Thurman#1

It's interesting that you think so. Particularly as Smoke's answer, unlike some others, has detail, life and clear commitment, not to mention new info. It's not just undetailed boilerplate, despite being about s subject that doesn't call into question anyone's deepest beliefs.

And the fact that Tyrod wasn't good enough to beat out a very inconsistent Joe Flacco was a great deal of the reason why he didn't start more. And when people say that, some howl, "no, they were paying Flacco too much to sit him." Not buying it, nor should anyone. When one QB is clearly better than another one, NFL teams generally very quickly start to wonder why the better guy isn't starting. By all accounts Tyrod didn't outplay Flacco, except with his running, which meant the Ravens didn't have a reason to think about making a change. So it is indeed a fair comparison. (Or at least as fair as comparisons like this get. Situations are always different, there'll never be an equal playing field.) But comparing the much older and more experienced Fitz and Tyrod to Josh in his first two years is just as unfair. Josh has shown a ton more as far back as college than Fitz and Tyrod, which is why he was a first round pick and they weren't.

Some fair points from you too. I do disagree with what you think is Marcel's aim here, though. (Although I only know the two things he said in the OP, so if he's gone on and opened up more about his intentions, I've missed it.) As I tried to say in my first post (probably not very well), I don't think Marcel was criticizing him for not having an opinion on the current culture. He gave him a chance to show he'd taken seriously the mistake he had made. You yourself say he needs to "learn from his mistakes," but his statement didn't show in any way that he has. It's really pretty much the same thing a racist would say (though the racist wouldn't mean it). I don't think Fromm is at heart a racist, but he does need to make changes and show he's doing so. He didn't. And that's what I think people reacted to about this. Where did Marcel specifically say that Fromm needed to have an opinion on what's happening? Again, if he's gone on to say more and I missed it, fair enough. But in the OP he didn't say that. Only that it was not acceptable. He didn't say why he thought so and I think many of the people on here are assuming he meant something that it's not clear that he did in fact mean. To me it looks like he's responding to Fromm's boilerplate, no-meat, no visible thought shown language on this. He shows no visible measure of serious thought here, zero. He didn't (necessarily) need to say that he supports the "Black Lives Matter" movement. But he did need to show that he recognized he needed to make some changes and show that he's started to do that. And he didn't. He just kept up with the "Sorry, that's not me," line. But he said it, it came from some part of him. He needed to address this much more deeply. And (this is my opinion) it doesn't necessarily have to be political. It needs to be personal for him And Brees was doing far more than "bowing down to the crowd" here. He was realizing a mistake and correcting it. Brees is a terrific example of what I'm saying. He got down into the issue, studied it more and realized that the racists have made the connection with veterans and the armed forces their own little dog whistle so that they can say they're against change in cop-African American relationships without using any racist language to do so. Brees has always been anti-racist. He just now figured out how his "disrespecting the flag" views look terrible when you're echoing the dog whistles that the racists are using to try to spin this. When he realized, he stopped. His comments were tone-deaf. When the feedback made it obvious that a lot of good people, including teammates that he liked and respected, were angry at him, he went back and figured out why they were angry. "Through my ongoing conversations with friends, teammates, and leaders in the black community, I realize this is not an issue about the American flag. It has never been,” he said. “We can no longer use the flag to turn people away or distract them from the real issues that face our black communities.” That's what Brees said to Trump on Instagram. Brees's always been anti-racist. He simply realized why the words he used, the dog whistle language, was not suitable for the situation. Brees went deep. He showed thought. "In an attempt to talk about respect, unity, and solidarity centered around the American flag and the national anthem, I made comments that were insensitive and completely missed the mark on the issues we are facing right now as a country. They lacked awareness and any type of compassion or empathy." He's not backing down on loving the flag and the anthem. He figured out what he'd done wrong, admitted it, carefully addressed it. What Brees didn't do is say: Hey, that's not me. I'm sorry. Just love people and God. Brees thought about it deeply and specifically addressed what he'd done and how he'd changed. Fromm didn't. IMO that may well have been what Marcel was referring to.

IMO Marcel isn't commenting on his worldview at all. I think he's saying that even having had a couple of months to specifically work on his understanding of the issues, to contact people and organizations that could have deepened his knowledge on it and to find ways of demonstrating a commitment to learning on this area, that Fromm instead addressed the whole issue with generalities. He used lots of nice language but didn't really give any specifics about what he'd done to demonstrate that he was trying to work on himself and deepen his understanding of what he'd done wrong and what he could do to improve. To me, Fromm's comment was a lost opportunity. He had a chance to show growth and seriousness but instead he just continued with the mea culpa. Nothing horrible whatsoever, of course. But also nothing to show development or commitment to deep consideration. Instead, no specifics whatsoever. He'd have done a ton better to give some names and thoughts of the people he had some of those difficult conversations with. Look at what Drew Brees did when he said things that drew such a backlash. He headed right into the conversation and made himself aware and involved and spent some time with people who had some expertise and involvement with the issue. That's the sort of thing Fromm could have done.

The reason people keep saying we have a SB-winning quality defense ... is that we do. Not the best in the NFL or anything, but yeah, a top five sort of defense. Nobody said we had a perfect defense. If you look through the record of the absolute best defenses in history you will still find bad quarters, bad halves and bad games. That's the way these things work. A quick example is the '85 Bears, arguably the gold standard, who allowed 38 points to the Dolphins offense and 28 points to the Bucs offense, and the Bucs won a total of two games that year, they were horrendous, 21st of 28 in scoring. The Bills defense is unquestionably excellent. Do they need to continue working hard and improving? Yeah, of course. So does everyone, always, on a team aiming for a Lombardi. The offense is the one that needs serious improvement for this team to threaten.

Chances on Clowney ... I'm saying 0.5%.

What statement are you responding to? Did he claim that he was worse off than anybody else? Did he say nobody's going through anything worse? Did he use the word "inconvenience," because that sure sounds like what you think of what he'd have to go through, not a word he would use or intend or probably feel. Are you making decisions based on whether your situation is worse or better than others? Is anyone? I know I'm not. In nearly any important decision it's very true that there are lots of people in better situations than me (Bill Gates, for example) and lots in worse (people starving to death in famine areas, for example), but that's not what I think about when I decide which city to move to or which job to take or whatever. IMO nobody thinks about that. We all make decisions based on most of the same factors ... the expected or possible outcomes for myself and those I love, whether the alternatives meet my moral standards for myself, etc. Whether or not I'm better of than others wouldn't enter into it for most of us, IMO. We are in a position and we look at that position and pick the best alternative. Looks to me like that's what he's doing. Which is extremely reasonable.

Nicely put. Tre tends to lead with his heart. I love that about him.

Baseball's a safer sport. I mean, the catcher is required to wear a mask. Tip your waitresses, folks, they work hard all night.. Sorry. No, what happened with the Marlins is very far from the worst case scenario, very far. If I had to guess, I'd guess they don't make it all the way through, but it could easily go either way. The logistics are tougher for football, with larger teams and staffs and the fact that it's a contact sport. Yup. And I don't think either way, opt out or not, he gets more leverage. He's got a ton of it right now, in or out.

Allen says they're working on it. Which is what he said last offseason as well. Nothing new there. Pretty sure they won't do this during COVID. Eventually, though, as it supports charity. Why not?

Yeah. But if they don't spend it this year, they can roll it over. But yes, any money saved this year goes against next year's cap, and next year's cap may take a major dive depending how all that is handled.

Yup, exactly. For those who don't remember, here's the transcript again. It stinks of a slimy attempted political hatchet job on a guy who only wants to talk about what the science says. --------------- Representative Jordan: (00:00) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fauci, do protests increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (00:06) Do protest increase the spread of the virus? I think I can make a general statement. Representative Jordan: (00:11) Half a million protestors on June 6th alone. I’m just asking that number of people, does it increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (00:16) Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus. Representative Jordan: (00:23) Should we limit the protesting? Dr. Fauci: (00:25) I’m not sure what you mean. How do we say limit the protesting? Representative Jordan: (00:29) Should government limit the protesting? Dr. Fauci: (00:33) I don’t think that’s relevant to- Representative Jordan: (00:36) Well, you just said, if it increases the spread of the virus, I’m just asking, should we limit it? Dr. Fauci: (00:40) Well, I’m not in a position to determine what the government can do in a forceful way. Representative Jordan: (00:44) Well, you make all kinds of recommendations. You made comments on dating, on baseball and everything you can imagine. I’m just asking you. You just said protest increased the spread. I’m just asking you should we try to limit the protests? Dr. Fauci: (00:53) No, I think I would leave that to people who have more of an position to do that. I can tell you that- Representative Jordan: (00:59) Government’s stopping people from going to church, Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci: (01:02) Yeah. Representative Jordan: (01:03) Last week in the Calvary Chapel case, five liberals on the Supreme Court said it was okay for Nevada to limit church services. Justice Gorsuch said it best. He said there’s no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesar’s Palace over Calvary chapel. I’m just asking, is there a world where the Constitution says you can favor one First Amendment liberty, protesting, over another, practicing your faith? Dr. Fauci: (01:27) I’m not favoring anybody over anybody. I’m just making a statement that’s a broad statement, that avoid crowds of any type no matter where you are because that leads to the acquisition and transmission. And I don’t judge one crowd versus another crowd. When you’re in a crowd, particularly if you’re not wearing a mask, that induces the spread. Representative Jordan: (01:49) It’s a simple question, Doctor. Should we limit the protests? Government is obviously limiting people going to church. And look, there’s been no violence that I can see at church. I haven’t seen people during a church service go out and harm police officers or burn buildings. But we know that, I mean, for 63 days, nine weeks, it’s been happening in Portland. One night in Chicago, 49 officers were injured, but no limit to protests, but boy, you can’t go to church on Sunday. Dr. Fauci: (02:18) I don’t know how many times I can answer that. I’m not going to opine on limiting anything. I’m just going to tell you- Representative Jordan: (02:23) You’ve opined on a lot of things, Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci: (02:25) Yeah, but I’ve never said to limit anything. Representative Jordan: (02:26) This is something that directly impacts the spread of the virus, and I’m asking your position on the protest. Dr. Fauci: (02:31) Well, I’m not going to opine on limiting anything. I’m telling you what it is, the danger, and you can make your own conclusion about that. You should stay away from crowds no matter where the crowds are. Representative Jordan: (02:44) Government has stopped people from going to work. In fact, just in New Jersey four days ago, Ian Smith, Frank Trumbetti were arrested for opening up from trying to operate their business, their gym. They were arrested. But my bet is if these two individuals who owned this gym were outside just in front of their gym and all the people who are working out in their gym were outside protesting, they’d been just fine, but because they were in the gym working out, actually running their business, they got arrested. You think that’s okay? Dr. Fauci: (03:16) I’m not going to opine it on who gets arrested and who does not. I mean, you get where I’m going? I’m telling you as a public health official. I say crowds- Representative Jordan: (03:25) Do you see the inconsistency, though, Dr. Fauci? Dr. Fauci: (03:27) There’s no inconsistency, Congressman. Representative Jordan: (03:30) So you’re allowed to protest millions of people on one day in crowds, yelling, screaming, but you try to run your business, you get arrested. And if you stood right outside of that same business and protested, you wouldn’t get arrested. You don’t see an inconsistency there? Dr. Fauci: (03:42) I don’t understand what you’re asking me as a public health official to opine on who should get arrested or not. That’s not my position. You could ask me as much as you want and I’m not going to answer it. Representative Jordan: (03:52) You’ve advocated for certain businesses. You’ve advocated for certain businesses to be shut down. I’m just asking you on your position on the protest. I haven’t seen one. We’ve heard a lot about hair salons. I haven’t seen one hairstylist who between haircuts goes out and attacks police or sets something on fire, but we’ve seen all kinds of that stuff during protests. And we know the protest actually increase the spread of the virus. You’ve said that. Dr. Fauci: (04:16) I said crowds. I didn’t say specifically, I didn’t say protests do anything. Representative Jordan: (04:21) So the protests don’t increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (04:23) I didn’t say that. You’re putting words in my mouth. Representative Jordan: (04:26) I just want an answer to the question. Do the protests increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (04:30) I don’t have any scientific evidence that anything I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly when you don’t have a mask, to increase the acquisition and transmission, no matter what the crowd is. Representative Jordan: (04:41) So you don’t have a position on whether the protests increased the spread of the virus or don’t increase the spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci: (04:48) I’m saying that crowds, wherever the crowds are, can give you an increased probability that is going to be acquisition and transmission. Representative Jordan: (04:57) But do you understand American’s concern? Protesting, particularly according to the Democrats is just fine, but you can’t go to work. You can’t go to school. You can’t go to church. There’s limits placed on all three of those fundamental activities, First Amendment activities, but protesting is just fine. Mr. Clyburn: (05:17) The gentleman’s time has expired. ----------------------

Well, you might indeed have thought him mad, but that's because you apparently haven't understood the system. He is an expert on the medicine. The crass Jordan kept pressing him for a political opinion. He's not a politician or an expert on politics. And giving the full range of legitimate medical opinion is NOT throwing the hot potato back, in the sense of abdicating his responsibility. When your job is fully advising on your area of expertise, and you do it, and then point out that the politics is up to the politicians, that's not avoiding your responsibilities. It is perfectly fulfilling them. The only thing he did "wrong" is apparently not to give your opinion rather than what the science tells him to say.

Um, I didn't. You both misquoted me and totally misunderstood my point. What I said was, "there is zero evidence that 300-pound 25 year old NFL linemen, as opposed to 45-year old 300 pound couch potatoes, are at elevated risk." See the difference there? I'm sure I could have said it much better, but I certainly in no way meant what you apparently thought I did. Try reading my post again. If you'd like to disagree again, please feel free.

It is indeed a free society, as free as is reasonable. But true freedom doesn't exist, nor should it. You can't murder me without being penalized with jail time. That's taking away your freedom, but most would call it a reasonable regulation. And COVID regs are the same thing. By going to a sporting event and picking up COVID, you could be responsible for the death of my grandmother. Society has a perfect, reasonable right to regulate this. The question is how much.

Three TDs out of 15 snaps? We were clearly very successful in that grouping. That says the opposite that there's a problem. They did really well from an unusual setup. That's good coaching.

When you say 'horse pucky," was that a threat to import some? Because you did a fine job of that. And nice job of packing that post with all sorts of completely irrelevant resume/CV material. One might even call it horse pucky. The shoe fits. And again, Fauci's job here is NOT to lead. It's to provide medical expertise. You know who should lead? The country's leadership. Yeah, Fauci is an expert, as you go on and on about. But not an expert on politics. You go on about his qualifications. Does he have advanced degrees that you or I missed about what things should be illegal? I'll be glad to hear it if you can find that he does, but in the meantime all the stuff you go on with up there shows he had medical expertise, not political. He was asked whether the government should make something illegal. That is a political question, not a medical one. The science guy isn't charged with "preventing the spread." That's the government, even though they're showing themselves incompetent to do so. The science guy is charged with providing the government, and the public, with the information that the science shows to be true. Which is what Fauci did. You keep pretending he didn't answer the question. But pretending doesn't make it true. He did answer the medical part of the question. He said, "Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." And you're right that "the decision of thousands of people to congregate on city streets is surely and definitely contributing to the explosion of cases across the country." I agree with you 100%, and therefore it's clear that re-opening is causing a massive .... oh, wait, that's not what you meant? You wanted the guy to be forced to make a statement in line with your political beliefs. You want that, go hire someone. He'll do it. But supporting your beliefs isn't Fauci's job. Your mass datadump of his credentials only shows he's willing to speak to his expertise and not beyond. What's medically clear is exactly what Fauci said ... that ""Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." Which does indeed show that that kind of dangerous behavior ... dangerous behavior which includes both the demonstrations and the things that you and Jordan happen to support and therefore don't want mentioned in this context ... are indeed raising the odds of a continuing increase. And yeah, this absolutely was scurrilous behavior on Jordan's part. He isn't trying to make a point about health. If he were he could still talk about the protests but would also include the reopenings. He doesn't because he's a political hatchet man, not someone looking for medical expertise. And pretending that Jordan isn't involved in this discussion is nonsense. He was asking the questions Fauci was answering, he was trying to get Fauci to say things that were far too specific for medicine to speak to. Trying to force Fauci to give Jordan a baseball bat and a way to twist Fauci's words. Too bad that Fauci only gave him the medical info he requested, the stuff that the studies show is true. The one single thing that makes sense from your post is that Wilford Brimley was indeed a class act. One of the great moustaches of all time. As much gravitas as Morgan Freeman and apparently a lot more class.

You're right that there is zero evidence that 300-pound 25 year old NFL linemen, as opposed to 45-year old 300 pound couch potatoes, are at elevated risk. Thing is, there's also zero risk that they are not. You're assuming because they're titanically strong that that proves the coronavirus won't get them despite many of them being very fat. You've heard the stories of some of these guys having to eat 5000 and 6000 calorie daily diets to maintain a weight where they're carrying a ton of fat. These guys are incredible athletes, but many are forced to maintain bizarre and stressful regimens to maintain their effectiveness. They don't do so because they figure they're maximizing their health. They do it because it maximized their football abilities and their incomes. And while some guys like Eric Wood are able to revert to healthy habits and physiques after their playing days, many more of them do not. There's no particular reason to think your assumption here is correct. I agree with your guess that guys like that will likely have complications at lower rates than guys of the same weight who don't work out like demons. But my guess is that despite their workouts, they will have more complications than guys who don't force themselves to overeat consistently and maintain large amounts of body fat. I don't have any more evidence than you do. But I don't have any less either. As I said before, guys with those lifestyles should and most likely are considering these things with great seriousness. And as for Rodriguez, he may or may not at this point be expected to make a full recovery. But he was also expected to recover and be ready in a couple of weeks. Instead his symptoms have hung around. They don't know what will happen. You certainly do have one guess there. It could happen that way. I hope it does. But we don't know. And neither do they, which is the point.

You'd have liked to see Fauci lead? Well, that's the problem. It's the politicians who're supposed to lead. Fauci's role isn't leading. It's answering science questions. Which he did. The leaders are supposed to take that science knowledge and lead more effectively. I'll certainly grant that so far they're mostly not doing that, with Jordan doing an excellent job of avoiding leadership to instead attempt to score cheap political points that might lead to a headline he'd like better than just the science makes. I'm not blaming Jordan for being a politician. I'm blaming him for being a crappy one. If anyone in that conversation should have been leading, it should have been the high-level politician, but instead he's strictly interested in scoring points even if that means getting things out there which don't represent what the science says. Jordan's a politician less interested in doing what politicians should do based on the best medical knowledge and more interested in hectoring a medical expert with questions on political issues, and when that didn't work, trying for what he considered the second-best outcome of trying to get Fauci to say a 30-word sentence that would contain a 5-word hot-button headline that by eliminating context would have completely misrepresented what Fauci said. He's a politician, alright. And I don't know the rest of what he's done over his career, nor much care. But what he was doing there was scurrilous. There's scurrilous behavior on both sides, but that doesn't mean it's OK, not for either side.

Rodriguez is NOT expected to play again this year. It's not overblown at all. https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/08/01/eduardo-rodriguez-out-for-the-year-due-to-an-inflamed-heart/ And yeah, it's ONE player ... out of how many who have been infected so far in baseball? What percentage of the infected major leaguers is Rodriguez? And he's no 330 pound offensive lineman who has to stuff 6000 calories down his gullet every day to keep his weight up. We just don't know. This stuff is unpredictable, particularly as these athletes are out of the ordinary in so many ways. Will an OL who's terrifically strong and in good football shape but still has 40 or 50 pounds of fat on him still suffer as many health problems from COVID-19 percentage-wise than an average guy his age who has 40 or 50 extra pounds on him? I'd guess probably not, but there's just not a significant amount of data on guys like this. A player would be irresponsible to his own interests not to think about this extremely seriously.

Yeah, no, he didn't say that. He says they don't get paid or have a union. But he did not say or imply what you apparently think he did. His concern with them not having a union is that because of that they have nobody whose interest is in advocating for their safety. And their not getting paid makes it even more questionable whether they (not to mention their families, friends and relations) should then be put in harm's way. Both pretty reasonable concerns.

Yeah, he had the chance to say that large gatherings result in increased transmissions. And instead he said, "Crowding together, particularly when you’re not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." Oh, wait. That's exactly the same thing. Jordan wanted to make a political point, to focus attention on the groups he doesn't like and away from the groups he does. Do you think for an instant that if Fauci had said, "Yes, the protests will increase transmissions," that Jordan's next question would have been, "And how about re-opening businesses, churches, football leagues, bars and restaurants? Would those also contribute?" Hell, no. For Jordan this issue was purely pollitical. Fauci said exactly what the science told him to say, that "crowding together, particularly when you're not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus." It is indeed a health and safety issue, and that's why a scientist should say precisely what the science tells him to say, and no more. Which is what Fauci did.

I see. So, this is your idea of ... speculation, you say? That's your whole post. No offense, but you are setting the bar way too low. That doesn't come anywhere near speculation. It's pure insult with not an ounce of substance. Not a gram. I'm not going to go back through and trace the argument. Perhaps you had some other posts that were thoughtful and measured, and if so, terrific. But this was offensive and substanceless. The post you were replying to, on the other hand, wasn't particularly nice in tone but at least put forward some legitimate points. Yours did nothing of the kind. EDIT: Going back to look at other things, I see that many of your other posts have plenty of substance and thought. My comments are only about this particular post.

Great argument. Street bums like Freddy Jackson and Kurt Warner never help teams. Great idea to have a specific opinion about a guy you've never heard of only because you've never heard of him.

https://clutchpoints.com/bengals-news-niles-scott-goes-to-injury-reserve-is-in-a-walking-boot/ 6' 3" 280. You wouldn't expect Scott to slide in at 1-tech. Cincy was running a 3-4 last year, though, so if he played DT there he wasn't a 3-tech. https://www.bengals.com/video/scott-it-s-a-really-exciting-feeling-to-get-out-there-with-the-pads-on He talks like a process guy. "Better version of myself every day ... iron sharpens iron."