jhh9327

They scored on 5 of the first 6 drives (and that is being generous and counting the end of half possession that was 2 plays as the 1 stop) and were 1 yard away from another TD on the 7th drive. We forced a punt on their 8th drive which was a positive. That isn't good.

I'm not sure why this came as much of a surprise. You have to discount the regular season to a certain degree when a team has had so much success like the Chiefs. It's all about the playoffs for them (similar to us to at this point too). And the media and our team/fans didn't do ourselves any favors by giving them even extra motivation all week in regards to playing on the road for the first time and playing in front of Bills Mafia.

My fault. You are correct.

And while it didn't end up hurting us on the scoreboard, he made another clock management error in the first half when he took our first TO immediately after the play that got us down to the 13. You don't need or want 44 seconds left at that point when you still have 2 TO's remaining and only have a handful of plays left at most. Should have let it run a down more before he took the first TO. Gave the ball back to Mahomes with 28 seconds left.

Except that isn't true. The Dolphins lost 3 linebackers for the season in week 18 against us. The Dolphins were truly decimated on D outside of Ramsay.

Fully agree. The first 5 offensive drives we score 24 points without the benefit of any short fields against a healthy top 3 defense that only gave up 24 points or more in an entire game twice the whole year. Yet when the offense comes back out for drive number 6 we are behind by 3. The D simply had to do better and that is on McDermott. Yes, they were important injuries, but the Dolphins defense was decimated even more than ours and did a better job last week.

Why do you have to punt on 4th and 5? At half field it's almost a guarantee you stay out and go for it, but 20 yards back it isn't an option? I agree that we needed to keep the ball, but there is no way a called fake punt (versus an audible based on coverage) is a better option than just keeping Josh out on the field.

I missed out on training camp tickets, but was able to get tickets to the blue and red game. I'm Rochester based so going to camp is much preferred if anyone wants to swap.

I believe Diggs frustration wasn't just in the amount of throws, but the quality of them. On the TD drive while the game was still in reach, Josh gave him a low pass that he had to go to the ground to catch and Diggs seemed to give a frustrated hand signal to get the ball up after the play was over. And then Josh gives him a hand signal later on in the game back after they don't connect on a deep pass. This is complete conjecture on my part, but Stefon comes completely across like a perfectionist and what his actions during and after the game are saying to me is he feels like others aren't dedicating themselves the way he feels is needed to be the best. He was on board with an improving Josh (and offense). If he sees signs of regression while also not feeling like the work is being put in 110%, he's going to act out. The offense has been sloppy all year even when they have been good and that isn't ever going to be good enough for Stefon's personality. He just wants everyone to do the work to be better and have that be the outcome, not just talk week after week of needing to be better which is what we heard all year from players and coaches.

You really think this team beats Cinci if this game happened two months ago? I honestly don't. I'm not saying the emotional toll didn't play any factor yesterday, but this was a flawed team that has been showing those flaws for quite a while and Cinci is designed well to take advantage of those.

This is dead on about our D. Good QB's will carve us up because they don't make the mistakes our D style is banking on. That was not an off day yesterday for the defense. Burrow would do that to them over and over again. Only thing I'll add is this team missed Hyde (and a healthy Poyer) in a big way. Glad Hamlin is doing well, but he and everyone else that played for Hyde this season were a big drop off.

I think it is a convenient excuse and there may be some truth to it, but when you look back this has been a sloppy team all year whose talent usually could overcome it. It finally caught up to them in a big way yesterday against a really good team who played a precision game while we didn't (again).

I'm not one who normally defends the diva WR's, but I'm fully on Diggs side with him being upset. Love the team and love Josh, but the team has been too full of themselves the whole season and I include Josh in that. Even though they mostly got away with it, they have played sloppy and undisciplined basically all year. Say what else you want about Diggs, but he works as hard and prepares as hard as anyone and pays attention to the details. I feel the team as a whole has lost their way in regards to that this season and that is what I think has Diggs bothered more than simply getting him the ball more. Too much media attention and talk about playing better and cleaning up the details rather than simply focusing and putting in the work to actually do it. There was a throw to him yesterday that he caught that was low and couldn't do anything else with than catch it and motioned to Josh to get the ball up higher. Diggs is a perfectionist and that is not a word you could describe the rest of the team this year.

I want the Steelers to lose. Only way they make it in is as the #7 seed and I give them almost no shot at beating the Chiefs. Let a team that could beat the Chiefs get the final spot.

He just seems like a good dude. Saw this clip earlier in the week.

This 100%. No one on the mandate side of the argument in this thread or in the media wants to touch this part of the topic. The silence on the matter is deafening indeed. And it is insulting to the public's intelligence with the way Fauci has tried to pretend he doesn't know anything about it and maybe it is something they should look into.

Not with a 8% investment return and 3% inflation assumption on a 4.5% initial withdrawal rate. Want to actually share what rates you used for your chart? Last 20 years had an average 2.2% inflation rate. $45,000 in 2000 is about $72,000 today using CPI over that time.

You said 8% return. Assume 3% inflation rate even though that is more than what the last 20 years gave us. Do the math. $1,000,000 at start $1,000,000 - $45,000 = $955,000 $955,000 x 1.08 = $1,031,400 at end of year 1 $1,031,400 - ($45,000 x 1.03 = $46,350) = $985,050 $985,050 x 1.08 = $1,063,854 at end of year 2 $1,063,854 - ($46,350 x 1.03 = $47,740.50) = $1,016,113.50 $1,016,113.50 x 1.08 = $1,097,402.58 at end of year 3 And it's going to keep rising each year under those assumptions.

Couple things. Pulling $45k (and adjusted for inflation) from a $1 million portfolio in 2000 would not only have worked, but would have thrived if invested in any even semi-responsible way, so Chef Jim is off base on that. No business cares where the money you spend with them comes from. $100 is a $100 whether it came from the lotto, an inheritance, from a job, or collecting cans. Human judgement is where that matters to some and most often comes from jealously. "My $100 is better than your $100 because I earned it and you didn't". No, it's the exact same. Money is fungible. If "Andy" or anyone else who has determined they have "enough" and is happy, then good for them. It should be the goal for all to have "enough" and how much that is should be a personal decision. Relying on cash and gov't pension as your strategy can work as long as you are flexible and don't set your expectations very high, but yes inflation is a problem for you and sorry to say it's a way sub-optimal strategy.

Thank you for this (missed that the article was from Big Blitz). My family is in this situation (COVID recovered and low-risk category) and it's frustrating to find so little data on the benefit of the vaccine in their situation.

As the goal posts have been moving all along, this scenario will get extra fun when we get to the point where we are told boosters are required and creates an additional loophole for insurance companies.

I know this forum is more about political bickering than real conversation, but these stats for places like India just has to make any open minded person really wonder what is really going on and does anyone really have an actual clue. Lack of vaccine rates there in India and a population density more than 10x than the US, but yet 1/6th of the death rate per million people than the US to date. What about that makes any sense? It's been illogical from the start that the US, with our barely top 200 overall population density, was one of the worst countries in the world to be for COVID, especially if staying 6 feet part is really the key. The media and general population in the US always acts like the world revolves around us and ignores the rest of the planet, but this is a global pandemic. Why is it not more of a common topic of discussion on why hasn't this virus completely decimated other countries, who in proportion to ours basically live on top of each other, at a many times multiple death rate of ours who simply can't keep people apart as effectively or provide as adequate of care?

Spanish golfer Jon Rahm had to withdraw from a tournament in early June that he was way ahead in because he tested positive for COVID multiple days into it. He had recently been vaccinated ahead of time but not long enough before to be considered fully vaccinated. He was allowed to leave isolation a week later after back to back negative tests. He then wins the US Open the following week. Asymptomatic throughout. Now he has tested positive again right ahead of leaving for the Olympics and is out of playing there. Something is majorly off with all of this. If you want to say the positive is from shedding the virus still in his system from 7 weeks ago, is he a threat to anyone where he needs to miss the Olympics? If he truly caught it again so quickly despite being vaccinated and already having COVID less than 2 months ago, then that is an even bigger wtf. Who wants to take a stab at defending this? This is the type of stuff that, if the scientists can't figure it out and handle in a reasonable way, could bring the NFL season down despite their aggressive vaccine policies. https://www.si.com/golf/news/jon-rahm-out-of-olympics-after-testing-positive-for-covid-19

Why is the conversation always only vaccinated versus unvaccinated? We are about 1.5 years into this and have had 35 million cases in the US alone. There is a lot of of people who have had it and recovered. If those that fall into that group don't get the vaccine should they also be considered "the problem"? Isn't there really 4 groups (vac/no COVID, vac/COVID recovered, no vac/no COVID, no vac/COVID recovered)? Why is there so little data and info on reinfection rates and risk? The "Science" world seems to have all the answers on a vaccine to treat the virus, but if you ask if the vaccine is needed if you are COVID recovered the responses that I find are all are some form of "we don't know enough about that so just be super safe and get the vaccine too." That isn't a satisfactory answer, IMO. I say this as someone who is vaccinated myself, but my wife and kids are not. However, they all have had, and recovered from, COVID. Kids were not eligible to get the vaccine when they got it and my wife and I had just become eligible. I had my first poke a couple days before they all came down with it, which I do think caused me to avoid getting it myself (I was tested at the same time as my wife after one of the kids tested positive and I was tested several times after and I remained negative). Kid's would have missed one day of school in normal circumstances from having a fever one day and then waiting 24 hours without it before letting them go back. They sat in their rooms feeling fine and bored out of their minds for 2 weeks. My wife was in bed like she had the flu for about 2 days though it did take a couple weeks before she felt fully normal again. My wife's choice to continue to wait to get the vaccine is her own to make. With the kids, I have a say, and to be honest I don't have a compelling enough argument that they need something on top of their natural immunity now along with the low risk the virus itself presents them. I'm open to reviewing data that can help reverse that current choice, but I haven't been able to find anything worthwhile.

Don't know who else you think I am, but I'm just a lurker who likes numbers. And a vaccinated, right leaning citizen of our country.