45catfan

And the Huddle would have melted down given Cam's situation. Not saying it would have been a bad move at all, but the Cam crowd would have blasted the organization for giving up on Newton too soon.

Yep, those are the very ones that are finally giving us some breathing room.

You mean CMC's and Shaq's? Those are new deals. They are on the books for a while. Also, have you even seen Watson's contract? Cap friendly this year before hitting ~$40 million a year after that. But I get it, he's going to come here, rip up his contract and graciously take a huge pay cut just because the Huddle wants it so.

After getting Watson and being cap strapped for the foreseeable future, the same people who are saying walk over broken glass an molten hot coals barefoot to make this happen will be the same ones saying we ruined another QBs career when we don't have the resources to put top-tier talent in other spots on this roster.

AND they have the cap space, draft capital and equally young QBs to swap in such a trade. WE CAN'T DO IT. Dream people. Some folks will always chase a big name, ramifications and consequences be damned. Just got rid of Hurney, Just got of rid of most of our dead cap, and finally will have some decent cap space. Nope, chase the shiny object.

Consider it, yes, but it will not happen. We finally got rid of Hurney just to screw up our next 2-3 drafts? It makes no sense.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to Humphrey in the 2nd round if he fell to us. I'm looking for a LT there, but if the value isn't there for a LT and Humphrey is still on the board...the choice would be obvious. I definitely want a center this draft, however I am targeting one in the middle rounds.

Reminds me a lot of Jordan Love last year. Lots of intrigue surrounding him, but teams aren't lining up to be grab him either. It's probably going to be the same scenario where he's taking to be the #2 guy and groomed to eventually be the #1 guy a few years later. In other words, a few select teams looking for a very specific role will end up drafting him. We need more immediate help...not necessarily this coming season, but definitely in 2022.

You won't have to convince me. Again, Lance was my QB target for this draft going back to the end of the last draft. The problem is most folks here want Bridgewater gone so badly that they want a rookie to step in and take Teddy's starting spot. That ain't happening. Is Wilson more ready to be the day one starter than Lance? Yes, 100%. However, Lance will end up being the better pro QB. He HAS TO sit a year though. Bridgewater's contract is horrendous that we kill the cap by cutting him, so he here either playing or on the bench. Might as well play him. That gives Lance at least a year to adjust to the speed of the game at this level and get a good idea how to read NFL defenses.

How is my favorite group of lefty collectivists this morning? Good? Facts Oh, on a different note, Trump is ALREADY taking credit for the few Covid-19 vaccines in the final phases before they hit production. They will be known as the Trump vaccines. Question? Will allow yourselves to be injected with a "Trump vaccine" or refuse while continuing to cower under the kitchen table with your mask, goggles, rubber gloves and can of Lysol? --Risk catching coronavirus or take a "Trump vaccine"? I thought I'd leave you with that thought this morning. Have a great day!!!!

Have fun in your echo chamber guys. I'm not wasting my time here today. Please continue...

https://nypost.com/2020/05/29/new-yorks-nursing-home-horrors-are-even-worse-than-you-think/ https://youtu.be/Tw9Ci2PZKZg The nursing home data is irrefutable and well documented. The fact you needed a link tells me everything. Nice personal attack. Not shocking, though.

Lol, linking a Google search page.

Because it has shown that up until day 6 the disease is very treatable with the HCQ protocol. Simple. It's a $20 treatment. Despite the fact to demonize it, the side effects are about nil. Why not? What's your alternative? Wait until you get hospitalized and take Redemisvir?

Typo, sorry. Would not decline and would absolutely take the protocol.

Look, we can go back and forth on this. There are sources supporting pro and con, as I could cite the Ford study....so to keep trading links amounts to a pissing contest. My question to you is if you catch this, seeking medical attention on say day 4 of feeling ill and a doctor you see prescribe the protocol for HCQ as you show the classic symptoms, will you decline it? A simple yes or no. Easy for me, I absolutely would not. <---edit. Lastly, I may make another point or two today, but as I said many, many, many pages ago....people have their minds made up, especially here on the Huddle. The idea that this was a thread of open-minded people looking for an opinion to help them on where they stand on this pandemic was lost about 400 pages ago. Trenches were dug early and only have gotten deeper.

18:40-20:12 The so-called adverse heart affects when used early in outpatient use, which is exactly what is being advocated. Half an hour long, but great overall.

Show me a study on how many people died people from heart issues when HCQ was used in COVID-19 cases. I'll wait. Again, this is being prescribed worldwide, just not for COVID-19 in certain countries. Some countries are still using it for COVID-19 treatment, however. Heck it's so dangerous, it's OTC in certain countries. It just struck me as funny that the guy banging his fists about masks is trying his best to debunk a therapeutic. Just wow.

Yet it has been around since for use in the US since 1955 and continued to be used, just not for coronavirus. Dropping dead from heart attacks was sarcasm. The "study" that had a few heart side affects was instances of heart arrhythmia, not heart attacks. I see adds for drugs on TV every day with side effects that rattle on the length of the ad, usually ending with and 'could cause death'. I guess lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients are dispensable. I mean big tech is even in on the act. Why sensor the doctors that went to DC yesterday?

Ughhh...Dr. Fauci knew that HCQ worked on the first SARS, he did work on it himself. So instead of doing his best squirrel in the street routine, he could point to that. But nah, lets roll out a new, rushed, medication out there that isn't nearly as effective, ridiculously expensive as a nod to his pals in big Pharma. Now Remdesivir is showing side effects in the liver. That's better than a skin rash I guess, which was the main side effect for years in HCQ until all of sudden it was making people drop dead with heart attacks. Well, that was the narrative for pulling it for off-label Covid-19 use. Yet lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients are just fine to continue using it. So strange right?

I'm not looking for help, because I don't need it. So why is Dr. Fauci ignoring his own findings from SARS-CoV(1) from years ago? They share 79% of the same genome. Hmmm...so odd. Though some of the 145,000+ deaths due to COVID-19 are dubious at best, even if that's taken at face value, ignoring therapeutics that have worked past and present is kinda stupid. Killing old people by sticking infected people in nursing homes also was kinda stupid. But sure, putting band aides on the problem (masks and lock downs) is the best way to tackle this. So the best way forward is assuming arbitrary barriers will stop this rather than acknowledging people will contract the virus and having the ability to treat it?

I almost pied you until the "nut job" comment, but I will give you credit for looking him up. FYI, Dr. Risch is not remotely close to the only one, however I figured 'Doctor', 'Yale', and 'School of Epidemiology' were enough credentials that you may take him a little seriously. This thread has been politicized a good deal.

Classic projection, lol! Textbook. You are not an Independent. At least drop the facade. Compared to the openly unabashed socialist moderators here on the Huddle, I guess you may be considered in the middle. Continue the echo chamber, please. Oh, I bet you didn't even bother to look up the epidemiology Dr. at Yale (Dr. Risch), did you? Why? You knew it was probably going to run contrary to what you ALREADY think. Why did I not post the link? Well, we have already gone over that haven't we? Look it up or don't, it makes zero difference to me. I'm not here to change your mind, nor do I care to.

Sorry, I won't tune it out or turn it off. Staying informed is extremely important. Being ignorant on a subject is just as bad as willingly accept being lied to. I refuse both. This is the very tact of the left. You either eat the MSM narrative up with a spoon or being so partisan and off-putting, that people just disengage all together. Either way, it's a win-win for them. That's why they shout down, discredit and completely dismiss any other outlet.

So this is how this goes down...intentionally. The MSM won't cover things that run contrary to the leftist talking points. Then other venues for news materialize. They are "right-wing" sites and left-wingers won't discuss, just besmirch and discredit. So the fanboys in the MSM won't cover issues contrary to the DNC, BUT news from other sites that aren't MSM is right-wing garbage. See how this works? It's not rocket science.