TPS

All of the focus is on getting Dennison his offensive pieces so far. Once they get a TE and WR, then they better start working on their defensive holes--WLB, CB, and S.

What sucks is the fact they dominate and always have cap space to sign anyone who wants to get their ring...

Zo has the character and work ethic SM wants to instill, and he can back up Hughes and Shaq.

Hiring Rex set this team back at least 3 years.

Maybe they can be packaged into a trade?

I can see a trade with the Chargers. Lynn knows he's a capable LT. R3 pick?

I guess being short is a liability in a primarily zone scheme...

one issue with your Watkins vs QB scenario is, at the time, they thought they had their guy in the form of EJ, who showed flashes of it in his rookie year--the Carolina comeback game as just one example. In their minds, they were going after a true #1 WR to complement ej. I'm not saying they were correct, rather the context of the trade was done under THEIR belief they had the long term answer at QB.

bylsma reminds me of Rex in the sense you have to play his system that requires players to think rather than react. With the right players, maybe it works? My biggest beef with him is not playing Reinhardt at his natural center position. Yes, you want him in your top 6, and you have Ryan and jack, but his playmaking skills are suppressed as a winger whose main role seems to be standing in front of the net...

The part that says they agreed to such a stupid contract says it all, and makes me think SM will get what he wants, assuming this true...

Another piece on government/CIA manipulation of the media. The second half of the blog gets into more recent manipulation. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/02/cia-one-main-peddlers-fake-news.html

They needed a 2-3 year bridge because no rookie is going to come in and start, nor is Jones. Taylor is someone that can get you to the playoffs and at least start a winning tradition that will be handed off to "the franchise" when he arrives.

Influencing thought or public opinion through owning/using the media has a long history. Social media and the use of big data makes it a lot easier.

here's a more detailed piece on the company.https://scout.ai/story/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine

What, no Deep State?

First, very few people claim he is a franchise QB, rather he is the best option for the interim--until a franchise guy is found. Every QB currently available, with the exception of maybe Cousins, has issues; for example, with Romo it's age and injuries. Regarding your stats, people can just as easily focus on specific games (Seattle) or parts of games and use it to support a case for keeping Taylor just as you did to argue against him. From my perspective, I also think he is the best option to have for the next 2-3 years as the Bills look for a franchise guy (Hopefully they draft someone like Mohomes this year). I view Taylor much like A. Smith, someone who is good enough to get you to the playoffs as long as you have a top 10 D. We'll find out what the Bills think soon enough.

Of the teams better than .500 (all but Balt), the offense averaged 25 ppg, which would rank 10th; the defense gave up 33 ppg, which would rank them last. It must be Taylor...

Mr 7-9 (and his brother) already left town...

My statement that HIllary is indeed a neocon has nothing to do with your statement. Re Bolton, it falls in line with what DR and I stated earlier in the thread, that Trump seems to be acquiescing to the neocons.

The PNAC document which was the neocon blueprint named the countries to be targeted for regime change: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran among others. Hillary's foreign policy was certainly aligned with the neocons, and they supported her in the election. The fact that it doesn't matter which of the two parties was in control and the policies continued is telling. There's good reason for why people should be skeptical of relying on the MSM in the US. While the link I'm providing dates to the late 1970s, it would be naive to think the influence has waned. CIA and the Media

The Soviets invaded and forcibly took control of most of those countries. I'm not saying they "granted" independence. GG asked how many neighboring countries they invaded, and I made the facetious statement. The Soviets weren't coerced into breaking up the union, and they signed an agreement creating an "independent commonwealth." The issue now seems to be which country is the evil empire? Some argue Russia is the aggressor and others see the US and NATO as the aggressors. The neocons wanted the US to use its uni-polar power to shape the world in its image. The US has had a hand in pushing the Ukraine, Georgia, and many other former east bloc countries into the west's fold. I'm sure Russia sees US as the threat. I'm not a Putin apologist, but I'm also don't turn a blind eye to our own policies which of course are guided by freedom and democracy.... Regardless, it plays right into the hand of what some of us see as the behind the scenes control in this country, what some call the Deep State. Nothing like a good threat to boost the defense budget. However, that can't happen in an era of rising social spending, so there is also a need to attack SS and Medicare. These are more important issues than debating semantics, though I started it.

Sure it is. There certainly was no bloody battle for independence. Most became part of the "independent commonwealth" that Russia signed, and Russian troops withdrawn soon after. Would you say they were "independent" prior to 1989?

Your list:. "Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine are all within the last 50 years." The break up of the USSR (and withdrawal of Russian troops).

sure, tell me about the invasions of Hungary and Poland.

Didn't you say the last 50 years?