DCOrange

That's where my family usually stays when we go down there as well. One of my favorite vacation spots in the US. I haven't dabbled with fishing there, but the most recent time we went to the beach, I got to see a guy that was fishing on the beach drag a shark up onto the sand. That was absolutely wild lol

One of my family friends had no underlying reasons to think he should be at-risk. Ended up getting Covid and was put up in ICU for two months without being able to see any family or friends or anything. They thought for sure that he was going to die, but he thankfully has recovered and is now learning how to walk again. Obviously some people have been fortunate enough to not show many/any symptoms. Some have had what's pretty much a hellacious flu. But some like our family friend have been devastated or worse by it. It's scary stuff.

It was 16th if I remember right, but yeah, he was definitely lower than you'd expect. You have to consider though that the responsibilities of all corners are not the same but they're all pooled together as cornerbacks. So for example, someone that purely plays as a nickel corner could technically have performed better than Tre but nobody would say the nickel guy is actually better; he just had an easier job. That will always be a limitation to systems like PFF's.

Technically they have 4 guys that are above average. They just made "average" a relatively wide range of ratings for some reason. But if a 69.9 is below-average, that implies that a 70.0 is average and anything above that would in actuality be above-average, even if only slightly so. Also, Diggs was in their top 5-10 of WRs last year if I recall correctly and that somehow falls into their average ranking. I don't have access to PFF anymore, but I think if we took the average rating of a starter at their given position, the Bills would have at least 8 players that are technically above-average.

One of my favorite songs ever fits this criteria (and pretty much every Sam Cooke song for that matter): A lot of older songs that I love were under 3 minutes actually. Ain't No Mountain High Enough...I Want You Back, etc.

It's very possible but he's hoping they've just realized safeties of his kind aren't all that valuable, similar to expensive RBs (cough cough).

FWIW, my friend that is a lifelong Jets fan is thrilled about this. He wants no part of signing a box safety to a massive deal.

They aren't really doing it on the company's time in the way that you're imagining one of us doing it though. They're doing it before their work actually begins. It just so happens that professional athletes are in the public eye before they actually start working in a way that we are not.

If we're trying to make the analogy accurate, would my boss care if I'm kneeling at my computer instead of sitting or standing? No, she would not. It's not like the players are refusing to play (at least not yet). Kneeling doesn't impact their ability to do their job in any way whatsoever.

Embarrassing defensive players with his legs is not running around like a chicken with its head cut off. He's in the discussion for being the best runner in the game regardless of position. It's a gigantic positive for him, not something that should be held against him.

I think saying Tennessee exposed their offense is a bit of a stretch. If the receivers/tight ends had simply caught the passes they caught all year, there’s a very real chance they win that game despite their defense getting demolished by Henry. The Bills undoubtedly did a great job defensively against them. The playoff game I would tend to say is a good sign for Lamar and the Ravens though.

Really depends on what you consider to be a franchise QB. Flacco wasn’t anything special but he was literally their franchise QB for his entire career pretty much and Lamar is the reigning MVP so that seems like a good choice to me. Romo to Dak is an easy yes. In a similar vein to the Flacco one, could argue that Dalton to Burrow might be as Dalton was literally a long term franchise QB for them. Certainly nowhere near as strong as the combos in the OP though. Likewise with the Smith/Mahomes combo.

Logan Thomas definitely is not Detroit's #2 TE. They signed Jesse James this offseason; he and Hockenson will be duking it out for the starting gig. They added arguably the #1 RB in the draft to pair with Kerryon, and their top 2 WRs are on paper significantly better than anyone in Baltimore's receiving corps and Amendola is right there with any of Baltimore's guys right now too (obviously Hollywood could break out for Baltimore and vault himself into the discussion with Golladay/Jones, but he's still unproven for now). Maybe some of Baltimore's young WRs will pan out, but for now, they pale in comparison to Detroit at WR while probably being slightly ahead at the other two positions groups. Baltimore's biggest strengths offensively is Lamar and the O-Line; they are by far the biggest reasons that Baltimore's offense was elite last year. Neither of those things matter in these rankings and the article itself says as much. Paraphrasing, they say Baltimore's skill positions aren't very talented relative to the league, but it doesn't really matter because they fit with Lamar so well and Lamar & the O-Line drive everything.

I don't think a relatively low ranking for them is all that surprising to be honest. They're just ranking based on the WRs, RBs, and TEs, so Baltimore's elite O-Line doesn't factor in at all. On paper, they're probably bottom 5-10 at WR in the league. Their RB committee was ranked 9th best. I imagine the TEs are ranked around the same after trading Hurst away. Obviously they still have Andrews and to a lesser extent Boyle, so still pretty good. But it's not the three-headed monster that it was viewed as last year. I would imagine the WRs are viewed as the most important part of a QB's supporting cast, so it's not too surprising that their ranking is weighed down significantly. The ones that I think you could legitimately argue Baltimore ahead of would be the Giants and Eagles. I'm good with the rest of them being ahead of Baltimore.

18 feels about right to me. Curious to see how the rankings ultimately look. There's a few I disagree with right off the bat, but as is usually the case, it's easy to nitpick rankings rather than tiers. For all we know he might view the 30th guy as roughly on par with Allen right now.

Just my .02 on police/public safety in general. For reference, I've worked directly on the budgets for police departments, fire departments, and pretty much every other form of public safety, courts, etc. so that's where most of my perspective is coming from. Part of what I'm struggling with with the "Defund the Police" movement is the lack of clarity about what exactly it means. It seems to me that some factions of its supporters simply want to reduce police budgets and some want to get rid of the police entirely and replace it with multiple other organizations that would handle different sorts of scenarios. I think we're probably a very long way away from the latter group getting what they want. Recent polling has shown that the support even just for cutting funding is almost non-existent, though support for many attempts at police reform are overwhelmingly supported, even across party lines. So just getting to the point where we can reduce police budgets is going to be a very tough haul, much less actually abolishing it. At any rate, I think for this movement to have success, they need to figure out if they're really pushing for reducing budgets or getting rid of them entirely, and they should probably change their messaging accordingly, because "defunding" will be easily misconstrued for getting rid of the budget entirely and that will likely push people away that could theoretically get on board with simply making some cuts here and there. To my personal feelings on the matter, police budgets (and public safety in general) most likely have a ton of fat that can be trimmed off their budgets. My personal experience was that in recent years, our city's projected revenues would increase by, let's say 5%. Cool. Since the city's budget must balance (i.e. can't be set up to run a deficit and also can't have a profit), this means that we get to take that 5% of revenue and spread it around to different priorities. Unfortunately though, wage increases, benefit rate changes, etc. increase by roughly 10%, so suddenly you don't have any additional revenue to spread around at all and you actually have to make cuts instead. Touching the schools or public safety has generally been treated as political suicide (which makes sense considering the polling referenced above), so ultimately, we end up needing to make cuts to social services, cuts to the internal departments that actually run the city, etc. Every department is asked to brainstorm ideas for how we can more efficiently run their respective departments. Since the other departments are actually at risk of losing funding, they oblige and come up with cheaper ways to do their current jobs. The public safety departments, however, don't need to worry about that; we could say we trimmed $100,000 off the police budget due to a budgeted position that hadn't been filled for a decade and all the public would see is that the police budget was reduced and freak out. At least from my personal experience, there is just so much that could be trimmed off of our police department's budget that wouldn't impact the services they provide at all. As for the idea of abolishing the police altogether and replacing it with something new, that's a much more extreme idea. I would tend to lean towards not supporting it, but maybe there is some plan out there that could convince me. I do think there are plenty of services that officers provide today that aren't really necessary or should be provided by someone else. So introducing new roles to provide some of those services is something I could theoretically support, but I think it will be incredibly difficult to really accomplish. Assuming each jurisdiction handles things individually as they do here, cities that go this route will likely lose out on a ton of qualified candidates since they'll almost certainly be offering lower wages due to the reduced responsibilities. Likewise, the transition to whatever new system you put in place will be incredibly difficult. Announce that police officers are mostly going away or are getting hit with a significant paycut (which will almost certainly be required in order to fund the new positions you're likely replacing them with) and you'll probably see a mass exodus of police officers before you're in a position where you can absorb that level of attrition. As is, our city loses on average 3 officers per month almost solely due to paying a couple thousand dollars less than some neighboring jurisdictions. If you cut their wages by a significant amount, you will certainly be driving a lot of them away and they will get scooped up very quickly by jurisdictions that aren't reforming. TLDR: I think reducing police budgets would (ignoring the political appearances) be very easy to do and would help a lot of cities around the country. Abolishing it entirely will be incredibly difficult and I would definitely still need to be convinced before I'd ever get on board with that.

There was never a moment that I felt he was a good QB.

I think that rule was meant to be for other positions since everyone was required to draft a QB. I do agree with the idea that since this exercise was about winning a ring in the next 5 years, it might be best if you miss out on the good/average QBs to just stack the deck at other positions and draft a QB the following year (though I wonder if they were allowed to even think about it like that for this exercise lol).

This issue with this of course is Cinci didn't take Burrow to lock him in as the 32nd best QB in the league. They took him because they think he can be an elite QB just like Young can be an elite pass rusher. This fantasy draft is a completely different concept, especially considering the rules in place. Why take the 32nd best QB in the first round when you'll still get the 32nd best QB in the 4th round? With the rules they had in place, once you got to a certain point in the draft, you knew you'd be able to get a QB from a certain tier no matter when you pick them, so you might as well take elite talent elsewhere and get the same QB you would have taken anyways. Your logic works in terms of arguing against taking Aaron Donald at #5 for example. But once you get like 20ish QBs in, there's really no point in taking a QB until the end (unless of course there is one QB at that point that you value significantly higher than the rest).

The Jets are definitely higher than they should be due to Gore being ranked as a top 30 RB in the league. SF is understandably underrated because he's only basing it off the starter and first backup. The 49ers RBs aren't all that special individually, but they have 3 or 4 solid options, and that along with Shanahan's schemes is more important than their individual talent.

You seem to be misrepresenting my point or just aren't really interested in hearing it.

I'm not saying it SHOULD cost him his job. I'm just saying the idea that doing something at 20 and getting punished at 21 isn't really a big deal if the crime is serious enough to warrant it. You also frankly have to live with different standards when you're living in the public eye; one of the costs of fame.

This is a better question with regard to Josh Allen's tweets when he was actually a kid. Someone getting in trouble at age 21 for something they did at age 20 isn't really much of a leap. It sucks for him, but this is also why people should think more before they say/do things.

Carr is fine, probably around a league average starter. He's not good enough to elevate the Raiders but it's not like he's a legitimately bad starter either. They have enough talent there to be a good offensive team this year. Obviously have to wait and see if it actually comes together, and even if it does, the defense is still a pretty big question mark. Having said all that, I don't really see a good case for arguing that they should be ahead of Buffalo. The Raiders should probably be somewhere around 15 IMO.

I haven't been able to participate personally, but our neighbors have been going the past couple days and I think we might try to go tomorrow or Friday assuming people are still out protesting. One of the protests definitely made its way past our street but nobody has physically come down our street so no action in front of the house yet other than police cars and firetrucks speeding by every once in awhile.