Dr. Who

So, there's a thing about gang warfare and wearing green is dangerous? And the NFL said, let's get the Packers and the Eagles to play there? If green cleats were a problem for a soccer player, what exactly are these teams supposed to do about their uniforms?

That is my surmise.

He has a habit of making highly optimistic comments that don't come true.

Well, you know I basically agree with your takes on this issue, but maybe he's due to get the blind squirrel luck, I dunno. I'm getting old, so I sure be hoping.

I don't know that it is a common idea among those disappointed with the WR room that Josh is not being helped. One has to hope that Knox plays up to his ceiling. Last year, for a variety of reasons, was not his best. Kincaid is a rising star. I like the RB room. So, great. I actually think there appears to be depth and promise on the Oline. If that turns into a dominant unit, that will exponentially help Josh Allen. I think one can criticize the WR room and still like the rest of the offense, and hope that Brady will come up with a strategy that can be unpredictable for defenses and put up a lot of points. It would help if some of those scratch offs at the bottom of the WR room turn out capable of explosive plays downfield.

Maybe, but wasn't Kelce 24 years old during his rookie season? Naturally, that kind of ascendance is exceedingly rare, but there's plenty of runway for a HOF career.

Yep, for sure, and our defense is going to win us games in the playoffs, like always.

I've been discounting Shorter as unlikely to be a significant add. I hope you're right.

Until the playoffs. And also, while it was an impressive run to overcome devastating injuries and Dorsey as OC, I don't think white-knuckle must win games the second half of the season ought to be the norm for the Buffalo Bills with Josh Allen at qb. There's no way to know before the fact, but I remain unimpressed with the WR room. I don't think it's been managed well. Those who are satisfied find it convenient to use second half Diggs and disappointing Davis as the standard for comparison. I don't grant that. The proper measure ought to be what a truly superior WR room would look like. By a more objective criteria, the top of our WR room is not good. With apologies to my pal @NewEra, I just don't think the possibility (and that's all it can be at this point), that the bottom half of the room is better than in past years makes up for the obvious lack of proven excellence at the top. Maybe Brady schemes guys open and TE and RB take up the slack. Maybe we are so diversified, the offense is difficult to plan for. Great, none of that answers to the inadequacies of the WR room. Having a genuine WR1 doesn't make the new strategy obsolete, it just gives you more firepower to work with, and the benefit of a plus level talent that demands attention, and can make those elite plays that only the very few "freakazoid" types can accomplish. Maybe Coleman progresses faster than I suppose, and I hope he does. I don't think he is a replacement for Diggs. He is an upgrade for Davis. They don't have a replacement for what Diggs was when he was actually contributing to the offense. I agree that getting rid of his toxic character that manifest last year is a plus, and not forcing balls to a player that was not playing up to his past performance is also an opportunity for Josh Allen to make more mature and intelligent selections. He hasn't always done that, for whatever reason. In sum, thriving is still a very rosy best case projection. No one who is a Bills' fan doesn't want that to occur, but if it happens this year, a lot of low probability bets have to work out well.

I'll be shocked if that happens, but obviously it would be great for that to materialize. A trade ten days from now for DK Metcalf would also be great. I don't think either is likely to occur.

Watch your back, Trubisky.

I agree with this about 90%, maybe more. Where I suspect I give a marginally better assessment is that I do think he brought in good depth at positions of need. That doesn't disappear, even if he botches the WR room, but I do agree it would objectively result in a lower grade of his quality as a GM.

Yes, I was not really returning to his particular statements. I was attempting to explain the very traditional notion of pride as one of the seven deadly sins.

Higgins is the optimistic projection. A few folks have brought him up in threads. Let's hope it happens.

Alright. You are very sure of your metaphysical conclusions. I am doubtful you have an air-tight argument for atheism. There is no metaphysics that doesn't depend on some radical belief. Proof doesn't reach down to ultimacy, though I recognize dialectic isn't going to convince you, nor do I have any interest in attempting to do so. Sin is a religious concept dependent on an understanding of well-being and perfection with theological roots. Naturally, if you deny God, the holy will be a surd concept, and apart from that, sin is meaningless. In the end, reality is not a product of our willing or subjective fantasy, nor can anyone's judgment replace our unique responsibilities to pursue truth to the best of our capacities. At the same time, words have specific meaning, even shades of meaning. Part of responsible communication is noting what they mean in the context of a particular community, or even idiosyncratic usage by an individual. Traditionally, pride is "sinful" because it results in a habit of thinking and acting that lacks receptivity towards the fullness of Being, whether that be in nature or the divine.

I'm not here to defend every aspect of the fella's speech. I think he could have been more careful in his speech, and I say that as someone who is largely sympathetic to traditional Catholic beliefs. Technically, all sin is "deadly" in the sense that it is alienation from the source of Being. And no one properly understands the command to avoid sin as somehow facilitating heinous sins like murdering folk because of their sexual proclivities.

The NFL like the rest of the corporate world is very much driven by fear of offending those who hold dominant power in the political bureaucratic class, academe, Hollywood, the fourth estate, and social media. If you are marginal to that power, you are subject to ostracization and canceling. Inside, it's a free pass on misdemeanors and often felonies. That's why they fawn upon ideological attachments that much of their viewership disagrees with. They don't care. The brand is not a function of moral courage, but craven obeisance to idols of the day.

Sure, it's just a pond, but we're the monarchs of that pond. Life is short. Take the win.

I think it's unlikely at this point. I'm not convinced Beane values the position in the manner you and I would prefer. I'll be happy if you are right, and I'm still holding out a glimmer of hope.

I still think it's an irresponsible bet on Beane's part, even if Josh Allen and Brady end up pulling it off. Some folks are tired of those of us who are not convinced by the plan. They are free to mock, but a concern doesn't go away just because time passes. And what else is one to do if threads proliferate about a subject where the quality of receiver or the nature of the receiver room or whether modern WRs are a dime a dozen or not is the topic? Just shut up and get with the program? It's a funny age. The squares from the sixties are today's rebels. I used to be called a homer here, and now I'm a whiner.

If KC cuts him, we should pick him up.

Having been bereft of a team to truly root for, I am left to the poor leavings of schadenfreude, gleefully contemplating the demise of the Leafs and Bruins. I will take that treat, even if bad for you as a steady diet. I cannot like the Rags, and there are ex-Sabres playing for the Panthers. I sort of like Vancouver, though when I think they are the team that came into the league with us, I have an impish and malign impulse to deny them ultimate victory, because somehow that sheds more light on the prolonged ineptitude of the team I love.

Yes, he read the room perfectly. He wasn't talking to a pluralist or progressive room. He wasn't talking to this board. The reason students go to a college like that is because their beliefs and ethical sensibility are counter-cultural to the dominant ideology. The polemical edge in the speech was more in the nature of affirming the convictions of the students as they prepare to deal with a society largely indifferent or hostile to their beliefs. And the reaction here is proof of the correctness of that assessment.

I think the OP is speculative. I like Shaw. He writes a good prose, and is a very decent fella. Maybe he's correct. The college game is producing WRs, just as it is not producing finished product offensive linemen for the most part. All that said, I don't think it is inevitable that the WR position will see a glut of supply over demand where the smart buy is good, rather than great. It's an economic argument, I suppose, but as Ron Jaworski often proclaimed, "QB is a dependent position." It doesn't matter how great your franchise QB is, he can't go around catching his own passes. Folks here are invested in Josh Allen elevating mediocre talent, because that is largely the MO of this front office. Anyway, I still think there are elite talents that matter. It will always matter at QB and Edge. In a different era, the RB was king. If the QB is king today, that means the WR is guaranteed an importance unlikely to succumb to the kind of economic calculation Shaw surmises. The RB was reduced to replaceable mercenary because the game changed significantly. I don't really see a similar shift happening now, even if tactical strategies for some teams emphasize other positions. It is usually because of deficiencies in the WR room, or the particular proclivities of a QB like Lamar.