaviors of an awful human being. You can also blame the addict for starting, but once the addiction gets bad, it's not a matter of reasoning with someone, or even something they choose, their neural pathways have been rewired to demand the quickest method of dopamine release possible, which is their drug of choice. I know this sounds like I am saying that it isn't anyones fault for how they behave, and I truly don't believe that, but at the extremes, children who have gone through early trauma, a lack of stability in early childhood and abuse really should be looked at as victims in a lot of ways (him being treated as a god as a teenager is abuse, not saying no to a kid ever is abuse, who knows if he went through more typical types of abuse, with the lack of consistent positive adult supervision that would not at all surprise anyone). However, that does not mean that those behaviors can, or should, be tolerated, because often those behaviors are completely unacceptable, but treating them as criminals that you cage for 10 years and let back into the world is not a good plan and it's not a cost effecticlve plan. They need therapy (assuming there isn't a personality disorder, because those don't really ever go away), but more, there needs to be real intervention and support for these babies, as babies, and changes to the educational system that inspire kids to be driven by their curiosity to drive through difficulty to learn for the sake of learning would be a heck of a step. Big picture, that probably starts with a resetting of priorities to spend money on keeping kids out of jail as adults. It cost so much more money to jail even 5% of a high risk population for 30 years than to provide 3 years of somewhat intensive therapy from 0-3 with lower intesity mentoring through adolescence (the indvidual's life time of contributing to society, and the removal of the impact of their crime to society need to be weighed into the cost benefit). I'm sure there is research on this, but I have to think that the cost of one murder, where you lose the person killed's economic participation and the murder's loss of participation (they would have received support and be contributing in the alternative reality and therefore much less likely to kill someone), plus the cost of 30 years of incarceration, and the indirect ripples of kids growing up without parents. I wouldn't be suprised if that added up to at least a million dollars in negative impact that you could remove, and use the money to fund services to a huge part of a city for that...all you would need to do is prevent one murder basically (this assumes the person killed is contributing). In Hardy's case, and as with any baby, he was born into that situation, and it was basically completely out of his hands the whole way through. He had other friends with tough upbringings that were referenced in that story, who made it out alright, but they didn't have the super-natural athletic skill Hardy had, so they never really got that second whammy of bad fortune of no consequences and there you go. This isn't an uncommon behavior pattern among pro athletes from rough childhoods either (he is in the extreme though) and makes you wonder if it could be a function of very similar environmental factors present in early age and adolescence, leading to very similar brain development. It could also be that at the 99% extreme, confident people are jerks and you almost have to be that confident to make that level of competition, but I think there's something more fundamentally similar in terms of brain development. Being told you're the best and having the temporary skill to back it up, when most of that is a lucky dice roll, man that's a dangerous combination...and not just in sports, look at Orson Wells.

Sounds like he was dealing with bipolar, schizophrenia, depression and likely CTE...so let me make sure I understand some of your guys' take...a man with severe mental illness, acts like a man with severe mental illness, and you call him a pos...stay classy Bills fans! Also, a lot of people here need to learn about and understand synaptic pruning before they start going off on personal responsibility is situations like this...you sound ignorant. When a person is a baby, they have all these potential connections. Your brain has all this potential, but is inefficient because the paths for the neurons to flow through are not yet defined. As you grow as an infant and toddler, certain pathways are used, some are not. Eventually around I believe 3 you get synaptic pruning, which is the brain removing the unused pathways...they literally go away forever. Humans literally have the capacity to be feral beasts (I'm talking about during the ice age), or extremely civilized (not sure we've attained this yet)...it's because of synaptic pruning of unused neural pathways. Children who have tough upbringings, specifically lack of stability and the ability to have control over getting the world to give them what they need (ex. baby cries and gets fed quickly) have different pathways that get reinforced compared to someone who has all their needs met. Are people from tough upbringings lost? Of course not, it could be a strength in many ways, but you can't go through that early childhood and then get that sort of reinforcement as a teenager; it will lead to this situation lot more than average. As a society we must help children from ages 0-3. This is both a moral responsibility issue and a fiscal responsibility issue...costs a heck of a lot less to provide effective interventions to babies than it is to fund the consequences (people not entering the labor force, criminal justice, etc.) By the way, has anyone heard about Diaper Poverty befoe? I just did a few months ago, it's wild, look it up.

Would you have done it after last year?