The Frankish Reich

Edmunds is still only 24 years old. Poyer is 31. That answers which one is more likely to be back.

Gay man? Previously married to a woman? What's the explanation? I don't know, but my guess is that he is really gay. Now nobody's mentioned this before, but I'm guessing the other shoe (how many shoes does this guy wear?) may drop soon (I have seen this happen before in my career): his ex-wife was, I believe, from Brazil. Someone needs to ask him if he filed a green card petition for her ... just sayin' ...

Breece Hall was really, really good, so that's impressive.

Right. "Feature back" doesn't mean what it used to mean: 20 carries per game, etc. There's 2 RBs this year averaging (just barely) 20 carries per game: Henry and Jacobs. Alvin Kamara, Austin Ekeler (yes, some injury time out) typically get about 12 carries a game, plus a few receptions. There's no reason Cook couldn't handle that kind of workload. I know they'd like to see him get better at pass blocking, but realistically there aren't many times in a game where Cook is in the backfield and staying in the backfield on a pass play. I think this is where Dorsey is headed, not next year, but this year, basically splitting carries with Singletary.

This is really interesting. First, the source (paywalled): the Financial Times, kind of the Wall Street Journal of the UK, and a paper that has a clear Conservative Party bias. In other words, it's not a wishful thinking piece from liberals. If you scroll through the tweets, the pattern is pretty clear: millennials simply aren't "aging into" conservative voting patterns in the ways previous generations did. My politics showed a pretty typical age pattern: solid Democrat when young, open to a lot more limited government (at the time, mostly Republican ideas later on (subsequently tempered by Republicans going all Bush 43 adventurism abroad and, umm, the Trump takeover.) Maybe it's just delayed (everything else about their adolescence was delayed, right?), but the graphs don't provide much support for that. My guess: there's something real here. The Republican Party is just toxic to a lot of younger people, and here we're talking about a "generation" (always a loose/general term) that is now hitting 40. So these aren't the 18 year olds who came of age during Trump. What's toxic? I work with a lot of this generation, and they are just turned off by the so-called "social issues" - resistance to same-sex marriage for far longer than public opinion supported it is a big one, but even more important is that the faces of the party are just repugnant to younger people: Trump, Ted Cruz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc. Criticize Biden/Obama/AOC and their lot all you want over policy and behavior, it still doesn't equal the revulsion that is common among younger people at current Republican leadership.

I'm just hoping this guy sticks around for a while. He is an endless source of amusement. If SNL did a comedy skit with his excuses ("I didn't say I'm Jewish; I said I'm Jew-ish, you know, kind of Jew-adjacent") we would've groaned at the stupid attempt at humor. And yet, Santos actually said it. Nice work, local press (or what's left of it; that's the problem): you managed to not fact-check anything he said on the campaign trail.

So Burrow is Brady, and Josh is Rodgers. I can live with that for the next dozen years.

That would've been fun. Philosophical question: you're a life-long (in my case, 50 years) Bills fan. Would it bring you more happiness to watch your team go all-in for a 1-2 year time frame and win a Super Bowl (think Rams), and then return to mediocrity and rebuilding for another half dozen years? Or would you prefer to have a team that's in the SB hunt year after year thanks to a great QB and consistent replenishment of the talent base (think Roethlisberger's Steelers), even if you may never be a SB favorite in any given year? Honestly, I don't know my own mind here. I kind of like following a really good team these last few years, so I'm not (yet) to the point where I want to mortgage the future. But still ...

Right. Epemesa in 2020 and Rousseau the next year were the projectable/star potential guys. Basham was a cheaper (at the time) Shaq.

tl;dr -Tua has had multiple concussions and MAY miss time - Mike White has broken ribs but will try to give it a go with a flak jacket - Josh Allen is taking risks, sometimes they pay off big time, sometimes they cause turnovers That's ... Analysis!

He has been a low ceiling/high floor guy, and was ready to contribute almost right away. He’s kind of a slightly worse Shaq Lawson in Shaq’s prime. (I know we hate PFF around here, but their ratings basically confirm my eye test). There’s room to criticize whether we should have used 2 high picks on D linemen last year, or whether we should have gone for a higher ceiling project, etc. But we did, which Rousseau as the high risk/high reward guy who’s so far paying dividends, and Basham as the useful rotational piece. He is what he is — a 61st overall pick who will have a good NFL career but never be a star.

I don't know what your standards are, since I think this started with reference to the Dolphins ... are you saying they're winning a Super Bowl any time soon? Randall Cobb: look back a bit. Two Hall of Famers in their prime is unheard of (am I missing any pair?), so two clear Pro Bowlers at a time ain't bad.

Two Hall of Famers (yeah, one past his prime, but still damn good) would seem to count, wouldn't it?

That's some pretty splenetic talk from a man without a spleen.

If you really want me to go on (and on, and on, and on) I'm willing to do so ... Marvin Harrision and Reggie Wayne (peak Peyton Manning Colts) Diggs and Thelen (Vikes) Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb (peak Aaron Rodgers Packers) I'm not trying to be difficult here. Yes, many, many teams have won with one elite receiver and a couple of good ones. But all other things being equal: yes, it's better to have two great players at a position than it is to have one. It's not like teams aren't trying to do that. It's just that in any given year there aren't all that many elite receivers, and you kind of have to spread the money around to other positions too ...

Classic overthinking. It sounds wrong, so it must be right. Advice: rewrite that sentence so it isn't so awkward and avoid the problem. Larger picture: what happened to editors? Answer: the big rush to get out "breaking news" online ("Breaking: Joe Buck excited about calling MNF game!") there's no time for one. The Athletic is now owned by the NYT. The grey lady has given up too. The New Yorker is the last lady standing.

Yes, it has demonstrated success for about half a century. - Lynn Swann and John Stallworth (Steelers dynasty) - Fred Biletnikoff and Cliff Branch (peak Raiders) - Jerry Rice and John Taylor (49ers dynasty) - Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt (Greatest Show on Turf Rams SB winners) Ahh, to be young ...

Agreed. KC manages to pull 2 of the very few teams who’ve given up this season. Even the Texans are playing hard.

That was just a little sarcasm directed at the poster who started a thread about Tre dogging it … I agree with you: we are in no position to judge recovery times.

I get your point, but I'm not sure Josh wants to be in that company. Maybe we could go Phil Mickelson, Larry Walker, David Ortiz?

Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. Now, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. - General (Manager) George Paton, upon dismissing loser clown Nathaniel Hacket.

Collins makes $8 million this year, which sounds like a lot, but it's not Tre money. Not sure if it's a big enough pile of money to lounge around on for a full year like Tre.

Question: Name the QBs with 10+ year career, on a Hall of Fame level trajectory, who were essentially done as effective starters by their Age 34 seasons. Answer: Cam Newton (29), Troy Aikman (34). That's all I got right now. I'm not counting early retirees like Andrew Luck, who actually played very well in his final season.

Honestly, I think it's just good old fashioned gloating. After 20+ years in QB hell, Bills fans finally have a true franchise QBs, so we now like to make fun of all the other teams and fanbases that are deluding themselves that maybe their own draft pick will become that guy, or that maybe they can resurrect the career of some previously great QB. Be honest: did you ever say "Drew Bledsoe will get this team back into SB contender status," or "I think JP Losman can develop into a Top 10 QB," or "I think Ryan Fitzpatrick could finally be the guy to get us past the Patriots." (Confession: I didn't say the first two, but I did say the 3rd one) For me, the Wilson story is fascinating. There just aren't many examples of 33/34 year old HOF or likely future HOF QBs falling off a cliff like him. The only recent one that comes to mind is Cam Newton: essentially done as a good starter by age 30. (Cautionary tale for us?). We talk about guys like Bledsoe being done early, but he was never on Wilson's level. Who else? The Broncos can't really be blamed for thinking that the worst case scenario was probably a continuing slow decline, in which they'd get the best QB they've had (by far!) since Peyton for the first couple years, and then have an overpaid but still playable starting QB for at least a couple more. This is almost unprecedented.

Yes. Everyday Pete Carroll bangs his head against the wall because the Bills got TJ Graham and he was stuck with Wilson a couple rounds later. 😃