Thurman#1

Nice move! The minute you get a post like yours that responds to actual arguments through a post without any, and then you throw in calling a probable male a female name, and throwing insults besides ... well, you know you're going to see an argument with some intellectual heft, a real thought leader. Your post, nothing but insults, is literally pointless.

Fair enough. I was just blowing off some steam. EDIT: See below. Oops, here I go again.

The sense that they have it under control right now, with cases and deaths way way down. We, you may have noted, do not.

I'm honestly not sure at all about whether the protests should be limited. It doesn't affect me over here in Japan. But having seen this thread and gone back to look at the Jordan-Fauci exhange, I don't think Fauci is doing anything unreasonable here. The guy kept asking him for his judgments on political issues. Fauci refused to answer, saying he is only an expert on medical issues not political ones. He answered clearly that he would avoid all crowds at this point. The questions he refused to answer were only the ones where the answer was political not medical. Here's the transcript of the whole thing: --------------- 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. ---------------------- So, yeah, Fauci's opined on lots of things. Medical things. Which he is willing to do, and still doing. Not political things, which he isn't and won't. Which is reasonable. He's not an expert on politics. This is clearly a Senatory trying to spin things to make a political point. Fauci made his medical opinion very clear. Jordan wanted to force him to say what Jordan wanted to hear. He was perfectly willing to put words in Fauci's mouth. For instance, he says, "So the protests don't increase the spread of the virus?" That's a political question. Fauci had already said that crowds increase the probability of it being spread. In other words, yeah, the protests increase the probability of it being spread. But Jordan wanted more than that, because he wanted a politically useful answer. Fauci clearly said that crowds are dangerous in that they increase the probability of spread. Jordan isn't interested in that it's not a politically useful answer for him. He wants Fauci to separate the protests, to get Fauci to answer a question about the protests, while not including the crowds Jordan himself politically supports - business, churches, etc. - in the answer. But Fauci is right that medically speaking a crowd is a crowd is a crowd. He can't speak to the differences. Seems a case of someone trying to force a political opinion out of a medical expert to me. Did Fauci ever say that going to church should be illegal? I sure don't remember that. It's outside his scope, as is what Jordan is trying to get him to say. Jordan isn't asking questions that would increase public awareness of medical dimensions of the problem. He's trying to force Fauci to say something that is politically useful to Jordan and his side, even though it's a political issue and not a medical one. To me, it looked totally reasonable of Fauci, who's been as much of a voice of reason as there's been in this whole disaster.

Do you have any studies on how well extremely strong and well-conditioned but obese guys do with COVID as opposed to guys who are obese but not extremely strong? I don't believe there's anything like that to point to. This is something that I would absolutely think very hard about assuming I was a healthy, conditioned NFL lineman facing the issues these guys are facing.

Yeah, this was what stood out for me. Due to body weight issues about 70% of NFL players would fit into the "pre-existing conditions" group. Holy cow, I never considered that for an instant. I think of these guys as uber-healthy.

Haven't read your post. Let me guess. You have an opinion and won't even read opinions that might possibly change your mind. Gotta admit, this whole mindset cracks me up. Someone starts a thread with something new as a reference, an article, a video, whatever. And people come in and boast that they don't watch and then give an opinion anyway. It's like someone commenting on a movie they haven't seen. Why should anyone care? More, why would anyone want to comment if they don't want to look at what's being talked about? I don't get it, but it is amusing.

It's not the way of the world. It's the way of the people who don't have a contract in place that provides for that. Everyone's contract is different. I bet that the average NFL player makes a lot more than you do too, just based on the fact that they make far more than the average Joes of the world. Well, if they can get those salaries, more power to 'em. Same with the benefits. If their union got that for them, good for them. It's how capitalism works.

I don't see anything about them at the link. Oh, well.

No. Use the money for the long-term good of the team and re-sign the guys who we need to re-sign.

Wow.

Bill, what you've got there is an opinion. And knowing you, a very educated one. And I don't think you'll find anyone, certainly not me, saying that he's been "dominant." But well above average at one portion of his job? Yeah. It's a reasonable opinion, held by many. Including, apparently, the Bills. I don't have the slightest doubt you understand his job, Bill. But the Bills, among others, seem to have wanted and continue to want him here, at the terms they agreed on in his contract and his re-negotiation, which was not a major cut and had a major carrot in it for Lotulelei in the guaranteed money. Do you really think it would be all that difficult to find a "bang-solid, league average" guy at that role, a role that is not needed by all that many teams, for less than Lotulelei gets? And yet the Bills two separate times have declared their satisfaction with the guy, first by signing him to the original contract and then by cutting $2 mill out of a $40 mill contract which had $20 mill remaining on it. And yet they were willing to guarantee the first remaining year and a chunk of the second remaining year. The reason they were willing to make those guarantees almost has to be that they like the guy at the price. When you hire a desirable FA on a second contract you're going to have to overpay a bit. Nature of the beast. But if they thought he was easily replaced for much cheaper, they had every chance to do so. How many space eaters are above him on the average salary lists? They could have gotten one cheaper this offseason in particular ... if they'd wanted to. He does what they want. At a price they consider worth it. On an extremely good defense built by a very canny defensive coach, with a contract approved by a very canny GM who appears to communicate extremely well with the head coach. And if you really feel that he really hasn't "lived up to the contract that it is not a bad contract" to the point that it's a fact, then among the people whose opinions you apparently disagree with are McDermott and Beane, who are far more important in this than many others who disagree with you, including me.

While I haven't come close to figuring out how they will handle the salary cap results of guys opting out, the reports are that only either $5 mill (as reported by Gaughan of the News) or $4.5 mill (the guaranteed base salary he was supposed to receive this year which will now be delayed till next year) will be saved from this year's cap. I can't figure out which it will be, $4.5 or $5 mill, to me, there's $500K missing somewhere. So you'd probably do better just going with Gaughan and assuming it'll be $5 mill. Apparently the roster bonus, the work out bonus and the appropriated portion of the signing bonus will count against this year's cap. And it's certainly far from impossible that some portion of that $5 mill will go towards bringing in someone to take over Lotulelei's role this year. We'll see if they find that necessary. His next year's salary is guaranteed. And $2 mill from the year beyond that. While it's certainly not impossible that he can't make the roster next year, he'll likely be given every chance by the Bills to earn his money.

And yet the Bills are willing to cut only about 10% and then guarantee a bunch of the rest of it. It really was not that bad at all. It was what you have to pay in terms of second contracts. And while he's certainly well below-average as a pass rusher, he is also far above average as a 1-tech space-eater, which is what McDermott has shown throughout his career is what he wants and is willing to pay for at 1-tech. Far indeed from fireable.

The problem is that only Phillips has a 1-tech skill set. Butler can play DE or DT, but hasn't showed the type of play that would lead you to expect him to do very well as a 1-tech. It would be great if he turns out to be able to do that, but right now it wouldn't be something anyone should expect. Same with Oliver and Jefferson.

I don't think either of these is even a consideration, myself. If the Bills win the division, it will be because they are a very good team. And the Pats are NOT going to be bad enough to get into the top five picks.

I suppose it's fair enough to say it's not "huge." Yeah, agreed. But it will hurt very significantly on the field, and a bit in terms of cap implications down the road. The Bills will get the salary cap space this year that his salary would have cost us. And yet that's only this year. What happens with the cap is that we essentially "kicked the can down the road" as it's usually referred to, without our particularly having wanted to. Beane is really smart about the cap, and he is careful as he can be about future spending. Since Lotulelei's next two years have some fully guaranteed money, it will bear on when they might let him go if they do, and will extend his cap impact further than they'd planned. I wonder if they will grab or trade for someone who can do some 1-tech work, though probably not as well as Star. Whatever else happened, their 1-tech depth for this year is going to be hurt unless they make some kind of move. Their platoon was all set, and Phillips had looked good and could continue to improve, as much as his recovery from the injury allows him to do so, but our #3 there involved a major dropoff.

??? Jun 18 The 10 worst free-agent signings in Bills history Jun 24 Rollover candidates: Who are the Bills most likely to cut for cap space? Jun 26 11 players the Bills could look to trade before the regular season Jul 1 Ask JoeB: Joe Buscaglia on Josh Allen's future, the Patriots rivalry and more

Go-go music. Trouble Funk.

Yeah, they did really well to get that much. The 2021 draft picks may be a bit devalued, but the higher the pick the better you can ferret out guys who you think you've seen enough of. Nice deal by the Jets. Yeah, they did really well to get that much. The 2021 draft picks may be a bit devalued, but the higher the pick the better you can ferret out guys who you think you've seen enough of. Nice deal by the Jets.

Yeah, they did really well to get that much. The 2021 draft picks may be a bit devalued, but the higher the pick the better you can ferret out guys who you think you've seen enough of. Nice deal by the Jets.

Yes, but again, I believe they want to use that cap to re-sign guys like Milano and Dawkins. I'd put the odds on us getting Clowney at miniscule, for money reasons.

You think so? $7 mill? I really doubt it. I'd guess he'll still get somewhere around $10 - $12 mill. Guess we'll see, though. No way to be sure, you could be right.

Can't see him playing there under Gase, anyway. He may have reduced his value enough here that it'd be better for the Jets to keep him even if he's not in the locker room until they get a real offer. That appears to have been the intent. Gase says, "I want him back," which leaves a ton of room for rapprochement. Something like this is pretty close to checkmate, though. How can Gase welcome him back now? Adams wanted out and he's likely got his wish, though the timetable will be up to the Jets. They only save $3.5 mill through the trade. MIght as well hang on to him for a year if they can get more value then.

Joe Buscaglia has said that his team sources say that the Bills are really high on Jaquan Johnson and that he's very much in their long-term plans. Can't be bothered to find the more recent one, but here's a bit from after the Jets game from Joe B. "2. Do the Bills have a steal in Jaquan Johnson? In the buildup to the game, the young player who was the top draw to watch was rookie Jaquan Johnson. Johnson, the team’s sixth-round pick in 2019, has earned some high praise within the organization from his performance through training camp and preseason. Because Jordan Poyer and Micah Hyde stayed healthy all season, Johnson hasn’t had to take a defensive snap — until the Jets game. After nearly four months of waiting, Johnson didn’t disappoint. The rookie played free safety and flashed the ability that has the organization so impressed. Above all else, Johnson’s instincts and recognition of the developing play and in reading the offensive players stood out. Despite starting the play a good 20-25 yards away from the line of scrimmage, Johnson was consistently around the ball making plays. His run support was superb, without falling prey to missed tackles at any point in the game. In coverage, he positioned himself to discourage Sam Darnold from taking a big shot down the field. On top of it all, he read Darnold’s eyes and the receivers in front of him on a roll-out, positioned himself to make a play, and then made a highlight-reel worthy toe-tapping interception along the sideline. The interception didn’t count because of a penalty, but the ability was there all the same. Johnson did not look like a rookie in his first-ever game. Instead, he looked like a savvy veteran with a promising future. We likely won’t see Johnson play defense again until the summer of 2020, but the one game showed the Bills might have a player on their hands with Johnson — and he could be their primary backup safety as early as next season. Best yet, there is some starting potential there, as well."