The Frankish Reich

This Buffalo you speak of seems to be a very appealing place to visit. I must make a plan to visit sometime, preferably in December - February.

Apparently one of each.

Re: CB depth. Other than the Broncos, who were resolutely focused on acquiring CB depth in the offseason (as if CB depth was their primary problem), I agree that no team is in particularly good shape there. You lose one of the best CBs in the game, the dropoff is going to be huge.

This makes the most sense. And it fits with McKenzie's weird comment about his season being over (unless another WR goes down). I also have the feeling McD is still peeved about McKenzie's stupid tweeting earlier this year. You are not Aaron Rodgers, Isaiah ... marginal players should know when it's best to just keep quiet and play.

Question: I haven't tried to compile the stats, but I assume Belichick's old pal Ernie Adams and his team did, which is why they'd use their star slot receiver (Welker/Edelman) to return punts (not kickoffs). And I think it's a fair assumption that they found that sure-handed guys who were actually in the game provided sufficient value to outweigh the slightly added injury risk, and that their ability to use their judgment (fair catch, let it bounce, return it) and to make positive yardage when they decided to return it outweighed their lesser ability (as opposed to a McKenzie type) to take a return all the way for a TD. So .. Cole Beasley, punt returner? Not saying it's the right choice, but I'm guessing that if he were on the Pats that's a job he'd have. Why haven't other teams done this?

That's a good point. His reputation precedes him. As opposed to, say, "sure handed" Andre Roberts, who fumbled 3X last year. There's also the fact that Breida's emergence makes McKenzie's role as a speed threat on offense a little less critical.

He fumbled 6 (!) times in his rookie year with the Broncos, which is the main reason they cut him. The KO return fumble was his sole fumble this year. I'd say the evidence is that he's corrected the problem and that the KO return thing was just a weird wet field phenomenon.

I thought that made it more excusable. Slick field, feet come out from under him, ball pops loose. I mean, don't we give receivers more benefit of the doubt when they drop a wet ball? The QB more benefit of the doubt when a wet ball slips out of their hand and results in an INT? Not securing the ball when you should be expecting to be hit is one thing. Losing the ball when the unexpected happens is another altogether.

I would feel just a little bit safer if you changed the screen name. 🤯

There's certainly some element of a "reputation score" for some of these guys.

Every year on Thanksgiving Eve, the Wall Street Journal runs these two pieces on its editorial page. The first is an account of William Bradford, c. 1620. The second is a somewhat dated (1961), but still relevant account of the great American Experiment over the following three and a half centuries. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-desolate-wilderness-william-bradford-nathaniel-morton-plymouth-pilgrims-11637708909?st=10o4js3bnd9mskt&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink https://www.wsj.com/articles/and-the-fair-land-11637710823?st=d16cf7ppvfviq07&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink I have made it a habit over the last several years to read both every year, and to marvel at the wonders of my country, faults and all. This is a time to set aside differences of political opinion and to be thankful for what we have accomplished and to be confident of what is to come. In other words, you won't hear an ill word from me until Monday at the earliest (whining about the Bills' performance excepted). Happy Thanksgiving, all!

Interesting take on Tremaine vs. Klein. I usually think of Tremaine as a guy who moves effortlessly sideline to sideline and in pass coverage, not as a "run stopper." But Klein getting faked out and lacking the athleticism to recover and get back into the play is something I hadn't thought of. Yes, we really missed Star and Tremaine last week. (Probably Zimmer too, if only because he would've kept Butler off the field.)

I take this as more about Phillips being forced into Star's role - a role he just isn't suited for. A useful player being asked to do too much.

If it's anything like gout, which I've had a couple times in the big toe over the years, it's pretty debilitating.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/aaron-rodgers-covid-toe-11637725526?st=hybk9p623fo4lrf&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink "COVID toe." Who knew this was a thing? Apparently it is, and ivermectin doesn't help I guess. Since Aaron Rodgers returned to the field after testing positive for Covid-19, having sat out 10 days because he was unvaccinated, the star Green Bay Packers quarterback has been dealing with a mysterious and painful toe injury. After previously describing it in vague terms as a “Covid injury,” Rodgers confirmed what dermatologists had previously suspected. “No lingering effects, other than the Covid Toe,” Rodgers said Tuesday on the Pat McAfee show.

Agreed. If Breida hadn't shown he's healthy and still has that speed, I'd be all for signing Lindsey. But over the last couple weeks we've learned the only problem Breida has is that Daboll was unwilling to use him.

This just happened about a mile from my house: https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/man-wanted-by-louisville-police-arrested-in-california-linked-to-murder-of-denver-man-source-says Career criminal release on a personal recognizance bond, lawyer talk for "with no bail." Now the prime suspect in the murder of a 77 year old man. It appears to have been a botched burglary (if he thought the man wasn't home) or robbery (if he knew he was home but planned to scare him into handing over the loot). At any rate, the old man appears to have been pushed/shoved/punched/kicked - something of that order - fell on his head and died. No way this guy should've been out. His last offense was described as an apparent attempted "suicide by cop" - his girlfriend (wisely) dumped him and he confronted the cops who responded to a disorderly conduct call. This so-called "bail reform" crap has to stop.

I'd need to see the months on this graph. So with the disclaimer that it's a guess: My scientific explanation can be summed up with "Florida is weird." It is weird demographically (very high 65+ population), it is weird seasonally for the United States in general, and it is weird in that the composition of the population probably changes more dramatically season-to-season than any other state given the snowbird migrations (Arizona is most similar). So I'm not sure what we can say about Florida when comparing it to other states.

Your logic is flawed. I really can't add anything to my long explanation above. Yes. It is pretty well understood by now that seasonality plays a part. We'll have to see what's medically indicated. Probably 4.5 months was a little too long between shots based on the nature of the disease today? I'm not sure how it will play out in the future. I find it disappointing that a vaccine (or a two-shot vaccine regimen) doesn't seem to last longer; maybe improvements in the vaccine or the schedule by which it is administered will improve that. Disappointing, yes. Depressing, horrific? Absolutely not. It means we've got something that works, and even seems to work really well after a third/booster shot. Imagine if we had nothing that worked to suppress infection/hospitalization/death rates. THAT would be reason for depression. I'm optimistic.

Well ... no. Looking at those Erie County stats: they are completely consistent with the idea of the waning effectiveness of a vaccine, particularly after about 6 months. Many of the most at risk (particularly the elderly) completed their vaccinations by March. So fast forward 8 months, and what do we see? The gap between the vaccinated and unvaccinated has narrowed. So the vaccinated should get boosters. That's what we've learned over the last several months. It's hardly astonishing that this is what we've learned. In a perfect world the vaccine would have been perfectly effective for a lifetime. You know the old saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." The vaccine is good. Really, really good. As far as the mandate issue goes: I'm not arguing about mask mandates, etc. Most of those are arbitrary because we don't have good data on how effective they are. Outdoor mask mandates strike me as particularly silly. We would do a whole lot better upgrading ventilation systems or maybe even building office buildings where you can (weather permitting; probably not Buffalo) throw open a window. Underlying all of this is a confused, ill-considered cost-benefit calculation. Vaccines are: (1) super effective, way, way, beyond any other response to COVID; (2) quite low cost, particularly to the individual. I just explained that my booster took all of 25 minutes, home-to-supermarket-back-to-home. If that's the cost to me a couple times a year, or even 3-4 times a year, it's nothing. The value to society is great. The arguments trying to chip away at this obvious hugely positive cost-benefit calculation are nonsense. They're things like the statistical illiteracy demonstrated here. So there's always the personal freedom fallback, and I will agree that this is an abstract good that we try to preserve, but not to the extent that people want to take it here. The infringement on one's liberty of getting yet another in a long list of required vaccines is minimal, particularly given that the vaccine has been proven safe. If you want to argue about this as an unwarranted infringement on personal liberty, you'll have to justify it by comparing it to other such infringements that we tolerate or even think are good.

It is a tragedy that this angry loser creep was not in jail. That's the whole point of what criminal justice scholars call "incapacitation." And we have thousands and thousands like him who really ought to be in jail out there committing their own particular favorite brands of crime, whether its theft or the drug trade or, in this case, intentional vehicular assault. Having said that ... I haven't seen any offical or media attempt to minimize the horror, the evil of this act. They said "no indication it is domestic terrorism" and that appears to be correct as "terrorism" is defined by the law enforcement community: a violent action or threat of violent action in service of some type of intended political result. So by saying "not terrorism" they're not saying it was not a big deal; they're just saying that there's no indication that it was what we commonly think of as terrorism. As far as it being a hate crime: what we're hearing about this creep's social media profile gives ample reason to investigate why he did this and who he was targeting. If he swerved to avoid black people and plowed through white people, well, yes, that's pretty good circumstantial evidence. If he posted "it would be better off if all these white people were dead" that would be really good direct evidence. But so far we don't know, we just have leads to follow and theories to guide that. In other words ... everyone ready to pounce on the media here is really barking up the wrong tree.

I am in the uncomfortable position of ... agreeing with you. These bail reform laws are extreme. There is no reason why someone who is accused of a potentially deadly assault-by-vehicle/domestic violence related should ever be released on $1000 bond, or for that matter, any bond without a bail hearing in which the judge can be presented with the full version of what is alleged and what measures may be taken to protect the community pending trial. Gotta love how the elected DA is trying to throw his assistant (who handled the bail matter) under the bus ... I have zero doubt that the Assistant DA was following office policy/guidance, much of which is driven today by a "no room at the inn" policy of bailing out suspects on as low bail as they can post. And all of this is aggravated by a ridiculous overemphasis on how we are incarcerating too many people. Incarcerating too many people who don't pose a risk of reoffending in a way that endangers the community? OK, I'll let them argue that. Incarcerating too many people like this killer? No. We are incarcerating too few people like this.

And so ... we see the shift from the statistically ignorant - "almost half of those hospitalized are vaccinated, so obviously the vaccine doesn't work!" - to the political, without even admitting to the error in interpreting statistics. This is what the anti-vaccine camp has had to resort to as the original favorite - "it's too new, it's untested, who knows what long-term side effects will emerge in a year" - has been shown to be unfounded. What life is being "upended" by requiring people to get vaccines? I got a whole laundry list of vaccines to attend school in Erie County. They lined us up to get the MMR vaccine in school with that little air gun thing. My kids have to show vaccine cards for all the classic diseases that have thankfully been controlled or even eradicated by vaccines. My booster shot literally took 25 minutes of my life a few Saturdays ago ... got an appt at the local supermarket, walked in, got the shot, went home, resumed whatever I was doing (I don't remember, so it was certainly less important than getting the shot). You wanna talk about shifting goalposts? It's the anti-vaccine mandate crowd that specializes in that.

Good Lord, people are willfully ignorant. I SAID REDUCE THE NUMERATOR TO FIT THE DATA. 5,500 or 550 or somewhere in between. Take your pick. You'll be reducing the numerator for the vaccinated accordingly. THE RATIO WILL REMAIN THE SAME. What does this say about Buffalo schools?

If you would actually read instead of standing at the ready to mock, you would've seen that I made the numbers easy - no decimals for the math challenged!- and said you are free to reduce numerator by a factor of 10 or even 100 as you see fit. It doesn't change the concept or the ratio ....