Jauronimo

You don't have to guess what political group I belong to while you declare I am trying to censor an article to protect my political group and all the while you aren't grouping me or anyone else and you're definitely not ascribing motives...like censorship...because of the political group I belong to? Got it. Thank you for clarifying. Ya know, maybe you should stick to calling me a racist. I think you got a little too far over your skis today. In our shared commitment to combatting censorship, real or otherwise, I am resharing the article. Come all and read this brilliant selection from @4merper4mer's curated list of topical articles. Behold its relevance. Bask in its wisdom. Daresay I like it even more than yesterday's timeless think piece titled "Garfield - Love for Lasagna - 3/18/1982". https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article288545627.html

Well at least you aren't grouping anyone while you clumsily guess at my political "persuasions" and attribute sweeping motives there from. Declaring an article to be void of meaningful content is no more a form of censorship than your suggestion that the article makes its author look bad and silly. I have not, in any way, restricted anyone's ability to consume that nonsense above or any other such nonsense and you know that. I imagine that defending the patently stupid is essentially reflexive to you at this point, a form of self preservation, but you simply must to stop conflating these misguided efforts with some form of principled defense of censorship or our first amendment rights. You are no more defending our constitutional rights than a dog barking at cars.

His commencement speech may have inspired articles suggesting Butker is the lost Lindberg baby or that he fathered a love child with Elvis Presley. While there is a tangential connection in that these articles all involve Butker, these ridiculous articles would be equally irrelevant to any conversations taking place between functioning adults. But since you insist, I will get you and Bob started as we discuss this highly worthy and relevant piece of journalism: Should Butker be cut and the Chiefs be punished by the.....league I guess...and forced to cut him but then also forced to replace him with a woman?? I think the fans would love this slapstick interjection of social justice and sports. It really put the Manitoba Sea Squirrels on the map when they let a woman kick a PAT. Think about what it could do for struggling NFL attendance? The Sea Squirrels aren't just some random bums either. They are right in the mix for the Loonie Division. Hey, maybe Butker should be court ordered to be Megan Rapinoe's butler?!? That sounds like a sitcom. A topical and relevant sitcom.

I must have missed the part of this thread where replacing Butker with a golden retriever because its "good for business" was being entertained. While I disagree that this article has any merit or relevance to the topic at hand, I do agree that it is worth your time and undivided attention and I am heartened that we see eye to eye on this issue. And on that note, I'll leave you guys to it. Looks like you, Lonnie, Clayton, @Bob Jones, and Jugdish will have lots to talk about!

The same people who boycotted the NFL over Kaepernick are now buying Butker jerseys. Both sides agree, freedom of speech is paramount so long as we like the message.

LOL at hail mary defense. Do you have any idea how many hail mary's almost connect but don't every week? There's a reason why its the lowest % play in football. Its always so close yet so far. And it was pretty well defended in Arizona. How many more guys do you want around the ball? Perhaps McD should have coached Hyde or Tre to be taller. I am really struggling to see how any of this relates to your McD = Jauron argument. Looks like you have abandoned that (if so, smart) but lets not pretend that this discussion started over my impassioned defense of McD. Jauron was the most conservative coach the franchise has seen and played every game not to lose. McD leads the league in going for it on fourth down. Jauron regularly punted the ball away from inside the 50. He was the least inspiring person to ever walk into OBD. If you still think McD=Jauron then we can add it your growing list of spicy takes.

I guess its a good thing that football games are not measured by things that almost happened. Keep digging.

If any one of our dlinemen could truly separate themselves from the pack we just might see less of a rotation. I think we would see exceptions to the rotation if we had a prime TJ Watt or Chris Jones on the roster.

Lewis did better? He won zero playoff games in his 16 years behind the bench. Joe Gibbs had great success in an era where QB play was not nearly as important as it is today. I have no idea what world you live in where Aikman was not a franchise QB. He is enshrined in the hall of fame. Flacco was a top third QB. In any given year he was putting up Eli or Cam type numbers. Prime Flacco is a far cry from Tyrod or Cassel. Shanahan is the only coach in the modern NFL who has had continual success without a franchise QB. Granted he ***** the bed when it mattered even with a franchise QB. Run twice and kick a field goal and he would have a super bowl ring.

I don't expect to see much of a difference this year relative to the last 3. We may see growth in the way he handles his young coordinators. Does he let them do their thing or does he take over the D and the play calling when things aren't going well? My biggest concern with McD is that his defense has been completely exposed in our last 3 playoff losses. Without 11 healthy starters and a strong rotation of contributors this defense is barely a speed bump for the Chiefs and Bengals when the games matter. I don't see McD coming out with game plans that are confusing or stifling the league's premier offenses even when they're playing without several starters on their offensive line. Meanwhile the Bengals defense made our offense look like they were playing together for the first time all year. I'm probably wrong, but it looks like McD trots out his base defense and if that isn't working then we are properly screwed.

And McDermott dragged Tyrod Taylor to the playoffs. He has had one losing season in his career and it was Allen's rookie year. Belichick got fired after 2 more years with Mac Jones. Ask @PBF81 about how much credit Belichick should get for going 11-5 with Cassel when Sparano won the division that year playing the same schedule. Lazy initial argument, bad counter. So I guess Shanahan is the only objectively good coach in the modern NFL and everyone else just got lucky with a franchise QB.

Every head coach without a franchise QB is Dick Jauron based on record. Bill Belichick is now Jauron. Great point.

Whats Trent Murphy up to these days? Maybe we get Matakevich back for vet min?

I am guessing its easier to be "minted" as trans in the United States than it is in say Iran. Lots of bureaucracy and red tape over there.

This "Full Text" has some notable omissions.

Are you suggesting that war paint is inherently racist? The trope of using war paint to ironically depict football coaches as brave is offensive to whom exactly? Use your strong mind.

Using small words may expedite the process of misrepresenting and misunderstanding the posts you're responding to. May also lead to shorter rants and less weeping for the rich, whomever they may be, those poor unfortunate souls. Butker's wealth is highly relevant when suggesting single incomes and homemakers is the paradigm by which we should all live. Of course, the vision Butker has laid out is not an economic possibility for many households. Some would call this opinion out of touch. Some might argue that making millions a year is contributing factor to losing touch with the realities of middle class and lower class America. Some already have made these points, but you spun it into proletarian class warfare and trampling on the first amendment rights of the wealthy. And for that, you earned mockery. I find it funny that you insist EII and others focus on the content of a speech you admittedly haven't read and likely won't. Such a principled stand. A stand in defense of the rich. The rich that you are so reluctant to identify. I'm sure they sleep soundly at night knowing their dark per4mer is out there protecting their interests on internet fora from Marxists and the Neo Khmer Rouge. Well that and their gated communities and private security.

I have not once mentioned Butker's beliefs or shared any opinions on his beliefs. I have not once criticized or villainized the rich. I have only commented on the opinions you have shared about stifling the free speech of individuals and socio economic groups while reminding you of some opinions you willing share. Reading comprehension not your strong suit? I'm obsessed with the rich?? You launched into a largely irrelevant diatribe about villainizing the rich, marginalizing the rich, and even mass murder of the rich. Not once, but twice. It was a pretty good diatribe, I can tell you've been practicing. It was, however, misplaced as Butker fits any conventional definition of the term as it pertains to wealth. You can't dish it out then clutch your pearls when it comes back around. When did you get so fabulously dramatic? Doc? Here comes that famous reading comprehension of yours again.

Developed countries have declining birth rates because the cost of living, buying houses, and raising children has outpaced wages. In many developed nations, there is also an expectation that children will take care of their elderly parents. That math is a lot easier when families had 4 or more children as an insurance policy and for cheap agrarian labor. Think one child policy in China. Simply having more children does nothing but exacerbate the underlying issues.

My reading comprehension is strong which is why I was able to parse through your histrionics and respond with salient points. Villains are indeed needed. To play your game, replace rich or even millionaires with "Hollywood elites" and you will stand and applaud at the notion that the opinions of a group of wealthy people are totally irrelevant. It seems certain groups you will accept as categorically out of touch with the experience of the common man but other groups, which may be aspirational for you, should be protected. God forbid, EII does the same for fear of "stifling" the speech of the marginalized "rich". "Rich" may be a politically convenient term that is often used to lump any household that makes about $300k a year up to the generational wealthy and billionaires. That's a point worth exploring that does not require invocation of Pol Pot or Marxist revolution. However, in this case the subject is Butker who makes a little over $4 million a year. He's not living the life of a Musk, or Bill Gates, or a Warren Buffet (well maybe he is because Buffet is notoriously boring and cheap) but that type of annual earnings with any financial discipline suits pretty much any definition of rich. Well, except for the definitions of rich which involve a mothers love, or house full of kids, or getting right with Jesus. Those are utter bull####.

He wouldn't want to show up uninvited. That would just be rude. The psychological effects of Jason Kelce attending his brother's football game at the invitation of a loosely affiliated and leaderless fan club cannot possibly be understated.

How is calling Butker, a top 0.1% earner in this country, "rich" at all controversial or stifling his speech in any way? Going full Godwin is always a nice touch.

How did you cook your ribeye? Whats the plan for the whole strip loin?

We have at least addressed the lack of a deep threat with MVS. Its far from the best WR room but with MVS we can challenge all over the field. Hamler staying healthy or Claypool regaining cognitive function were always low probability events as far as stretching the field.

Samuel is 7 years into his career. He broke out in 2018 and hasn't gotten back to that level since. He is who he is at this point. Maybe he can have a John Brown style career year with Josh given the lack of competition for targets.