KSpan

And here's the question asking Tepper if he'll be involved in the QB selection process. His answer is that he's much more interested in making sure the right processes are in place rather than the decision itself. Also said he's "not the evaluator Matt and Scott are".

That encapsulates the entire experience though with this type of QB. Their team can win when they're surrounded with excellence, but they can't/won't elevate the team when they're not: we saw that time and again this year. With the nature of the NFL (injuries, roster churn, etc.), IMO that's simply not acceptable for a full-time starter of a team that wants to compete year in and year out. "Possibly good enough when everything goes right" can't preclude striving for better, particularly when the weaknesses are so glaring and easily exploited.

I think this is precisely why there is so much focus on the QB position. The team wasn't expected to be nearly as competitive, and even at what should be 'the bottom' for the roster they were still competitive. A more effective player at the QB position definitely changes the story of the season.

Exactly. Also, looks like 23 of the Week 17 starting QBs (I'm including Mahomes, Burrow, and Ben here since they'd typically be starting) were all drafted in the first round (I'm also including Brees since he was pick 32, but that was top of Rd 2 back then). Another 2 were picked at picks 35 (Dalton) and 36 (Carr); excluding Dalton since he's a backup would drop the total to 22. From there guys like Lock, Henne, and Hurts were 2nd round picks. Wilson, Brady, and Cousins are the only quality starters chosen outside of the first round. I'm not making any definitive statements, but the Week 17 data support your premise.

Brady's also 43 years old and has struggled his way to 4600 yards and 40 TD passes. Not too shabby.

I daresay that Rhule and Tepper were setting the bar low with these quotes. After the performance this year and a few specific glaring weaknesses being clear limitations I want to believe they're smart enough to not play dumb and try to ignore them. Even if the wins weren't there this team showed too much promise and quicker than expected.

This new ownership, coach, and FO sticking with Teddy would be an incredibly huge red flag signalling zero change . I've been a diehard fan since day 1 and this would be hugely disappointing. Nice attitude, btw. Y'all are welcome to enjoy perpetual mediocrity if such low-hanging fruit like not starting Teddy is ignored. Been a fan since day 1 and it would be a huge gut-punch.

I really dont see how this staff trots him out again. If they do I may completely lose interest in this team.

There are 23 Assassin's Creed games? Jeebus... I lost track somewhere around 3 and 4.

What are you talking about? There are no therapeutics proven more than anecdotally effective, though things like dexamethasone and corticosteroids absolutely are utilized in attempt to counteract severe inflammatory reaction, and the many things in global trials are as much in the US as elsewhere. Trying a bunch of stuff off-label to see if anything sticks can be as detrimental to the patient as no treatment at all.

Oh good god. The problem with things like this is that there is valid information mixed in with unprovable nonsense, aka things that most folks won't bother to look into and will accept as truth. The one concern I do share in this is about the speed and rigor of the development process. These things are moving at unprecedented speeds and part of vaccine safety evaluation is long-term effect... there simply will not be long-term data when these roll out. Perhpas there will be breakthroughs and advancements in vaccine development that come from this but I've seen studies and programs for numerous vaccine IPs and it's always a horizon of years. I have other concerns as well but this is definitely my largest.

I agree with you completely in terms of medical risk if all things are equal but it's the necessity that separates them, like how shopping trips for groceries and shopping at Gucci (an extreme example but chosen for clarity) are both shopping trips but one has to happen and the other doesn't. Also, shouldn't all of the 'open back up' protests like the one in Michigan (as one example) not be included in this conversation? The ones here in Kansas were making int a point to be unmasked, even increasing the relative risks.

One is protest of injustice, the other about folks that feel like partying. What are protestors going to do? Zoom call their representatives? It's tough for me to stay objective on this topic because the two situations, civil protest (of any sort) and discretionary gathering, are not equal in any way, shape, or form.

For the sake of discussion let's say that fatality numbers are 20% too high when we factor in both deaths that aren't actually directly attributable to COVID or associated complications as well as deaths that were missed and aren't being counted... it changes nothing in the big picture since deaths are still over 110K and climbing rapidly. I also don't think the numbers are anywhere near 20% too high and again, it's about more than just deaths.

Come on now, that's a whole 1 sample more than necessary to calculate a coefficient of variance. Airtight.

You and I discussed this yesterday and you posted that same graphic, but since we already discussed it I'm not clear what you're trying to emphasize further. As I said yesterday I recognize that this is a very complicated situation and feel that weighing of all factors must come into play when performing risk/benefit analyses. Deaths are an incomplete metric, similar IMO to overall infections, and it's possible that vaccines may even be ineffective. I'm not suggesting that everyone shut in forever but a semester/year of limited action as more data are obtained may be a prudent course of action. I'm not saying there's any good or possibly even notable chance of this happening but 5/10/20 years from now it sure would suck to have strong links between COVID infection and onset of any number of debilitating conditions if a few more months of caution and data generation while folks carefully tread the line between 'old normal' and current conditions might minimize that risk. Overall, it sucks and the US seems to be performing poorly by most accepted metrics.

I'm trying to avoid any semblance of politicizing my points, both for my own objectivity and for the discussion itself, and that specific link IMO deserves objective review regardless of any political leaning since there are data cited. However, there doesn't seem to be any clear and conclusive evidence noted that masks are harmful and that definite ill effects outweigh any potential benefits.

Your own source says that droplets are large enough to be stopped by the masks, so if the viral particulates are in the droplet... the particulates are stopped/slowed as well. The whole point of the masks isn't really to protect on the inhale, though wearers benefit from a layer blocking touching of the face, it's to disrupt the exhalations of the wearer. Also, of course other methods like regular hand-washing are crucial. This whole line of thinking is silly. There is no harm in wearing one and given the rate of infection in the US masks can also cause people to just be generally more aware. From your the NEJM article quoted on your link: This is similar to how studies show that people who complete a food diary lose more weight than control groups simply because they're aware of their behaviors (https://research.kpchr.org/News/Press-Releases/CHR-Study-Finds-Keeping-Food-Diaries-Doubles-Weight-Loss). There is quite literally no downside to wearing one for most people, even if there does end up being little to no upside tied to the mask functionality.

Not sure what you're 'trying again' but as I and others have posted it's not only about deaths. A big part of this is that this infection is novel and its mechanism of action and risk factors are not yet fully clear, so no one knows what the long-term outcomes will be for either children or adults while the long-term outcomes of things like the flu are well known and documented. Even if risk of child death does end up being ultimately higher with other seasonal circulating diseases, this specific discussion continues to ignore the risks to those who works in these environments. At least, however, as adults they have the option and (seemingly) cognitive ability to weigh the risks and make their own informed decisions. Again, I speak this as someone who works in pharmaceutical development and disease research (having just left a company that is playing a large role in COVID tracking and tracing initiatives). There are comments in here about science being wrong and changing... and that's because that's what science is and does. It's about gathering information, organizing it as best it can be with what's available, and then drawing conclusions based on said information. In a dynamic situation like this one a balance must be struck between these analyses and informing action to be taken, and it does happen that new data leads to new conclusions.

I haven't advocated for anything - that's what you're projecting onto my comments. I am in the same position as millions of other parents, weighing whether we would/should send our kids back or go with home-based and accommodate accordingly. Regarding kids and permanent damage, that has been discussed here in the form of MIS-C. It is rare but can cause permanent damage. This is why I asked about acceptable risk level. Regarding your premise that online falls behind as a general outcome, please cite a source. It's certainly a complicated issue that in my experience with educators (I studied education in college and many in my family are teachers and administrators) they cite pros and cons to both, but also acknowledge that there can be confounding factors such as SES and home situations. That can't be ignored, andother studies have shown that homeschooling is as effective, if not moreso, than public education in many ways while falling short in others. A pretty balanced overview can be seen here: https://home-school.lovetoknow.com/Statistics_on_Public_School_Vs_Homeschooling Regarding daycare there is variability in state licensing requirements and how they're run but the groups are typically much smaller and spaces more controlled. I worked at a daycare for several years during college and agreed that it's conceptually the same thing but there's a notable difference between having 10-15 kids to monitor, with more than 1 adult for the younger groups, and class sizes that extend upward of 20 or 25. Regarding vaccines I'm just saying that those diseases pose a threat of permanent damage and mandatory vaccines have been instituted to mitigate it. I've no idea if a vaccine is around the corner and as someone in the dug development industry I have my concerns about the pace and rigor with which these current IPs are being developed. I'm simply pointing out how other such things have been handled in today's environment.

I have not taken any position on this subject nor moved any goalposts, though I acknowledged that the risks are as much to the adults as to the kids. However, what risk is tolerable when it comes to permanent damage to children (or anyone) for something that can be avoided by staying home/doing online schooling and should the teachers and school staff be obligated into a much higher risk situation given that kids can't be trusted to follow protocols? It's as much a philosophical question as practical one. We've been able to minimize risks of things like MMR, polio, etc through vaccines and in many places kids can't go without that protection. Should this be different when the protection is avoiding the situation?

Agreed that the risk is as much to the adults as to the students. In Florida, 1/3 of all kids currently tested are positive. Regarding masks and hygiene there is no way kids, particularly younger elementary kids, can fully comply. Many just don't have the maturity yet and can't stop themselves from doing things that would compromise the protective measures. Also, simply surviving doesn't guarantee damage-free with COVID. No one wants to see their kids with permanent effects, so even if chances are low it should be weighed. The seasonal flu doesn't leave people with wrecked lungs. Here's an article about the current Florida situation. They are an extreme example at the moment but also perhaps an indicator of where things may be headed in more places. There could also be confounding/related factors to be considered with those numbers but any way of it kids are generally in school, so any kid tested would be in that environment. I would also wonder about the timing of those positives and antibodies/re-infection risk in those who have already been infected. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-pbc-health-director-covid-children-20200714-xcdall2tsrd4riim2nwokvmsxm-story.html "State statistics also show the percentage of children testing positive is much higher than the population as a whole. Statewide, about 31% of 54,022 children tested have been positive. The state’s positivity rate for the entire population is about 11%."

I understand the statement, but what is your overall premise?