TPS

Been thinking about the roster decisions they have to make--they are going have some tough decisions, especially since it looks like they have some issues on ST. At TE I think they start with Smith, Knox, and Sweeney, with Kroft on PUP. I think that spot TE will go to an extra RB: Shady, Gore, Singletary, Dimarco, and one of TJ or Perry. Unfortunately, I think if they keep both Shady and Gore, it will cost them a very good young player....

Which is why Bates is important. Bates gives them a backup at both T spots, and even if Ford starts at G, they still have the ability to move him to RT if they had to. I think this grouping gives them a lot of versatility and the ability to meet most contingencies. Nsekhe and Bates can backup at LT, and Bates and Ford can backup at RT.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. As I stated a couple of pages ago, both are probably true. Unfortunately, some can't see the "former" because of their religious belief in Trump...

As did I. I think they were evaluating HIM more so than the WRs last night with Barkley, and he was excellent in Pass Pro. I think they also gave Boetger a chance to unseat Teller when they put him in when Spain went down. I think Teller has won the competition though. My 9: OT: Dawkins, Nsekhe, Ford, Bates C/G: Morse, Spain, Feliciano, Long, Teller. Given Morse's situation, they have to keep 9. I could see the starting 5 as: Dawkins, Spain, Morse, Ford, Nsekhe, which would make Bates the swing OT on game days. If Ford starts at RT, then Nsekhe is the swing on game days. At any rate, I think these 9 give them a lot of flexibility.

Mentioned this in a couple threads, but it deserves its own. They had him at LT last night with the 2s and 3s, and he looked very good in pass pro. I think he is the 9th OL on the 53. Did a great job at C last week on the fly. Good trade by Beane as Harold wasn’t going to make it.

Another guy with a big night was OT Bates. He made the team last night. Thrown in at C last week, played LT with the 2s and 3s last night. Pass pro was very good, and run was decent. They needed someone to step up for the swing tackle role, and Bates "mastered" it, so to speak.....

Bodine sighting!

I think they are also looking at Bates as the swing OT.

Bates at LT means he’s getting a good look as the swing OT.

Fourth and final piece from Webb and MintPress, this one on Clinton connections. https://www.mintpressnews.com/genesis-jeffrey-epstein-bill-clinton-relationship/261455/

Certainly Bills' fans have every right to think Peterman has no business being in the NFL. However, many people thought and still think he has talent to be here. As I said, time will tell...

Have you been paying attention to business data and global growth, or just consumption and retail sales? There is a reason the R word has crept into the business press. Any objective person would look at all of the signals, and this sector has pointed down since the start of the year. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/manufacturing-production

Draft profiles and analysis (including Gruden's), and observations of his play and interviews while a Bill. Time will tell how NP's career plays out, but I believe, and I hope, that things work out for him.

I remember your post because I responded to it, and I think it explains the divergence of opinion here. While consumption and retail numbers look good, manufacturing does not. The reason the R word has been bandied about in the business press is because manufacturing may well indeed be in a recession (formally defined as 2 consecutive quarters of declining growth) because of Trump's trade war. However, consumption spending is currently robust enough to keep overall GDP positive. It is the business of the business media to talk about these things, and they usually don't have an agenda. That said, it is also quite possible that the MSM is trumpeting up the recent recession talk in the business press for political purposes. Certainly MSNBC would do this. However, the recent uptick in recession talk IS a consequence of real weakness in the economy, so it's an extreme view to take to blame the media if the manufacturing recession spreads to a more general one. Besides, don't more people watch Fox than any other MSM media?

Peterman may not have a rocket arm, but he's smart and accurate. I believe that, As he gains experience (it is only his 3rd year coming up), he will learn to avoid mistakes on the types of throws that are dangerous for him, and will do some good things in this league.

Yes, always enjoyed him on the Bills show on Adelphi’s?

Cool. Let me know who wins this argument, though I’m not sure who you’re arguing with now...

I guess the answer is no. [And your interpretation is wrong, as usual. When I say Trump's numbers are not much better than Obama's, that's calling out the current roosters....]

I see. At the moment, Trump has not had a year of growth exceeding Obama's best year. I will bet you a nice bottle of Cabernet that he won't exceed 3% in any of his 4 years.... As I said, it's a religion...he is the "chosen one" afterall.....

2017 = 2.4% 2018 = 2.9% So when can we expect growth above 3%?

The context is "True Trump Believers" think his policies have been extraordinary, but the truth (the data) is there is no statistical difference in most trends, and his one good year of GDP growth was stimulated in the good ol' Keynesian deficit spending (?) way....

Yes, and others have felt the same....

Religion can be a dangerous thing....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cardinal-george-pell-loses-appeal-of-sexual-abuse-conviction-11566348234?mod=hp_lista_pos4 By Robb M. Stewart Aug. 20, 2019 8:43 pm ET MELBOURNE, Australia—Cardinal George Pell, the most senior Catholic cleric ever to be jailed for child sexual abuse, has lost his appeal of his conviction. A panel of Australian judges ruled 2-1 on Wednesday to uphold the cardinal’s conviction for assaulting two young choir boys inside the cathedral that was the center of his diocese in the late 1990s.

Oh, I recognize tax cuts and spending increases have different impacts--all corps will be affected by a change in the tax rate, but not all will be affected by spending increases. My point, all along, has been that deficits in general stimulate private sector wealth creation, a point you finally agree on.