Doc

What does that have to do with people spending more than they should and being able to afford less than they used to? Again you're not making the point you think you are, i.e. that people don't think the economy is bad.

"You made it too easy to pull!"

LOL! Been hearing the "deranged and dangerous" for years now. The real danger is with demented Joke.

Walking back a "maybe." How shameful.

The main reason they hired Daboll was for what he did with Josh. After seeing Josh without him and Daboll in year 2 with Jones, they probably realize that he can't just take a mediocre one and turn him into Josh. If Daboll had a hand in them giving Jones a (essentially) 2-year $81M deal for that type of production, it's even worse for him. And if he's lost the team... And sure the first year might have bought him an extra year, meaning he gets fired at the end of next season if they don't return to the playoffs. But he/Schoen aren't getting a 4th season if they miss the playoffs for 2 seasons in a row.

Meanwhile with Joke we see if for ourselves...

Sure it is. Why do you think they hired Daboll? And no, we didn't watch this happen with McBeane and no they weren't fireable at the end of '18. It was a 3-year plan where year 1 was meant to trade bad contracts and non-process players for draft picks/players, year 2 was to draft the franchise QB (gave them a reason to have a bad season, along with the $70M in dead cap) and year 3 was to make the playoffs. Surprisingly they made the playoffs in year 1, which bought them even more time and goodwill, not that they needed it. Contrast that with the Giants who had a 5th year QB and $54M in cap space in year 2.

They also know if they replace Giggles, they lose the POC vote.

LOL! It's not that they shouldn't be stealing cars in the first place, it's that the cars are too easy to steal. Clown.

Yeah but he was hired to make him into Josh. If last year was the best Jones will look and he Daboll needs a QB like Josh to be successful, there's no reason to keep him.

Not to mention convincing the brass to give Jones that terrible contract.

You know when you're getting clowned by MTG...

No, Bolton, who was there an no fan of Trump, refuted them. I don't recall Milley.

True it's not holding them back, but they still wasted a ton of money on him. I get that they were kind of stuck, seeing him have his best season (but not anywhere close to $40/year), but they didn't need to give him what they did and should have signed him to a modest 2 year contract, during which time they find his replacement. No one was giving him even $30M/year much less with $81M guaranteed. And they had $54M in cap room going into this season. They had to allocate $11M for Barkley but the rest could have been used to shore-up other areas. Will the Giants brass have confidence that Schoen will be better at it next year? Do they think that Daboll can do it without a QB like Josh?

Yeah. They ***** up their state by voting the way they do, move because it's so ***** up, and then ***** up another state voting the same way. The definition of stupidity...

I accept your defeat.

Bernard already looks like he has command of the defense, just a handful of games into his first season as a starter.

Yeah because Joke's a real rocket scientist. Again I point you to Trump publicy exhorting Russia to find Hilly's emails and used as evidence of him colluding with them. And sure the US should have had a policy of anti-corruption in Ukraine because it was and still is corrupt. You misread by snark.

RIP LA.

It was stupid to give Jones that contract. They're stuck with him for another year and then have a $22M cap hit in 2025. I was thinking that originally Daboll might get fired midway through 2024, but I think that if they continue this year, he's gone at the end of the year, proving he couldn't do with Jones what he did with Josh, therefore it wasn't on him, and that his offense isn't good without Josh to run it.

That doesn't say they don't think the economy is bad, just that they're not that smart.

Free stuff. And better climate.

Sure it's a pesky fact. It's THE pesky fact that destroys your whole "the Obama policy was anti-corruption" when Shokin was fired for being corrupt (Joke's exact word, irrefutable) and not a single person after Shokin was fired, including Shokin himself, was prosecuted for corruption. So when did the alleged policy exist? Ukraine was a corrupt country after Shokin was fired because no one was prosecuted. Which is what Trump wanted to investigate before throwing more good money after bad and funding what could be a still corrupt country. And he got impeached over it. In this case, Joke fires a guy investigating his son's company claiming corruption and then...nothing. So the appearance, just like in Trump's impeachment, was terrible, depending on which side of the aisle you fall. And again, impeachment is political and not a trial where anything has to be proven (like it wasn't in the phone call impeachment)

So you're taking profligate spending as a sign that people don't think the economy is bad? People will spend what they don't have. That's why credit card debt is tipping $1T for the first time. As for nest egg, 62% of people don't have money to cover a $400 emergency.

Yup. Again it's the lesser of two evils/bad choices.