Dr. Who

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.

This is true, but you understand there are folks who think math is a fascist concept.

They were never impressive in this tournament. Outspoken and arrogant can write those checks when you cash them with victories. When you don't win, there's going to be an excess of schadenfreude.

Today is @HappyDays off day. I said I would fill in. Gabe Davis has a catch technique where he claps his hands together rather than forming a basket with his hands. Joe Marino spent about ten hours talking about it. It's not the best. He's also chronically injured. He had one superlative playoff game, but in reality he is wildly inconsistent. Maybe Kincaid is that special rookie that can in effect take over the WR2 role and relegate Davis to the go routes that he is good at. Of course, Davis is flashing in training camp, though in real games he will revert to form. I know this is somewhat over the 3 minute 27 second time limit, but my cat keeps jumping on the keyboard. @BADOLBILZ also has an impressive back catalog on this topic for those dissatisfied with the quality of Davis bashing in this post.

I was just kidding. I would never do that to you. Good beer excuses minor sins. It's somewhere in the catechism.

I'm sorry. I have to put you on ignore now.

@GunnerBill has a metric that indicated McD doesn't take CBs with arms as short as McDuffie's. That fella's take is a lot of surmise without substance.

You're in.

I don't really bet. As an academic and a poet, I don't have cash to play with. But if I did, I think I'd put some down on Spector as an interesting speculation at MLB.

We should get t-shirts made up and form a club.

Who was traded? I thought the newbies were all FA pickups. Or possibly this is a joke about Gabe Davis . . .

There's no doubt that lots of folks are excited about 12 personnel now which is all that is necessary for my observation to be true. I am confident that Kincaid is the real deal, however. Your habitual snark is noted.