FireChan

I don't think anyone views the 2014 defense as the second coming of the 85 Bears. It was a good defense that was turned to ****. Trying to conflate the argument from "elite vs not elite" is a waste of everyone's time.

What were you implying when you said "Everyone else beats her?' Or "Even Kasich is shown as beating her right now?" Either way, my original point still stands that you're focusing on one set of polls and not the other.

21 points in 3 drives vs Redskins in a do or die game strong?

Luckily you won't be waiting long. So when you call folks morons for focusing on one set of polls and ignoring other sets, I'm gonna call you a moron and a hypocrite. Easy peasy. You keep attributing this viewpoint to me. I'm not sure why.

Yes. Give me Bradham ? Brown in a 4-3 over the others in a 3-4. Two decent LB's vs 2 bad ones, one out of position and one older than dinosaurs in a 34. Especially considering how easy it is to find a Spikes compared to what we need for Rex's D.

I think you clearly outlined that defense would be as much of a priority if Schwartz was still here: So to recap, if we didn't have Rex, we'd still need to replace Mario, look to draft Kyle's eventual replacement and still be missing that big body LB in the middle. Which is demonstrably false as: Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to having terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies. Then you made your satellite point of "sustainability," which is also quite challengeable. Because you believe that FA doesn't affect the RR scheme. Or that RR stars don't make big bucks. Or that rookie contracts are a product of the magical RR scheme. Or that Rex Ryan defenses were successful because HoF talent was drawn to them, rather than the other way around. I took this topic over. My bad. I may have been overly effusive in my praise. Both players have their warts and had bad games, clearly. But give me Brown/Bradham in that 4-3 over Brown and the gaggle of misfits in this 3-4 everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. I don't think anyone could disagree.

Let me ask again. Did we have the strong man CB play for cheap in 2015 because we ran Rex Ryan's defense or because we had two top 10 CB's playing on rookie deals? Defense would be less of a priority than it is now. Every team loses players every year. You trying to hammer home that the salary cap exists is embarrassing. Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to having terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? RR's defense is no more sustainable if his 3 stars would all leave for huge contracts. After all, we all saw how he did without his "guys." If Schwartz found a top 10 DT in UDFA, and had two top 10 DE's out of the box as draft picks, his defense would be "cheap" too. It's apples to orangutans. What the Jets do next year has no bearing on this, just because they can't afford Mo and Richardson means nothing. Unless RR's scheme invented UDFA and rookie wage scales, I don't see how it's the reason they were so cheap.

We have a $7M dead cap hit from cutting Mario. I think there's a good chance we could've extended him and dropped his ungodly cap number closer to that. Maybe it wouldn't have possible. All I'm saying is that it wasn't a sure thing, until 2015 happened.

Richardson and Wilkerson, barring injury, will both be worth $100M deals. Dispute that if you dare. And how much did Snacks get? A cool $9M per? Unless RR's scheme invented UDFA and rookie wage scales, I don't see how it's the reason they were so cheap.

Right. Mo, Snacks and Sheldon didn't cost anything once off of rookie contracts. Still waiting for an answer here: Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to have terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies.

December 21st is early in the year? After the D proved to be garbage? He wouldn't even really be taking a paycut. We could have just extended him and lowered his cap hit. It was a discussed topic before the 2015 horror show. Someone will also need to explain to me how having two above average 4-3 LB's in Bradham and Brown is equal to have terrible 3-4 LB's who are basically camp bodies.

Bradham, probbaly pretty good. Mario? Who is to say? Maybe after another career year, he's inclined to rework his deal a bit to stay in a system he's productive in. More is a stretch, IMO. It's as good, at best to me.

Are we pretending you haven't been spouting that Cruz has been wiping the floor with Hilly in the national polls while conveniently ignoring his clear losses vs. Trump? Like I said, you're just on the other side of the coin, content to point out what you perceive to be hypocrisy while remaining ignorant to your own.

How about putting somebody out there who can actually resonate with voters and win? When you trot out dog**** candidates over 8 years, you shouldn't be surprised that disenfranchised GOPers decide to look elsewhere. Your analogy is ridiculous because you're saying that JP fans, Trent fans and Bledsoe had a clear side "better off" than the others. They all were losers. No winners whatsoever.

No idea on the bolded, I'd say probably not. But to say that Trump's ascension isn't in part a failure of the conservatives who don't support him is just untrue. As such, they aren't coming out net winners either. They are losers for this happening, plain and simple. Not to say they are the only ones to blame, but they are a distinct portion. Twisting the logic that the folks who don't want Trump are actually more successful and better off than the ones who do is the equivalent of the uncoordinated kid on the playground who whiffs at bat then claims "he wasn't really trying anyway." Hah. That's distinctly possible, but I doubt she rewards him publicly. The funny thing is that you're the same person, just on the flip side. Who cares about the polls in Indiana and Cali, Crusich are beating Hillary nationally, am I right?

It means that conservatives like LA obviously have nothing to lose with a Trump presidency because that would mean they already lost. It's easy to have "nothing to lose" when you're already being sat on by the class bully being forced to eat sand.

This is how hearts get broken.

The homeless have nothing to lose either. Doesn't make them not homeless.

How much is he up?

You do realize that Schefty tweeted out the original story, no? Like page 1 post 1? Sympathetic coverage is reaching out to Brady's camp and they say he may fight, he's consulting his legal team?

It's a Pats conspiracy that the #1 NFL reporter has information on the NFL's #1 star.

He will be gone by #8. This is misinformation city.

It means more than nothing. I think his point was quite obvious. A Bill Belichick coached team shouldn't be slept on.