Rocky Landing

Honestly, the back and forth on this topic is astonishing. Especially cringeworthy are the reliance on some clearly bogus polls, and blatantly irrelevant straw man arguments about other “offensive” team names. The National Congress of American Indians, founded in 1944, and headquartered in Washington DC, is the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization there is. They represent 573 member tribes. They are the same organization that produced the commercial advocating for the Redskins name change at the Super Bowl several years ago. Below is a link to their resolution regarding the Redskins name. It is the same position they have held for decades. http://www.ncai.org/resources/resolutions/opposing-the-washington-nfl-team-s-return-to-the-district-of-columbia-until-the-franchise-changes-its-offensive-name If anyone truly believes they have a more cogent, or authoritative argument than the National Congress of American Indians, they are a fool.

If people get offended by you kneeling for "Lift Every Voice and Sing," (also known as the black national anthem), it will be the second time in the history of mankind that people became offended by kneeling.

There are plenty of reasons to enjoy preseason games. We get to follow some of the camp competitions. We get a bead on some the third stringers, who we would otherwise rarely see. You get a first NFL look at the rookies (some of whom we will never see again). I remember last season, they handed off to Motor something like fifteen times in a row, just to see what he was made of. Is it "meaningful" football? Naw. But it's football. I watch, and enjoy all four, every year. And, for all those on here who get all sour at their very existence, I would think that not watching would suffice. I watch the preseason games religiously, and enjoy them. But, the pro bowl could be played as a bocce tournament, and probably be more entertaining.

I feel bad for some of the rookies, and especially UDFAs who are going to have a much, much harder time proving themselves.

It's a good point. But, I think if you look at the rest of the league, it has been historically pretty common for defenses to be given a much longer leash when facing exceptionally mobile QBs. Tyrod Taylor used to get mashed, as did Vick. These days, though, with the specter of CTE always present, I think refs are being pretty strict regarding roughing the passer. I don't recall hits on Allen getting ignored, and I don't think that was an issue with Lamar Jackson, either (although I didn't see many Baltimore games). All that being said, I think given his injury history, and the team he will be playing for, your point stands, and Jerry Hughs will have to watch himself.

Nathan Peterman.

Depends on the odds.

Such a Billsy thread....

I figure it's going to happen around the same time that my kid cleans his room.

These numbers more or less even out when you consider that Murphy got about twice the snaps as Shaq.

McKenzie gets cut. All of the little gadget plays that McK did last year Stephon Diggs did for the Vikes. And, quite frankly, Diggs does them better. McK offered versatility that Daboll cherishes. Diggs makes him redundant. If there is a role that keeps McK on the team, it will be for the other versatile attributes that he has for which they may not want to risk Diggs-- special teams, etc. They had him in as a defensive back at one point last season. But, I don't think that is going to be enough to keep him on the team.

I work in the motion picture industry in Los Angeles, and productions are just starting to crawl back to life-- but very slowly. Some of the commercial work-- small productions, with minimal crews-- started up last week. And, the first TV show started up the other day-- The Bold, and the Beautiful. I think there are also some very low-budget movies starting to be being made, taking advantage of the rock-bottom prices of equipment that would otherwise be collecting dust on shelves. But, the word is, at the moment, that the bulk of movie, and television production isn't starting up soon-- possibly not until the end of the year, or until a vaccine comes out. With all that in mind, Hard Knocks reality TV in Los Angeles is kind of a no-brainer. Crews are going to be far away from the cast. The cast will be in close proximity to one another, regardless of the TV crews. They will have the best production infrastructure, at the lowest cost that they have ever had. And the protocols for safe TV production in LA have already been written, and approved, and the personnel are lining up for the jobs. Bottom line: HBO will have two teams worth of drama, with more production value than they have ever had, for less money than they have ever spent.

Speaking personally, I would put the order of rivalry at: 1) Pats* 2) Jets 3) Dolphins 4) Everyone else. But, to be honest, the only one of those 31 teams for which I would feel anything close to "hatred" would be the Pats*.

I stand corrected.

If anyone ever proposes to my daughter, they better not do it on one knee, or I'm going to punch them in the mouth.

I think we've both said what we wanted to say. But, I very much appreciate the discussion, extraneous to football though it may be. Cheers!

Would his recommendations for people protesting be any different than the recommendations he had already made for any other public space?

I'm willing to concede the "lie of omission." The guy can only do what he can do. He doesn't have the authority set policy. He can only make recommendations. But, I absolutely do not believe that any of those recommendations have been politically motivated.

I don't see it as a question of whether they're right, or wrong. Why should Fauci care what the public thinks? That would be political. As they learn more about the disease, they amend their assessments. That's the way it works. Fauci makes the best recommendation he can with the information he as at the time. As the information changes, his recommendations change.

I certainly don't see it that way. Fauci has never been responsible for government policy, and he's been very clear on that. The government held off promoting face masks because it knew shortages were so bad that even doctors couldn't get enough. In their assessment at the time, promoting facemarks would have made the situation worse. How is that dishonest?

Fair enough. I would say that the fact that Fauci often changes, or amends his statements gives me more trust in him. He's a scientist, not a politician. When a politician changes their mind, it's called "flip-flopping." When a scientist changes their mind, it's called the scientific method.

You're making my point for me. "Fauci said US government held off promoting face masks because it knew shortages were so bad that even doctors couldn't get enough," is not political in any way. It wasn't advancing any political agenda. It was a matter of managing a pandemic for which they weren't prepared.

This statement is exactly the kind of narrative that I'm talking about. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Fauci, a 79-year-old epidemiologist, has, at any point in all of this, been untruthful. The narrative you're pushing, however, has easily recognizable political motives.

Political expediency is something that is done to advance something politically. Fauci's role is not political. The narratives being pushed about an epidemiologist trying to do his job, on the other hand, are the very definition of political expediency. That's my point.

Politically expedient? Do you think he's running for something?