HappyDays

I didn't say he's perfect but he's a hell of lot better than the JAG parade they were cycling through at the position last year.

Yeah Josh Simmons unfortunately looks as good as advertised. Stonewalling his man on every snap.

Playing in the preseason didn't help Mahomes. He is off on a lot of throws tonight.

Looks like Hampton chose the wrong hole there, there was an opening to the left.

KC has a massive WR problem until Rashee Rice is back.

You can't rush 3 and also lose contain on Mahomes. Makes it way too easy.

I'm surprised any Bills fan wanted him. We deal with enough injury prone players, there's just no way that would have worked out for us with our luck. Explosive as hell but a random collision might have just broken his collar bone.

I mean you're just wrong about this. 2024 stats (both played 16 games, although Karlaftis played 96 more snaps): Sacks - Karlaftis 8.0 / Rousseau 8.0 Pressures - Karlaftis 37 / Rousseau 35 TFLs - Karlaftis 9 / Rousseau 16 I know stats don't always tell a black and white story but how can you look at that comparison and tell me Karlaftis is a "game breaking talent" while Rousseau is a JAG? There's a tendency on this board to act like everything KC touches turns to gold. But I think their roster has been a bit overrated. Where they really separate themselves from the rest of the league is their coaching. Compared to our roster on the whole I don't think they had some massive advantage last year... And don't get me wrong, I wish we had at least one legit game changer other than Allen, and I haven't been a big fan of how Beane has prioritized certain positions over others. But he has built a roster that has a very high floor if not a high ceiling. It's a roster that has beaten KC in the regular season where it is more about matchups, but has lost in the playoffs where it is more about coaching. If you're giving Karlaftis that much of an edge over Rousseau, and the same for the rest of the respective rosters, you're giving McDermott a built in excuse that he doesn't really deserve.

Elam looked to me like a replacement level CB2. Not a massive liability but still someone you're always looking to upgrade. Kind of like Damar Hamlin for us. Unfortunately the worst game of his career came in the AFCCG so I don't blame us for moving on from him. I don't think our coaches did a good job preparing him for that game or calling plays that matched his skillset. I'm not afraid that we traded a secret superstar but he is a better player than that godawful performance.

Interested to see what kind of role Jaire Alexander has. He hasn't been able to practice with them all offseason as far as I know.

That final 3rd down Philly converted was brutal. They had to know Hurts would look to convert with his legs, and the middle of Dallas' DL just parted the Red Sea for him. That is a failure of coaching in a critical moment.

What has George Karlaftis done to be included in this group? You might as well add Greg Rousseau.

You're from Baltimore, right? Have you ever been to Room 40?

Lamb threw the game. What an awful 2nd half performance.

Very impressive debut for Brian Schottenheimer. They're making it look easy against a defense that was supposed to be dominant.

Raiders are going to have to play Navy football for that offense to function. They only have 4 WRs on the roster, and Jakobi Meyers is the only one worth a damn.

Seems like Benford is good to go. Coleman limited is not ideal but media reports from the start of practice said he looked fine so not too worried. Bass looks to be trending towards not playing.

Matt Prater last year was 6/6 on FGs including a 57 yarder and 10/10 on XPs. As far as emergency kickers go you could do a lot worse than that.

I would actually like to know what kind of cost people would see as fair? If $522 is too expensive, how much lower do you think it would have to be for the large majority of illegal streamers to start paying for it? I'm genuinely curious. My take is that almost no price drop would be enough to reduce the number of illegal streamers. Because once you've decided that you're entitled to the content for free, there's no reason to pay any amount of money for it as long as you have that free access.

It's worth noting that Sunday Ticket at its most expensive is $522. That's for returning users who add Red Zone. Over a year that averages out to $43.50 per month. That's like two DoorDash orders. I understand there is a very very small percentage of the population to where budgeting an extra $43.50 per month would genuinely be impossible and there are no other realistic budget cuts they could make in their life. I'm not trying to belittle those people. But let's be honest, most of the people in this discussion are not in that tiny minority. Most of them just see an easy way to get out of paying for the service so they take it, because they don't want to inconvenience themselves by making small sacrifices somewhere else in their budget.

No but they are making money hand over fist in advertising revenue, for content they didn't create and don't own the rights to. https://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/breaking-news/article/streameast-the-largest-illegal-sports-streaming-service-reportedly-shut-down-after-year-long-investigation-154917542.html

But usually that stealing doesn't become socially acceptable. Like you used the example of rampant shoplifting that was going on in certain areas of this country. And yes that was a real problem where shoplifting became so easy that it became common. That's not the part that surprises me. What would surprise me is if after pharmacies and stores put their items behind locked cases, the majority opinion ended up being "how dare the billionaire Walgreens company stop me from taking the granola bars that I'm entitled to." And if you tried to explain that this mindset is nuts, the average response was "nobody is really hurt by this, you're just a bootlicker." Yet for some reason with illegal streaming that is exactly what happens. Libraries legally own those books and they aren't charging their customers to read them - that's what make them public libraries. Once you own an item you are free to share it with anybody you'd like as long as you don't directly profit off of it. The proper analogy to libraries would be you inviting friends over to your house to watch a game on a streaming package that you own. Or more aptly a TV sports bar. That isn't stealing, that's buying the rights and then sharing the content.

It is not a 1:1 analogy, but my point is that it is bizarre that stealing from the entertainment industry is perfectly acceptable, but stealing from any other industry is rightfully taboo. The average illegal streamer does not perform deep philosophical musings about the ethics of stealing fungible vs non-fungible commodities. That is just post hoc reasoning to explain why your particular brand of stealing is fine - a shameless shoplifter on the other hand might say that stealing basic necessities is inherently and obviously more ethical than stealing media. Ultimately whatever rationalizations you make don't matter. Stealing is wrong, and it's crazy that that feels like a radical statement. As soon as media became easy to steal, it also became socially acceptable to steal. That's the part I don't understand.