Dr. Who

The IOL has been upgraded. Bates is versatile. I'd like to see them hold onto Anderson, because he's looked good at C. Tackle is the issue. It's not outlandish to think that Dawkins can at least raise his game to average. Van Denmark is better at LT. He's shown some promise. RT is the main issue, and it is a concern.

Davis Mills if the Texans will trade him for a late pick. Logan Woodside has looked good for the Falcons; really better than Ridder or Heinicke. Don't think they'll keep 3 qbs. Worth a flier, perhaps.

I have some hope for Van Denmark. Is Gouraige anything more than a practice squad candidate?

He's not a pessimist. He's a troll.

Ah, well, the frisson associated with an idiosyncratic aesthetic is certainly not to be blithely dismissed. You might like to peruse Flannery O'Connor's short story, "Good Country People," though given your tastes, read it alone.

Top four are locks. I think you are correct that they will want to keep another bigger receiver with either Shorter or Shavers most likely. In fact, Patmon and KeeSean Johnson have had good camps. Patmon is also 6'4", though I suppose he is a PS squad possibility only. Some folks are talking about Isabella taking Harty's spot. Not with the FA commitment made to Harty. Then some think they try and stash Isabella on the PS and bring him in when Harty gets hurt, which is his penchant. I dunno, I have a feeling Josh has developed quick chemistry with Isabella. Today should be illuminating. Let's see if Isabella is featured when Josh plays his one quarter plus. In any event, I would agree that it is more likely the battle is between Isabella and Shakir. I still think it tilts towards Shakir as of this moment, but that could change and I am actually rooting for Isabella. If Shakir loses out, I think they try to trade him. If you place him on the PS, someone will pick him up thinking he is worth a flier.

I was sorta looking forward to the game until you put it like that.

Edward, thought you left us three centuries ago. Good to hear the pirate take on these things. I tend to agree.

Pretty sure they've got him in a straight jacket and he is having to type with his tongue.

The numbers were good, but as I remember it, there were still a lot of issues. Josh uncharacteristically had a lot of turnovers in the RZ, and they struggled the closer they got to the goal line. The run game never seemed integrated in a coherent fashion. It was sprinkled in randomly, and unable to take advantage of Cook's ability to catch passes out of the backfield; same for Hines, for that matter. Dorsey forgot all about Knox as a redzone threat for half a season. The offense became stale, there was a burst of creativity to start the season, and then not enough later on. Josh's injury, Gabe Davis struggling, the porous O-line, all that affected what Dorsey could do, but there were signs of a first year OC. I expect he will be better. The innovative sets and integration of 12 personnel that has been glimpsed in training camp are a welcome indication of growth. The effort to improve the IOL and adding Kincaid should also pay dividends. And they finally have a hammer at RB so they don't have to rely on Josh so often for goal line runs.

Damn, I thought you were gone. I hope there's room in the Invisible Clubhouse.

One of those rare cases where the movie is better than the book.

I keep thinking of Kojak's sidekick when you say that. (Yes, I'm pretty old.) Dodson is the price you pay for choosing to go with Kincaid and Torrence early in the draft, along with not targeting the position in free agency. I would have preferred a better veteran option than Klein, but I'd rather suffer a weakness at MLB than lose out on the best pass catcher in the draft and possibly a day one starter at G that helps solidify IOL. I know you agree with most, if not all of this.

Certainly, the team you have this year is different in some respects. That's true for everyone. So, to assert absolute identity isn't really true. I think your oline and wr room aren't as strong as last year. Kelce is a year older. You never know when age is going to drop the hammer. If age on the Bills is a concern, so is the age of the most important player on your roster not named Mahomes. I don't expect that, but it is possible. Back in the seventies, the Raiders made a habit of turning a roster of old men into threats to win it all. I don't just see an old team with the Bills. I see a team with significant depth -- that mitigates the concern that older players are more susceptible to injury or take longer to recover. Anyway, I think Josh Allen is primed to win it all. There is hunger and a sense of urgency that I think will tilt in the Bills' favor this year. KC is certainly among the favorites. If you think you have to be knocked off before you lose the top ranking, that's a defensible view. But I'm not scared of the Chiefs. We can beat you, at home or at Arrowhead.

Well, at least you're safe from @Billl giving you a laughing emoji. OTOH, including the Bills on your list at all will upset a very dim troll.

I have answered in the affirmative with sufficient clarity. You are the only one acting as if there is something sneaky in what is lucid communication. Hedging is a term with pejorative connotation. I don't agree with "no one cares." I surmise there are plenty of folks who recognize the legitimacy of managing assets and that sometimes difficult decisions are necessary. You think the current MLB situation is a culpable failure by this front office. I suppose it a rational gamble that invested elsewhere. Naturally, if they had omniscience, they would never take on a bad contract or draft an inconsequential player. Given that they are ordinary humans, I believe on balance the FO has done a good, but not perfect job of roster construction. Personally, I do not expect deficiency at MLB to be a reason the defense plays poorly. I believe a stacked secondary, the return to health of Tre White, and a solid DL with several upgrades is going to result in a very good defense. I hope that McDermott is more attacking. When you have Josh Allen as your qb, you don't need to play as if you can't overcome giving up a quick TD because an aggressive play on D backfired.

Your question: Allow me to ask you a question. Is this situation (MLB) deliberate, or not? My answer: They determined the hit from Edmunds' loss was not so substantial that they needed to allocate a high draft pick or priority free agent to replace him. They may be wrong, but that is their judgment. Evidently Williams was the highest rated LB on their board at the time of the pick. Since in the real world, one has to make prudential decisions and trade off one good against another, the result of their deliberations was that it was more probable the team would be helped by drafting offense early. In that sense, they chose where they are at, but it was still dictated by what was possible in particular circumstances. I had attempted to give some helpful context, in spite of your rather petulant demand for a yes or no response. I have bolded the part that ought to answer your question. There's no evasion on my part, just stipulation of what I deem relevant considerations that you apparently find unimportant.

I believe I did answer the question. The fact that you refuse to see that says something either about your character or your reading comprehension. I already explained what was imaginary. It was not the MLB situation. Maybe you'd be happier hanging out with Airseven.

First, not that it matters, but I am not an apologist for McDermott and Beane. I think they are solid. I like them, but I have been critical of quite a few of their decisions. One is allowed to have a complex, nuanced take. I believe you are aware of this. Second, this talk of yours regarding some hypothetical imaginary realm where you would have made many very different decisions so that the entire dilemma would never have arisen is quite impossible. Such a counter-history is nothing more than vague rhetoric. You want to criticize concrete decisions in very particular situations, then refuse to answer how else it could have been handled in concrete terms by alluding to an inherently nebulous alternate universe. I think Shaw is basically correct. They had a price they were willing to pay for Edmunds. He got an offer that far exceeded what they thought he was worth. (Folks who agree with this assessment do not universally say Edmunds sucks. I think he was a good, but flawed player. I'd have been happy to keep him, but not at the price he went for. I'd also prefer a LB with much better instincts.) They determined the hit from Edmunds' loss was not so substantial that they needed to allocate a high draft pick or priority free agent to replace him. They may be wrong, but that is their judgment. Evidently Williams was the highest rated LB on their board at the time of the pick. Since in the real world, one has to make prudential decisions and trade off one good against another, the result of their deliberations was that it was more probable the team would be helped by drafting offense early. In that sense, they chose where they are at, but it was still dictated by what was possible in particular circumstances. Frankly, all of the above seems pretty much common sense to me.

I already pointed to the Babich interview. MLB in the NFL used to be a thumper. It isn't now because the game has changed. McDermott wants a different kind of MLB in his defense. Obviously, Williams is not going to be that player this year, but he may become the sort of player they are looking for next year. Whether he does or he doesn't, what is your alternative? They weren't going to pay Edmunds the kind of money he got from the Bears. There were few LBs rated highly in the draft. If you spend a first or second rounder on LB, you're not allocating an early pick for oline or a fella like Kincaid. You plan based on what is available, right? If they had to take a hit, I'd rather it was LB than not helping Josh early in the draft.

Folks who are already writing him off as a future MLB are presumptuous, imo. If you listen to Bobby Babich's recent interview, it's clear they are looking for a mix of sufficient size and strength with speed to match the way offenses are currently configured. Some of the folks complaining in this thread are still probably fuming that we traded a fourth to move up and grab Kincaid. I'm guessing a contingent that wanted Jack Campbell badly are going to sulk all season and a few will perversely relish signs of deficiency at the position. It seems evident that Beane and McDermott concluded that they could make up for caliber of player with scheme at MLB. It was more important to improve the oline and add a pass receiving threat. I think that was the right priority, and I also hope that McDermott attacks a lot more than Frazier did.

So, just for clarification, if the soccer team were vocal in a different direction on political/social issues, would that alter your response to them? And I would still root for the U.S. team to win. I was not deeply chagrined when they lost, however.

Definitely not an easy team to like. I don't care how you vote. The jersey ought to be unifying. Somewhere it became advocacy for an agenda more than representing the entire country.