cle23

I am all for closing THAT loophole. But not removing all mail in ballots as a way to do it, as you suggested.

Yes, because opioids have only become a problem recently.

That is just recently though, not the long term data. The most recent presidential election, yes, it was much higher in democratic percentage, but that is also going along with a lot of the COVID situation, with democratic voters being much more likely to follow the guidelines. Hell, Trump encouraged people to ignore the guidelines, and obviously his voters were disproportionately Republicans. Historically the numbers have been much more even, though they do tend to lean Democrat some. In 2018, 25% of people voted by mail. Should we just invalidate 25% of votes then? You do know that mail in voting started in the Civil War era, right? But somehow only recently it became "fraudulent."

I agree with most of what you said, except this: "Debates should be mandatory in an election, and no votes should be cast before one has occurred. " The debates are pointless. 95% of people have already decided well before the debate who they will vote for, mostly by whatever letter is by their name. Also, the debates are pointless in the sense that it is all just personal attacks on the other candidate and very, very little actual substance. I wish there was a rule that you can only speak as to what you plan to accomplish, with no attacks on each other at all. But that'll never happen as it'll drive down ratings. This isn't just a Democrat issue though. It happens on both sides. And the issue there being that there are millions of legitimate votes that wouldn't get counted if that was the case.

To be fair, teams aren't leaving because of the quality, they are leaving for money.

I could honestly see them having both teams wear dark uniforms if the snow is as bad as it calls for.

But that is literally how every team handles the run. Bad teams rarely give up 4-5 yards every carry, but they consistently give up chunk yardage. It's like saying "Outside of the 2 late 4th quarter touchdown, the defense only gave up 10 points." You have to take the whole game into account. Chubb averages 5.5 yards a carry, but gets plenty of 1-3 yards runs to get there.

Potential blizzard or?

And most of it has nothing to do with Brissett. Plus, it's been 9 games with a backup. Clevelands defense is the main issue right now. Talent, but bad communication.

Not that it matters much, but Keenum had 375 yards in those 2 games, not 462. The rest was spot duty in other games. Keenum is a decent backup, and can manage a game, but he likely won't win you the game. In the 2 starts for Cleveland, the Browns had 335 yards rushing and 3 TDs as well.

The Chiefs are in the same boat. The issue being with either team is that if the QB has any kind of off night, or even just an average night, it makes it extremely difficult to win games. Every team is stronger in either run/pass. But when your offense is 80% predicated on 1 player, or on the pass, it makes game planning that much easier.

I agree. Just saying that a 4.6 YPC average is not a great indicator of a good RB without context. CMC was the Panther's offense. Singletary is almost an afterthought, so when he does run, he get less focus, which can lead to more yardage.

You can't compare their YPC though, without context. CMC was the focal point of the offense in Carolina, and didn't have much help. They have decent WRs but no one to get them the ball. Singletary is the 3rd-5th option in Buffalo, so teams don't game plan around him.

I don't think people should press charges for every little situation, but I'm fine with this one. If some dude walked up, punched you, and walked away, and you had no "real" injuries, it still warrants punishment. Adams was completely unwarranted in what he did to a guy who had zero to do with him at all. I'm not saying Adams should be punished severely either, but it warrants some punishment. It honestly is probably a way for the guy to press a settlement out of him.

What makes you say that? Just curious.

Harbaugh claimed his interview with Minnesota last year were his last look into the pros. Obviously that could be a bunch of crap, but He claims he is done chasing the NFL.

I don't think you understand how fast 65 truly is, and that most sports cars crumple by design. All I am going by is the reported information, not random speculation.

Everything about your points is speculation. You assume everything about what Garrett did to be on the far wrong side. Everyone else it pointing out that maybe it's not that, or not quite that bad, and you say "prove me wrong" yet have no evidence of what you're saying either.

There is no way to know for sure what was said with the helmet thing and Rudolph. To be clear, nothing Rudolph would have said would make it ok to swing the helmet, but there is no way to say for sure what happened. There is also pictures of Rudolph hitting Garrett in the groin more than once, so he definitely wasn't 100% innocent either. I think you're blowing this WAY out of proportion. He was driving too fast for sure. But 65 in a 45 isn't some insane speed. He wasn't being entirely reckless. He wasn't drunk. Hell, half of NFL fans drive home from games in worse shape than he would be.

Fake outrage much? I pretty much guarantee that every one on this site has sped, and most have probably went 100+ or close to it. Is it incredibly stupid? Absolutely. Does that make him a bad person? Not necessarily. If the animal wasn't hit, then Garrett is legally responsible and will be cited. If the animal is hit, likely he would still be responsible but it can vary as well. But that doesn't mean he lied about it. They can tell pretty quickly whether you were speeding or not, so it isn't like lying about it would help anything. You get cited either way. Garrett does a ton of work in the community and a ton to help kids and such. He made several poor choices driving recently it seems, and he needs to correct them. But stop with the "he's a garbage person" because of this. No drinking, no drugs, both people with seat belts on. Everybody has some bad to their name.

Right, but I am saying you can't just change it because it may happen. Is Florida typically very hot in September? Sure, but It was 88+ in Ohio a week or so ago too. If the temperature is insanely high, I get delaying the game until later that day or the evening, but you can't change how the entire 32 team schedule works because a couple stadiums could be hot, or cold. Weather is a part of football and it always has been. Rain, heat, cold, snow, wind. It's all part of the game.

He didn't take "two steps" though. He did get 2 feet down, but he didn't take 2 steps then. But if Davis had fallen over without the defender and lost control on the way to the ground, or even when hitting the ground, it's not a catch. You have to maintain control through the catch. He caught it with 2 feet down, but immediately had the ball slapped out. I like your second statement here. If that exact thing happens at the 50 yard line, it's incomplete and not a fumble.

So no home playoff games in Buffalo in January? But the weather is part of the game. So no home games in Mami or Jacksonville in September? Carolina? No home games in Green Bay or Buffalo in December or January? There are 32 teams to account for. You can't make the schedule purely based on what may happen.

It's not a drop, but it's certainly not a catch either. He didn't possess the ball long enough, and wasn't able to complete the catch as the defender pulled it loose. That isn't a catch, ever, and 100% would have lost a challenge.

But weather does play a factor in football. That's been the case forever. And the way it should be. You can't schedule games around whether or not the weather may affect one team more than another.