The Frankish Reich

I hope you're wrong. But I fear you may be right. The big thing for Dorsey and Josh to keep in mind is that the Broncos will struggle mightily to score in the twenties. In other words, the 24 points I predicted for the Bills will be enough. There's no need to take big chances. On offense, something I forgot to mention: take Russ's well established hesitancy to throw in the middle of the field. Add in Courtland Sutton's inability (fear?) of going over the middle and the lack of a decent tight end, and basically the middle of the field is still a wasteland for the Broncos passing game. Jeudy has made a some catches over the middle, but it's still a big hole. The screen game - a Payton favorite - is getting a little better for the Broncos, so they'll use that to try to negate a big pass rush. But I still believe that even our beat up defense can hold them under 20 if we avoid turnovers/big special teams plays.

Scouting report from a Colorado guy who's watched way too much Broncos football: - Bye week, so Sean Payton was hitting the video hard? Umm, no. I hear he went to Cabo last week. So one solid week of prep ... - Offense: Payton does have the run game working now. Javonte Williams will hurt us up the middle. He's tough to bring down and is finally back in pre-ACL form. Perine is also a load to bring down up the middle. I hope Linval Joseph is in mid season form and can play a lot of snaps. Jaleel McLaughlin is their Deonte Harty but younger, with better instincts, and an outside threat. The Broncos passing game is still a work in progress. Russell Wilson still holds the ball too long and lacks the escapability he had in Seattle. He can still throw with authority if he has a lane; he's more susceptible than ever to batted down passes. So a pass rush is key, even more than in most games. Receivers: horrible TE situation, but Jeudy is finally playing well and Sutton's length makes him a great red zone target. Mims is a rookie flyer who can hurt you deep or on an end run but not really integrated into the passing game. Broncos main issue has been finishing drives, and while I think they can move the ball I'm not confident they can convert drives into more than a couple TDs max. - Defense: let's be honest, they gave up in that game where Miami put up 70. It's to their credit that they pulled it back together. Yes, they were lucky vs. KC, but they also do have playmakers: Simmons is as good as they get at safety. Pat Surtain Jr. is as good a CB as there is - not many QBs challenge him. Josey Jewell and now Nick Bonitto are also playmakers. I'm not so concerned about the pass rush, unless of course Vance Joseph dials up more blitzes than he usually does and the Bills once again fail to pick them up. It sounds stupid to say that a team that gave up 70 has a good defense, but I'm gonna say it: it's a good defense ... when reasonably healthy, which they are now. Strategy: on defense, find some way to plug the middle and stop the run game. The Broncos pass game is still pretty rudimentary and Russ will turn it over/take drive killing sacks/cause his line to hold as he hangs on too long. On offense, take what they give you! They have the playmakers to make Allen pay for trying to force things. Other than Surtain the CBs aren't very good, so just throw to the side opposite him and watch out for Simmons. Gabe Davis, this is your chance to shine. I think we can run the ball up the middle, less so to the outside, so let's see some Fournette and Murray. Special teams: Don't give Mims a chance to burn you; easier said than done. He has special return talent. The Bills, even with a beat up defense, are the better team, but this could be a close one and could really go either way. Bills 24, Broncos 20.

As they say of the Democratic Republic of Congo: it is neither.

Fetterman, for a guy who has asked for the patience and support of his colleagues as he rehabbed from a stroke and then clinical depression, turns out to be kind of an ass now that he's back in the game. Maybe lay low for a little bit and do some good work behind the scenes instead of grandstanding?

And it's perfectly fair for you to have this opinion. But it isn't an "America First" opinion, since it isn't based on what's best for Americans. Rather, it is based on the idea that we ought to step up to support people who have a religious claim for our support, whether or not it materially benefits America.

"Manifesto?" Some scribbled notebook rants of a disturbed failure-to-launch 28 year old are now elevated to the status of a Manifesto? Ted Kaczynski turns in his grave.

So you would support no aid to Ukraine, and no aid to Israel? That's consistent. I think it's a bad idea, but it is consistently bad. What I'm hearing from the Republicans in DC is inconsistent AND bad policy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-06/israel-hamas-latest-middle-east-wars-spur-us-inflation-and-recession?srnd=undefined&sref=htOHjx5Y Niall Ferguson, a conservative, agrees with me regarding the geopolitical dangers of giving Israel carte blanche and of having the Middle East conflict escalate.

A question for our so-called America First proponents. They take what would be traditionally call a realpolitik approach to the US involvement in world affairs. Democracy and self-determination are laudable goals around the world, but sometimes you gotta make deals with and help out countries that aren't exactly the finest examples of democracy and rule of law if it's in America's interest to do so. So ... I hear, "Ukraine and Zelensky are corrupt too. And this territorial fight between Ukraine and Russia is their thing that's been going on for a century or more. A vital U.S. interest isn't at stake. We shouldn't be sending more money there to prolong what is at best a stalemate. We should also be concerned with the geopolitical effects of further supporting this: Russia is now aligned more closely with Iran and North Korea, making the world a more dangerous place for America. No more aid for Ukraine." But I also hear, "Israel was attacked by a small sliver of land run by a terrorist organization. That is a terrible thing, and they have the right to fight back, and we should help finance them in their righteous fight. To hell with the geopolitical implications: if it brings Iran/Hezbollah into the conflict, or if it destroys the Abraham accords, or if it foments hatred of America throughout the entire Arab and Islamic world, well, then, we'll just have to deal with that. More aid for Israel, please." I don't get it. They seem alike to me. An evil force attacked, without cause, the civilian population of the other, either through bombing of city centers (Kiev, Kharkiv, etc) or through terrorist raids on civilians, killing them and taking hostages. To me, both righteous causes, and we should support the victims, but we should also advance America's interest by making sure that our aid doesn't make the geopolitical environment worse. I see more downside to funding Israel unconditionally. MAGA types seem to see the opposite. Why? Shouldn't they say we don't have a dog in either fight? Let's spend that money on closing the border or whatever?

Waiting for Pizzagate Jack to weigh in?

To open another can of worms: they essentially "traded" Singletary for Harris. Singletary hasn't done much, and Harris has done less. But the major issue now: we're down late in the Cincy game. You'd think Cook would be on the field given his explosive speed/quickness. But ... no. They needed help in pass protection and they have zero faith in him to do that. So grind out the clock/short yardage guy Latavius Murray was out there. Remember: running backs don't just take handoffs. They have other important jobs too.

He was wide, wide open on that deep ball that Allen overthrew a couple weeks ago. Other than that, he hasn't shown anything.

That says it all - "the Saints under Payton." The Broncos under Payton have another undrafted/tiny free agent they're getting a lot of value out of, Jaleel McLaughlin. We'll see him next week. He's good. You really shouldn't spend big for these guys. You find them in late rounds or as undrafted free agents. And then you have to have an idea of how to integrate them into your offense. The Bills kind of did with McKenzie under Daboll, and had no clue with Hines or Harty under Dorsey.

At least the incomplete call on the field stopped the clock. If he'd won the challenge I imagine they would have done a mandatory clock run off. I'm not even sure 9 yards would've been worth the loss of clock.

He may go straight to the darkness retreat. For the Jets: it really didn't have to be this way. I mean, I'm glad it is this way, that they are stupidly sticking with Zach Wilson. Vikings: Cousins goes down, they immediately get Joshua Dobbs, and he's immediately kind of o.k. in that he can actually win you a game sometimes. They could have done that before Week 2. But no. Zach is our man. Like he has trade value? What on earth were they thinking?

Maybe. I'll admit, I'm not the obsessive fan who watches the All 22s. We have some of those here, and I appreciate their insights. PFF scores so far (I don't think these take yesterday into account): Good (70+): Dawkins (76.5), Brown (70!) Average-ish (mid 60s): Morse Poor: McGovern (58.6), Torrence (60.5) Yes, take it with a big boulder of salt. But my eye test says the middle of the line is a consistent problem, and that Brown's mobility makes him a good run blocker while that same lean length compromises him in pass protection.

Who have both played poorly. Torrence certainly has potential. McGovern just wasn't very good before we got him, and he's not very good now. Add to that the perpetual "project" guy in Spencer Brown, and you still have a poor offensive line.

Good Lord. Game over?

Burrow is now more Josh Allen than Josh Allen. Scrambling, running, extending plays, making something out of nothing ...

Yeah, that time of possession stat is ugly.

Yep, I guess you wanna make sure you hold em to a gain of 5 in that situation.

Ouch. Kind of true.

Not taking the touchback is almost always a bad idea

OK, so boring football games this afternoon so I watched most of this. Review: rehashed information about Jeffrey Epstein and the Maxwell family. She has apparently written one thousand pages about this, which sounds impressive, but there's no indication that she actually did anything other than read the internet. In other words, no interviews, etc. And here's all I need to know to dismiss her as a joke: At 36:50, she suggests that Ghislaine Maxwell is going to play along with the coverup, and as a reward for that she got moved from the facility where Epstein was found dead to a low security "country club" prison in Florida. Well. A quick Google search of where Epstein died would've told her that it was at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan. That's a holding facility that is adjacent to the federal courthouse where Epstein and then Maxwell were facing their criminal charges. And guess what? NO ONE who is sentenced to more than a few months is held there. That's not what it was for (it's closed now). It was for pre-trial detainess facing charges in the adjacent courthouse. In her hours and hours of research, leading to some kind of publication of a one thousand page tome, she somehow didn't bother to look at the Wiki page for the MCC? If she had, she would have learned this: The Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York (MCC New York) is a temporarily closed United States federal administrative detention facility in the Civic Center of Lower Manhattan, New York City, located on Park Row behind the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse at Foley Square. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. MCC New York holds male and female prisoners of all security levels. Most prisoners held at MCC New York have pending cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. MCC New York also holds prisoners serving brief sentences.[1] Oh. Nevermind. Maxwell was sentenced to twenty years. There was never any chance that she'd serve that at the MCC. None. So there goes that conspiracy theory. I'm sure there are other similar nuggets in this 90 minute Glen Beck (He's still around? And apparently not blind, which is where we collectively forgot about him about a dozen years ago) interview, but given this jaw droppingly stupid "argument" - one that may be refuted with a five second Google search - I don't really see the need to pay any further attention. Thank the good Lord you have me here or some of you might have been convinced by poorly researched conspiracy theorists. You're very welcome.

Offensive to those men who have lost a testicle to cancer. And besides: who will Lindsey Graham be voting for?