Thurman#1

On social media, maybe. And there are a few high-level folks in our country working to use spin and distraction instead. But it's not dead. It always comes back. And while I haven't seen anything but those two or three photos, that hug looks awkward as hell, not a romantic one. I don't see anything especially damning there. It'd depend heavily on context.

Nah, he absolutely was tough. Not Ray Lewis or anything but he did a damn good job coming in to stop the run and tackling generally. Big WRs couldn't just bully Tre, he was tough enough to handle whatever they pulled on him. We don't need mean guys, especially, as long as they do the job. Fast would be good, though.

My guess is that after the draft they'll be talking to him, and hopefully they can work something out. Not sure about the upswing, but he played well last year till the late injury.

Coaches here have never been involved with picking players. That was made clear by both McDermott and Beane. Beane made the picks. The coaches were welcome to give input, especially as to how players would fit schemes and such. That input would be a part of what Beane and his staff looked at, but the coaches weren't involved in the picking process. Fans tend to want to put the responsibility for moves that didn't work out on the guy they hate. It's a form of confirmation bias, and it makes people feel better about the status quo here (McDermott is gone, so therefore these people assume our draft picks will be better.) That happened here, certainly. But Beane made it clear, every time he was asked, from when he was hired right up to the present, and doubtless into the future. He was in charge of the roster, and that absolutely includes making the picks. I'm sure it will be the same with the new regime. It's basically how it works pretty much everywhere except where the coach is extremely powerful or even is the defacto GM. Belichick being the most obvious example. That was never true here and I can't see it being true in the near future with our setup.

Bosa was chewed up by the end of the year. Von played in 17 games last year and got 9 sacks. Von. But not for a lot of money.

If he were 25, yes. 27, even, maybe. But when he will turn 31 during the season? For three 1sts? Nah. I might at least consider it at two 1sts. But imagine he's terrific for three months and then in December he tears an Achilles, or some ligaments? And we're facing years without a first. Nope. Anyway, the Browns say they're "adamant" about not trading him even after the adjustment to his contract.

The word "only" is not reasonable. There's some real stuff out there, but yeah, a lot and probably most of it comes in the way you're talking about. Always has, though. I usually find the numbers to be right. Fair enough that giving only the total number of the contract and/or the APY of extensions rather than the totals is common. Which does usually make things look good for the player or the agent. But it's also SOP these days to announce it that way.

Yeah, just read this and Marlin kicked butt. One caveat, though, Marlin wanted Vandemark tendered at a higher level, so that we'd get draft picks if he was taken. That obviously was not done, probably because a second-round tender (Vandemark was undrafted, and thus a second-round tender would be the lowest that would give any return if an offer was made by another team) would have required offering him $5.811M, which he does not appear to be worth. We'll still have to wait and see whether this "fixes" our roster or just readies a line-up. My bet is that switching systems will be harder than Leonhard or we fans would like it to be. That's how it generally goes, it takes time, sometimes a season or even more. But there are occasional exceptions, and hopefully we will be one. Still, excellent work, Marlin, in nailing so many of their moves!!!!

Jeez, hadn't seen this till just now. I wouldn't assume it's true just because there's an accusation. But of course if it is true, there's no defense, it's just wrong.

Again, if there's no anti-semitic intent, there's no anti-semitism. How could making a gesture or saying a word that you have no idea has any connection to religion in any way be anti-semitic? I've finally seen the video, and it's not anti-semitic at all to me. I'm perfectly willing not to do it, but there's no connection to religion there for me or for anyone who hasn't been specifically told about the connection that some people are making. If there is a connection, Bill, what is it? Is holding his left hand that way a reference to Judaism? Is the facial expression something that non-Jews don't do? This is obviously a reference to wildly-exaggerated villainy. Can't see anything there. There's no such thing as anti-semitism, or anti-Irish, or anti-Buddhism, or anti-anything whatsoever without intent. Intent is the point. Without deliberate intent, it's only gesturing. Which is why everyone has let this go for Nacua. They get there was no intent, and no intent no anti-semitism. It's why this has completely disappeared. He appeared to be totally sincere saying he had no idea, and without knowing, there's nothing wrong. It looks like the gestures the villain used to make in the old Hollywood melodramas like The Perils of Pauline. Or Snidely Whiplash in the Dudley Do-Right cartoons, or Dick Dastardly. And while I'm no expert, neither Whiplash nor Dastardly appears to me to be a Jewish name. Did you have Dudley Do-Right or Dick Dastardly in Britain, Bill? I'm guessing maybe not. I kind of wish I hadn't done any research on this, because the way that alt-right racist dickheads have used this really is horrible. But this use appears to have started in the 1990s, and the world did not begin in the '90s. Those racist sickos were referring back to tropes of villainy that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any racist or religious meanings. They were meant to refer to pure dastardliness. The fact that some true scum absorbed the gestures into their racist crap does not mean the gestures themselves have innate religious meaning, whether or not some slimewads have used them that way. Again, not sure whether you've seen any of these old examples, Bill, or whether they are purely American. But here's a relatively short video about them. And again, there is no religious meaning shown or intended.

I'm with you. They're not awful at all, but a lifelike statue would have been a lot better, IMO.

Because his team didn't win ten games this year. Therefore if he was in that category he'd mess up the conclusion. Mahomes was absolutely in that category ... until he wasn't. Really there's no such category. Put a genuinely excellent QB on a crappy team and he will have great trouble winning ten games. Allen and Mahomes are generational but part of the reason Allen has won ten games every year is that he always has had a very good roster around him. When you have to start saying weirder things to force the data to fit your theory, your theory is the problem.

Taking a receiver with a top pick every 2 or 3 seasons? Nah. Depends what you have, what you need, and what is available that year and at your specific pick. Also depends on what your team wants to feature, what your scheme is, and on and on. The Pats between 2001 (the year Belichick arrived and the year of their last championship, in the top three rounds drafted: 2019 1st N'Keal Harry 2010 3rd Taylor Price 2009 3rd Brandon Tate 2006 2nd Chad Jackson 2003 2nd Bethel Johnson 2002 2nd Deion Branch Pretty good team, not built around the results of those guys. Branch was a good pick. The others? And that's below three per year. You can bring in FAs, you can make trades, you can build more around TEs, pass-catching RBs, slots because they're cheaper ... there are a lot of alternatives. And an absolute ton of it should depend on what's available when the pick comes up.

Actually, it's well-established that traumatic brain injury does lead to anti-social behavior. Traumatic Brain Injury and Related Antisocial Behavioral Outcomes: A Systematic Review https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10456231/ And there are puh-lenty more. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9568005/ https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.507196/full https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15412040231181349 https://news.cuanschutz.edu/news-stories/study-finds-link-between-brain-injury-and-criminal-behavior https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/neuropsychiatric-effects-traumatic-brain-injury https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372736805_Traumatic_Brain_Injury_and_Related_Antisocial_Behavioral_Outcomes_A_Systematic_Review https://www.luc.edu/neuroscienceandsociety/hottopics/essays/archive/violenttendenciesarebraininjuriestoblame.shtml And I could go on and on and on and on and on. It's far from the only factor, and it's complex and hard to study, but it's there.

It isn't Josh Allen, it's the Bills. Again, win-loss is not a QB stat. And seven games isn't a large sample. It's mostly luck and happenstance. And a mostly very tough group of opponents. Out of those seven opponents, six had better records than the Bills when we played them. The seventh was in Week one.