1of10Charnatives

Not debatable on legitimate merit. Very much debatable through misinformation, lack of facts and distortion. There is no hard data that gives merit to the argument not getting vaccinated is in the overall public interest. Failing to do so is recklessly endangering others lives and health. Continuing to believe and tout non scientific propaganda and misinformation falls into the same category. There are good reasons Zod won't allow it.

Isn't the phrase "fat jets fan" redundant?

Don't be that guy?

obvious troll is obvious.

Are the Jets even really worthy of this? I mean, nobody bothers to hate the Washington Generals do they?

This. Not wearing a motorcycle helmet is just natural selection at work. Not getting vaxxed is recklessly endangering others. And no it's not debatable on the facts. Anti vaxxers can make all the propaganda based appeals to emotion they want, the verifiable facts say otherwise.

I have a strong sneaking suspicion that thorough review and analysis would reveal that in the current era, kicks should pretty much never be returned from the end zone. When I watch games, the number of times a returned kick comes up short of the 25 yard marker seems to significantly outweigh the number of times a returner gets beyond that line. Can we all just agree that being a kick returner is now more or less a formality and the only thing that really matters is holding onto the ball?

In the entire history of the NFL, has 5-11, ever earned a team the top pick or been the worst record in teh league? Even a tie for worst record in the league? If, as I suspect, the answer is no, then ESPN feels confident in trotting out one projection of many simulations they run that results in a HIGHLY improbable five way tie for worst record, a result that has never come close to occuring? Yeah, ESPN just click bating with this nonsense. What a bunch of maroons.

Here's the thing: To my mind, there is a meaningful and qualitative difference between keeping a rookie on the bench in favor of a solid if unspectacular veteran, a guy who won't make big plays but also can be counted on to not make major mistakes, vs keeping a rookie on the bench in favor of a guy everyone can see is just plain bad. I'm thinking here of Whitehead, Elflin, etc. Opposing teams will target these players for matchups because the game film shows them to be easily beatable. They become the point of attack for the other team. In this scenario I favor just letting the rookie play on the theory they will at least learn and improve faster being out there than sitting on the bench. I am dubious of the notion that Deonte Brown would net be a bigger liability than Elflin even if he's a clueless rookie. Would I start Brown over say John Miller, who seems to fall into more of the decent but unspectacular mold? No, but over a player who is just plain bad? Why the @#%$ not?

Instead of trying to setup an obviously absurd false equivalency in which your premise is that if any players who are vaccinated miss any games that the vaccine is pointless, lets agree that if the majority of the games missed due to COVID list are unvaxxed players, you'll admit you're an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about? Your whole premise is the kind of thing a third grader can figure out is laughably absurd and your grasp of math and decision making processes are indicative of low intelligence, low information thinking and it's consequences.

According to what you've written here, the idea of taking action to reduce the odds of something happening is an alien concept to you. Have fun with that.

I'm on a boat.

People still watch baseball?

I mean.... If they aren't ignoring it now, I'd honestly hate to see what ignoring it actually looked like. It's very hard to argue they've made legitimate efforts to provide the kind of protection you'd hope to get for a new QB in his first season with the team. Drafting one mid round and one late round rookies and adding free agents that exactly zero independent observers are impressed with as legitimate starters? This after the unit has been repeatedly awful for several seasons in a row? What argument that you would expect an informed neutral observer to accept would you put forward that they have not ignored the OL?

This I would do for a quality LT, and I like DJ.

Nah. I wanted Sewell BAD in the draft. I lit up the Buffalo Wild Wings in Richmond I got stuck watching the draft in with unprintable words when the Lions took him, but he is still only a promising rookie. Moton is a proven quality tackle in his prime. We'd be trading the bird in the hand for one in the bush and no matter how promising Sewell looked in college, remember that his chances of ever being better than what Moton currently is are slim.

Considering these two actors wound up married, I wonder how Kit Harrington feels about hearing that line for literally THE REST OF HIS LIFE. Cause we all know it's a given.

It does matter. In the NFL it is extremely hard to continuously gain yards after the catch without at least putting a few over the top. If you never beat teams over the top, they just keep cheating their coverage to stopping underneath more and more and YAC approach gets harder and harder. Darnold appears to have the arm to air it out and with our receiving corps he has the weapons. The question is, does he have an OL that can give him the time? With what we're starting the season, the answer appears almost certainly to be no. If Christensen and Brown develop quickly and learn the playbook unusually fast, perhaps by midseason that will start to change, but I for one do not really want to regularly test whether Cam Irving and Matt Paradis can give Darnold 3 or even 4 seconds in the pocket against a quality pass rush.

I feel like Bonnafon has done enough in the past and shown enough that if they were gonna carry 3 RB's they would have kept him. Keeping only 2 RB's when your stud was injured most of the season and his backup is a rookie worries me. I do like what I've seen out of Chuba a lot but.... ...oh wait, I just remembered, RB is the one position where you can go find a guy on Monday from the street who can get you 4 yards a carry next Sunday. We're good.

Yeah but it's the kind of thing they can't even argue. It's well documented and it's @#$%ing Santa Claus. There's just nothing you can say, it's unavoidably, inexcusably awful and there's no getting around it.

... ... ... @#$%! You got me there.

Any argument I've ever had with any Eagles fan about anything I always win, and I win with this trump card: "STFU up man, you're the people who threw batteries and snowballs at @#%$ing Santa Claus, for @#%$ sake! When your fans have figured out how to be real human beings, get back to me, til then you're a joke."

Well kind of my underlying point was, given the demand for good tackles, I kind of doubt there is anyone out there worth having that we could acquire for anything we're willing to give up for a non starter. I just think any team with quality OT backups is already keenly aware that they are only one bad play away from that player protecting their QB. I doubt they're gonna give up that backup tackle for anything reasonable, and let's be blunt here, the few organizations dumb enough to do so aren't the kind that tend to have quality depth. Do YOU want whoever is the Jets/Jags/Lions backup swing OT?

So if a trade is coming to address linebacker I'm all for it. But I'm curious, can anyone identify a back OT around the league who would likely be available for trade assets reasonable for a non starter?

Can he play LT? Sorry couldn't resist.