Thurman#1

He wasn't specific because the science says the question can not be answered specifically. That's just the way it is. Fauci's not perfect, but he's been pretty damn good. EDIT: Oh, I see. This is mostly a thread full of nuts? Fair enough. My mistake to spend the time.

I know, we're in a perfect position here to swoop!!

Yes, that's right. If they create $10M in space this year and only spend $5M, they'll have the other $5M rolled over to next year. I don't think they got the money because they need it next year, though it's an interesting idea. That would mean borrowing money from next year and the year after to not spend this year so it's available next year in 2022. It'd make sense in as much as they're borrowing around $4M from 2023, but that's pretty small potatoes to be worrying about so far in advance. They need at least some of it this year, even if it's only as an emergency fund this year, as you say. IMO, though, they'll be bringing in a couple of low- to lower-mid-level FAs at spots like CB and TE. Agreed with your last paragraph too.

'Cuz he's top four and probably top two among the DEs, at least that's how it looks right now. And also because virtually all his salary this year is guaranteed, and cutting him would save us about $0.17M. Beane - thank goodness - doesn't believe in "all-in" years. He believes in long-term competitiveness. They make the player happy, they add flexibility for the GM THIS YEAR, and take away flexibility from the GM NEXT YEAR. Worth remembering that. There's a cost.

Need. Yes it'll skyrocket in a few years. But till that happens in 2023, we're going to be cutting it close. We are already close to the cap next year, and moves like this one will make it even closer next year, though perhaps he won't spend a fairly large part of that money. Next year, now that we made the Diggs move we have $3.9M left above the cap. If he doesn't spend some, that part will roll over and that'll help. This stuff matters.

Best guess so far. I'd expect a few cheap contracts a million or two on a CB or two maybe, a TE maybe. Money for signing the one or two draftees we haven't signed yet, and then hopefully signing Josh and Tremaine late in the season if things go well, and keeping an injury replacement fund.

Agreed, it's hard to say, though that video of him training that came out yesterday definitely raised my expectation. He's always been known as a hard worker with no problems keeping weight off, but he looked great and fast. And yup, for whatever reason he's always been a scapegoat here for a very vocal minority. I have never understood it. He's no Superman. You're not likely to get a pass rush from him or a bunch of tackles either. But he does what McDermott wants done and enables this defense to work at a high level.

Yeah, Tre is his 6th rated QB and his 3rd rated goalkeeper.

Thanks. I'm not a major Panthers follower, never have been. Good to know that a guy who watched a lot thinks Lotulelei mattered there the way he does in Buffalo. I went and edited the post because I wanted to check what other changes were made on their front seven between those two years. Not much. And the point is well-taken about the fact that he's been on really good defenses consistently.

I can see how that's an argument that can be made. Worth noting that Star's last year in Carolina, the D allowed a YPA of 4.0, and the next year, with Star gone (and Kawann Short at LDT both years), that jumped a bit, to 4.7. There were only two changes on their front seven between those two years, Star, and also Johnson leaving and Peppers getting a lot playing time and starts. I'm sure Star's absence was not the only reason for that, but it's likely a bigger part of that reason than many want to admit. I'm not even a big Lotulelei fan especially. I thought they would draft a future replacement this year, and thought it would be a good idea, one I could get behind. They didn't. That may say something. We'll see.

Very true. Very fair. He certainly had a few plays where he was beaten, no question. So does every single player in the NFL, of course, but certainly Star was no exception. And it's also fair to say that Star wasn't always drawing double teams. Just often and a real majority of the time when the play call was a run anywhere through the middle. He absolutely was tying up blockers on run plays. Not so much on pass plays, admittedly. That's why he's a two-down guy. You still don't get it. This guy is maybe obese. And maybe athletic. But comparing him to an NFL starter is like comparing a tabby cat to a lion.

Agreed. He didn't speak specifically. And the difference appeared to be irritation. Which leaves a ton of room for interpretation. Yeah, this is how it seemed to me too.

Yup. It's kind of funny to watch people try to make these arguments. You keep asking for figures, they keep giving figures that are irrelevant for world-class ath-a-letes, which these guys unquestionably are. Yup. Precisely. The guy worked like a dog to get to his ideal weight when a player. Then he did it again afterwards when his ideal weight changed. He wants to argue that most NFL athletes have underlying conditions beyond the weight itself. And there's no clinical evidence of that for these guys. So he throws out generalizations like a cook throwing spaghetti against the wall hoping it'll stick. But then turning away and refusing to see it bounce off.

Right. And for guys like these, 300, 310 or 320 is their ideal weight for right now. That's why they're struggling to get there. After their careers, their ideal weight, when they're not regularly being paid millions of dollars to impose their will on other guys who are world-class people-movers, will change quite a bit as they adjust to a new lifestyle.

Right. Good explanation of why we shouldn't cut any of the guys on the roster. None of them are remotely as you described them here.

That's one guess. What was your take on whether he'd been in touch with Sanders? Or the overwhelming majority of the veteran DLs who also missed these? I just saw irritation myself. I think assuming that meant they hadn't talked to him is reading too much into it. Irritation has many possible causes. Including questions being perceived as annoying. Many others as well.

Nah, his argument wasn't done, it's just that you're not willing to get it. He's right, and on this issue, you're missing the point utterly. Your assumption that the 40 to 60 pounds those NFL guys put on is only "extra blubber" is absolutely pathetically misbegotten. If it were only extra blubber, they'd only get worse athletically as they put it on. Sure, a bunch of it is fat, but a ton of it is also useable muscle, connective tissue and other stuff that makes them stronger and better at what they do. If it weren't, there'd be no use in putting it on. You don't get that, and that's fine. But he's still right. "Ideal body weight," which you keep referring to, is a nebulous and abstract concept. Which is why the best the scientists can do is us the BMI tables. It's why Matt Birk, the new mega-cut fitness model version of Matt Birk, is only 12 pounds away from obese according to those tables. For NFL linemen, "ideal" is extremely large and wildly different for what most people would mean by the term, and in fact wildly different from what the same guys might think after their NFL careers are over. You're probably right that some of them are giving themselves possible future health disorders. But that is probably more so from the contact, the abuse of their joints and so on. There's a reason you can't come up with a single actual figure, any data about this based on NFL athletes rather than those based on ordinary overweight people, a reason all you're doing is bloviating on about "more likely" to be at risk. Yeah, more likely, fair enough. But one percent more likely? Two? Twenty? You haven't a clue. Nor do doctors. Because there is no way to know. You can keep kidding yourself ... as you are in this thread again and again ... that stats that relate to, as you say, "a 300# person who doesn't get any exercise of note" can be used with any relevance for these guys guys who are in a professional athletic development program and are among the best in the world at what they do, but that is indeed, what you are doing ... kidding yourself. And attempting unsuccessfully to kid others. You've been challenged again and again here to come up with numbers and proof based not on ordinary overweight non-exercisers but on professional athletes such as NFL linemen. Challenged again and again, you've been completely unsuccessful at producing those numbers, and you'll continue to be unsuccessful. They don't exist. Using stats for unfit overweight, enfeebled obese people and applying them to these guys is like applying stats for mice to lions and thinking you're making a point. You obviously aren't willing to get this, but that doesn't make it your numbers less obviously irrelevant.

So ... this isn't PFF. It's some one dude who works for PFF. Ben Solak? It's a pretty weird take, but it's not PFF saying Dak is going to be better, it's the one guy. And for those who don't remember, Dak was getting really really good the last year or so before his injury. I still don't take him over Josh, but for a guy who I really didn't believe in at first, Dak has become an excellent QB.

I would. A passer rating of 85.3 is well below average. His running gave him a bit of a lift, but overall I'd have put him below average but on the come. He was improving. It's been said a time or two before but team success in wins and losses ain't a QB stat. It's a team stat and there's good reason for that. In 2019, the defense was elite and that had a much larger impact on our success than our not especially good offense. We were 23rd in scoring, and 2nd in points allowed. Josh did have highs and lows that year but he was 24th in passer rating. Below average is fair. As I say, he was improving but that level was what made 2020's extreme improvement so very very impressive. Yes, he really was improving. But the comment was about how well he did in 2019, not in the end of 2019.

I have to thank you for this post. I often watch a couple of minutes of standup comedy on youtube before bed. Didn't have to do that after chuckling my way through this post. So many sad/funny things here. You say you're giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm guessing you know what that means, which makes it quite funny. Ignoring his good argument and pretending he didn't understand something unrelated when it's you who doesn't understand ... that's not giving him the benefit. It's ignoring his point because you can't answer it. As for saying you'll "continue to make fun of each of my illogical takes," ... hey, it could happen. There's always a first time. What usually happens with you, though, is what you did in your post here: straw men, unrelated facts, facts that don't begin to make a case being treated as if they're probative ... saying as you did above that people shouldn't do something and then doing it yourself in the next sentence. But hey, you did crack me up. You say people shouldn't use certain insulting words about people or takes, and then you insult me a sentence later, saying I'm "out of control with my anger" and should "eep it together." I'm not angry at you, dude, just consistently sadly amused at your takes. I don't use words like idiotic and stupid about people. Doing so brings a response from the mods, and that's a fantastic policy, IMO. But as for takes, hey, opinions can be stupid, and there's no reason not to call a spade a spade. Now, the vast majority of opinions with which I disagree are in no way idiotic. They're reasonable disagreement. But some just clear the bar, and if people don't want their takes ignored and insulted, they should put at least a smidgeon of sense in. But there's no problem with pointing out how sad a use of logic there might be in a post. And you've given an excellent example in this post. You're trying to back up what you have said, twice now, quoting yourself, that, ""And that issue is usually very much a function of being overweight and obese. Like all 300# NFL lineman." So you've been saying yourself that this issue [pre-existing conditions] is "usually a function of being overweight and obese." OK, where's your data on that. What percentages of NFL guys with pre-existing conditions come from being overweight and obese. And then you say, "Like all 300# NFL linemen." Which again is laughable, because the figures on obesity are not intended for freaks like NFL linemen. And your attempt to prove these two points with this symphony of generalizations: "As I said earlier.........according to the AHA........more than 1/3 of adult males have heart disease. Now add in all of the other health risk factors.......and non-heart related afflictions like diabetes......... involved with being a 300# NFL OL and you have a recipe for a very large amount of people who could have opted out." This is a typical way for people without an argument to pretend they have one, you throw up a figure because numbers look great. Even if the number isn't closely related to your topic (and yours sure isn't), it'll look impressive, because it's a number. Then throw up a few generalizations and throw the mike down whether you said anything worth hearing or related to the subject or not. Your argument amounts to this: ----------------- 1) More than 1/3 of adult males have heart disease, and of course "adult males" includes the smokers, the alcoholics, the diabetics, the bedridden, the ones with other serious diseases, the ones in nursing homes, the ones over 100 years old, the ones over 90, over 80, over 70, and so on. (Pretending that that group can be used to look at a wildly non-random and physically unusual group such as current NFL linemen is absolutely ridiculous.) 2) Other health risk factors exist ... though I have no figures about this, much less figures that would tell anything about NFL linemen 3) None-heart related afflctions like diabetes exist ... though I have no figures about this, much less figures that would tell anything about NFL linemen 4) Therefore what I said is true and pre-existing conditions in NFL linemen are very common and usually a function of being obese. 5) Mike drop ---------------- Throwing out one distantly related statistic and then a bunch of even far more distantly related generalizations ... does not a serious argument make. Far from it. This isn't an argument so much as a thing constructed with words to appear to make sense.

If you think these 300 # guys are NOT in great physical condition because they are being paid to play football, I suggest you try to block Star Lotulelei, whether he is healthy or not. Then I suggest you try to bench what he does, whether he's let himself go or not. Don't limit yourself to Lotulelei. Block or outlift any NFL lineman. You bring up Matt Birk and it's a good point. First because it shows yet more evidence of a lack of caring for the facts. That one step at a time thing is both exaggerated (the word "exhausting" was not used), nor was it Birk who talked about problems walking down stairs. That was Yanda. Carelessness with the facts. Birk's story is pretty terrific. And also illustrative. Here's a picture of him today: 6'4 and 235 pounds these days. That gives him a BMI of 28.6. 25.0 to 29.9 is over weight, so he's apparently quite overweight. And 30.0 and above is obese. Which means he's only 12 pounds away from obese. Now. The guy in that picture. Yeah, makes total sense. These guys are not normal. Not even close.

No evidence of dysfunction." Yup. No evidence of a lack of dysfunction either. Agreed with your last paragraph. But the reason the doctors at the time said it was "likely" and "might" be the reason the second was normal after the first had a low ejection fraction, is that without much more detailed tests, it's the best guess. But there's no way to know without looking much further. Yeah, it's a reasonable presumption. There are others that are also possible and reasonable. The doctors might well have said that was the most likely explanation. They could not really have gone beyond that with only the results of two MRIs.

Yup, nicely put. I like the Big Ben point, though obviously I hope you're underestimating. Thoughtful. And that's how I'd order them also, Mahomes and then Allen. Nearly everyone, really, the exceptions being largely Bills fans. If Rodgers were young again and playing the way he is now, I'd have to stop and think a bunch more, but he's not and Mahomes then Allen would be how most around the league would order this. Saying that, I think it's reasonable to guess that Josh might have just as good a career if not better. But based on what we've seen, that's not how most would bet.

Sully is a good writer, who makes sense most of the time. Over-cranky sometimes, and very willing to be controversial as he is in today's article about vaccinations? Yeah, absolutely, but Sully is worth a read. This Minnesota guy is not.

I wonder what's on TV.