SigurdsSilverSword
No bio...
User ID: 3337
SigurdsSilverSword
7d ago
I did think that was pretty funny as well; unless either Daniel Greene or the OP speaks Korean this seems more like fun trivia than a strong reason not to cheat.
SigurdsSilverSword
7d ago
Vibes-wise, in my circles at least:
-
Russia sucks. No one likes Putin, no one thinks they're "in the right" in terms of casus belli and such. Public opinion still prefers Ukraine of the two.
-
That being said, people don't really like Ukraine as a standalone country. They support them in the war against Russia but they aren't otherwise pro-Ukraine. It's a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation - we don't like Russia, they're fighting Russia, so we support them. In many ways they're the European equivalent of the mujahideen, just with a more-visible cause and leadership. No one would support American boots on the ground.
-
The Nazis argument Russia keeps trying to stick won't work, because people know Zelenskyy is a Jew and "Nazis=Jew Haters" is ingrained to Americans (at least where I'm from) from at least middle school and quite possibly elementary school. Obviously no Jew would be a Nazi.
-
- Perhaps some of the super-left Palestine "Israel is like Nazi Germany" supporters could be convinced of a Jew leading a neo-Nazi organization; unfortunately for Putin those people also hate his guts, so he isn't likely to win their support ever.
-
I think anyone who has even remotely paid attention to the war knows that Ukraine can't really win it. Just in general people know that Russia is bigger, and the bigger side usually wins. The best Ukraine can hope to do is not totally lose - any victory condition of getting the Russians totally out of the pre-war borders are a fantasy, and anyone who looks at a map knows that Putin's a dick and Russia in generally is not known for being generous with conquered territories (see the Iron Curtain); Ukraine isn't getting that back. They're eventually going to lose the war as it stands. They have to be the side that gives up concessions if they want the fighting to end; why would Putin give stuff back when he's going to win the damn war? Logically Ukraine is going to have to give more than Russia will, because there's less incentive for Russia to end the war. If Zelenskyy is seen to be asking for obviously unacceptable conditions, people won't continue to back supporting them indefinitely if it becomes obvious they're throwing it away on impossible goals.
-
People aren't against Europe as a whole, or the alliances. We share way more cultural (and linguistic) values with them than with the alternative alliance partners. Russia we still don't like due to the Cold War, and people know China is if not the #1 country on the evil countries to worry about list, it is at worst #2.
-
People don't consider Europe as a particularly effective or particularly independent fighting force; if we were engaged in a large-scale conflict they would be looked at as smaller/less important than any individual branch of the US military. If push ever really came to shove it's expected that those militaries would shut up and get in line considering how much they rely on our support.
-
Many people do think Europe has been extremely lax with their militaries since at least the Soviets fell, and just expected the US to do the work if they were ever in trouble. The best-case scenario right now would be the Europeans take this saber-rattling as a wake-up call when they look around at their militaries and realize how weak they've become.
Some people think that the US should instead follow their lead and stop investing in our military to bolster domestic policies, but those people are morons. -
In general Europe is looked at as a great vacation spot, and full of history, but also (for lack of a better term) kinda gay. They can do the soft cultural stuff really well, but when it comes to any actual "work" Americans are just way better, with the Germans probably being the best of a poor crop out of the Euros in this regard (though CoD makes some think the Brits aren't completely useless).
Note that Europe in this context generally means Western Europe primarily, in general anything from Germany down to Italy and west, plus the Nordics (very few people could tell any differences between those cultures right now, even Finland - most wouldn't even know they have mandatory conscription, considering the only models ever cited for that are Israel and South Korea). Eastern Europeans generally have an almost reversed opinion - pretty trash culturally (no one's going to a Bulgarian restaurant), and the people are backwards, but could possibly do solid work if there were more of them.
SigurdsSilverSword
7d ago
...so this entire saga has taken place over the course of one singular week?
They really speedran this one, huh.
I like the idea here but this post could really use a round of editing.
As far as the general substance of the post, I think trying to regain the title of America's #1 sport is probably a lost cause as long as football remains dominant. I agree that the Three True Outcomes approach is the least-interesting the sport has ever been, and that the league should try to do something about it. The last time pitchers were this dominant, they lowered the mound to generate more offense. Fundamentally I think pitchers are just too skilled to hope to string together enough hits to make that the most effective strategy. I don't think limiting the velocity they throw at is realistically possible, even if that would be the best option for the health of both the league and the pitchers. Ten feet is probably too drastic to start with; I would begin with 6 feet and possibly a slightly-lowered mound before jumping a full ten feet back. That said you'd need to implement this as a trial-run in a different league first, and it 100% will cause injuries when first implemented to established veterans as they change their deliveries and grips to get their pitches to break at the right time. You mention that hammer curves will have an extra ten feet to break, which is true, but thrown as they are now those pitches will all be spiked in the dirt before they reach the batter.
I agree that the league should look into figuring out a way to get back to contact-based strategies, and they agree - that's why they went to bigger bases and banned the shift. The problem is pitchers are so good that it's hard to get any hits at all, let alone string three or four together to get a run across that way. Better off maximizing the effect of those hits by sending them 420 feet instead, even if you only get one or two instead of three, because you'll have a harder time getting those three than one long one.
Walks are the least-entertaining outcome in the game for the spectators, but not for the teams trying to win the game; ditto strikeouts, which often aren't exciting to watch (though certainly more exciting than a walk - seriously there is nothing less exciting than a walk) but aren't looked at as a personal slight the way they used to be. Striking out used to be considered dishonorable; the object of the game was to get a hit, not even managing to make contact almost made you less of a man than if you grounded out, even though both resulted in the same result (one out). There's a reason that so many MVPs of the past went to players that look extremely undeserving by WAR; no one cared about many of the stats WAR valued highly, and everyone cared batting average, a stat WAR doesn't give a fuck about. Thing is players with a high batting average are way more entertaining than a player that has a much lower average but walks enough to make up the OBP difference.
Feel like I'm kinda rambling my thoughts out here, maybe this will need an edit for clarity in an hour, but getting it down for now.
SigurdsSilverSword
12d ago
I imagine people wouldn't want to live there considering how much more time-consuming it would be to get in and out of your neighborhood.
SigurdsSilverSword
19d ago
Having not watched the original or the reboot, I didn't know what to expect; but based on that link, the main group of kids includes a transgender reality star and the female starting quarterback of the football team. Really not interested in subtlety there, huh.
SigurdsSilverSword
19d ago
Maybe just me, but if you have two different separatist states and can't put down either one, maybe your country shouldn't be just one country?
SigurdsSilverSword
20d ago
Not related entirely to the point at hand, but two things strike me from this:
-
As you say, the record-keeping required to have exact meeting minutes of a session nearly 125 years old available at the touch of a button is amazing.
-
Churchill was always an incredible speaker. The way he excoriates some of his fellows is incredible - "Indeed, if the capacity of a War Minister may be measured in any way by the amount of money he can obtain from his colleagues for military purposes, the right hon. Gentleman will most certainly go down to history as the greatest War Minister this country has ever had." He speaks only once, at the very end of this meeting, and after he's done it adjourns. He'd been an MP for all of three months.
SigurdsSilverSword
21d ago
As a pretty non-prolific contributor, I'm not sure my opinion means very much. But, here is my take. Use or discard it as you will.
AI-generated content being used by a contributor to make an argument, should not be allowed. "I think X position is correct, so I asked AI to come up with reasons to support my statement" is pointless. People don't come here to argue with AI, or to find out how AI will support an argument you ask it to; they can just go to the AI and ask it themselves. If you want to use AI to make a case for a position you hold, you should at the very least be willing to rewrite what it spits out in your own words, and own them as your own. Using AI as a tool as research to help you write your own post is fine, using it as the substance of the post itself is wrong.
AI-generated content being used by a contributor to make a critique or demonstration of AI in general (AI-meta, I suppose you could call it), in which the content of the AI is used not as a way to strengthen the poster's argument but as a topic of discussion itself, should be allowed. "I asked [specific AI] about [particular issue], it said X. I think it said this because Y" is a potentially interesting and valid discussion topic, as is the development of AI in general; these are things that can be done better with snippets that AI produces. These should be snippets, not long blocks, and should not be used to advance the argument of the post in-and-of-themselves.
SigurdsSilverSword
27d ago
Shouts to work for keeping me swamped all last week/early this week, and missing out on any posts for this past week.
Short version, I was rooting for the Bills, and was pretty ambivalent about the NFC matchup (though slightly leaning Birds for @FiveHourMarathon ). Still took the Chiefs and Iggles in my pick'em league bc the Chiefs are unkillable and the Eagles are just a better team. Turned out to be how the games went, as the Eagles offense finally showed out this postseason en route to over 50 points against the Commies whilst the Chiefs squeaked by the Bills thanks to some high-level plays and a little help from the replay booth.
This one's for all the marbles. I think the Eagles are the better overall team, but between the Chiefs' inevitability and my rule of "always be wary of the team that crushed it's opponent in the conference championship," I am leaning towards picking the Chiefs if the line is a effectively a pick'em. Of course, the last Eagles team to win the Super Bowl did blow out their NFC Championship opponent, the Vikings who snuck into that game on the Minneapolis Miracle, so whether that rule will still hold up, who knows. The Eagles have the overall team advantage, the Chiefs have arguably the two most important advantages in coaching and quarterback play (although Hurts looks to have finally gotten past the injuries I believe were hampering his performance the past few weeks, which could narrow that gap). Should be a tightly-contested game; tentatively rooting for the Eagles, but expecting a close Chiefs win because they've managed to do it all year.
SigurdsSilverSword
29d ago
The idea that Trump would be an anti-semite when his daughter converted to Judaism to marry into an Orthodox Jewish family is insane to me.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
I feel like you should mention, he was 45 when he died.
45! He did all that in only 32 years! Incredible.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
No, I agree with you that the United States going after the cartels within the boundaries of the United States is unassailable, and anyone who disagrees can get fucked. Realistically, no cartel would be willing to try the US government in open warfare or engage in national-scale terrorism because of a crackdown within the States themselves, it's a terrible proposition from their own self-interest. Any cartel that tried would be quickly and summarily destroyed. I just don't think invading Mexico - which would be what using significant military force inside their borders without the consent or approval of their government (cartel-ridden though it is) would be - would be a short- or medium-term positive for the United States. In the long term, a Mexico purged of all cartel influence would be a great thing for all concerned, but it would require significant investments in both blood and treasure to both clear out the cartels, stamp out their insurgency, and then stamp out the insurgency of disgruntled Mexicans who would legitimately be attacking a foreign invader in this scenario. You'd likely get multiple significant terrorist attacks, considering the materiel the cartels have their hands on and their already-existing routes into the country. They have no qualms killing their own people, don't think they'd think twice about mass acts of terrorism against Americans if they're already openly fighting the US Government.
In short, cartels of US soil are fair game, FAFO. Cartels in Mexico (ie not our territory), particularly all the cartels at once, would imo be disastrous without the full support of the Mexican government and people.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
Anyone having an issue with the US going after cartel activity on it's own soil is completely delusional. If the Mexican government protested the eradication of Mexican cartels in US territory, we can and should tell them to get fucked.
Trying to stomp out the cartels in Mexico would almost certainly mean guerilla/insurgent fighting with them. They already have trafficking networks set up to infiltrate the US, changing from material to materiel trafficking probably wouldn't be that difficult. Invading the country with a large-scale force will absolutely engender resentment from many, particularly as collateral damage begins to mount (which it almost certainly will). Do we really want a neighbor with established infiltration routes and a population of disaffected young men with military hardware?
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
The legacy of Carter the man is generally very positive. The legacy of Carter the President is generally quite negative - he's always considered the worst of any modern-day (ie post-1900) Democrat. He got demolished in his reelection bid, easily the worst performance by an incumbent in American history.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
Nope, they went to just Denali. Which doesn't give much insight into what Denali is, considering I'd put conversational knowledge of the particular Inuit language it's called that in at... what, .001% of Americans?
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
I'm on board with returning to Mount McKinley - big fan of mountains having Mount in their name in the first place, Denali could be anything (as someone else said, it sounds more like a festival than it does a mountain). I'd be okay with Mount Denali but there was no good reason to rename it to just Denali imo.
Gulf of America is dumb. It's not returning to the previous name, like Mount McKinley - it's been the Gulf of Mexico since the birth of the nation. And more importantly, it doesn't flow as well imo. The Gulf of Mexico even describes it much better, seeing as it encompasses so much of the Mexican coastline compared to American. Seems like an unnecessary and counterintuitive change.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
Turns out we ended having some better games this week than I expected! I agree that the officiating fiascos of the Chiefs-Texans didn't effect the outcome - I think the Chiefs win that game regardless - but it may have made it a more interesting game, rather than an easy victory(plus I could've hit my league pick at Texans +8.5 instead of losing due to a missed field goal! So frustrating). The Lions and Commies game was much better than I expected. The Commies' defense really came to play, racking up five (!) total turnovers against the potent Detroit offense. The Detroit defense... not so much. Jayden Daniels sure looks like the truth - and while my fears of him being too slight to run at the pace he does haven't been proven totally unjustified, unless there's a catastrophic one in his near future he looks like he'll be a top QB for a long time. That being said, between Detroit and Tampa the Commanders have faced some pretty weak defenses in their run to the NFC Championship Game, something that will change when they head to Philly for their third matchup with the Eagles this Sunday.
The Eagles were able to handle business against the Rams, although they made you sweat it out at the end. Jalen Carter looks like one of if not the most disruptive interior guys in the league now that Aaron Donald has retired (ironically showing out against Donald's former team). Howie Roseman should thank his lucky stars Georgia's athletics department doesn't install a speed limiter on their player's cars. Als, bit of a sidenote but can we talk about how Philly managed to get all the best players from that Georgia Bulldogs squad? Jordan Davis, Nakobe Dean, Jalen Carter - they were the best players on the best defense in college football, and somehow the Eagles managed to land all of them. Even Nolan Smith had a sack! Craziness. Who would've thought "take all the good players from the best defense in college football" was a winning strategy? Apparently not other GMs, seeing as none of them did. Sometimes these teams overthink things. Back to the game, the Rams led a valiant comeback effort but it wasn't enough to overcome Saquon Barkley's two long touchdowns, including a 70-yarder to put the team up two scores. Jalen Hurts continues to look extremely pedestrian in the playoffs - the Eagles netted just 65 passing yards - but "just don't fuck up and we'll win" is a hard strategy to argue with considering how well it's worked for them so far. Plus, he added in his own long TD run to pitch in as well. Jake Elliot has been pretty shaky all year, and it hasn't come back to bite them yet. We'll see if they can keep overcoming him leaving points on the board.
The marquee Game of the Week was universally considered Ravens-Bills, and it absolutely lived up to the hype. A fantastic game, featuring both great and terrible displays of defense and offense on both sides of the ball, with some minor and balanced reffing issues thrown in. Lamar Jackson has continued to build his playoff narrative for both his supporters and detractors. His supporters will say that overall, he played a pretty good game, particularly in the second half as the Ravens chased the game; it was his receivers, particularly former All-Pro Mark Andrews who lost a pivotal fumble on a great punchout by Bills LB Terrel Bernard and dropped the game-tying two-point conversion. His detractors will say that his two awful first-half turnovers (a bad interception and an even-worse fumble) are the reason the Ravens were chasing the game in the first place. I tend to lean more towards the latter than the former - they were truly awful turnovers, particularly the fumble. I have a hard time absolving him of the blame when he played a big part in the loss. And it's hard for me to say the team (bar Andrews, who truly had just an awful day) let him down. Henry ran for over five yards a carry, it wasn't on him (although he also had a drop on a not-perfect, but catchable ball). His line played pretty well; he had all day to throw that last touchdown, it was incredible. Josh Allen, meanwhile, did just enough for the team to win, grabbing a solid lead in the first half and never relinquishing it. There are definitely quibbles to be had with how the Bills gameplanned the second half, as their offense seemed to be in ball-control mode from the opening possession rather than going for the kill; but they ended up winning, so it worked out for them. Both teams got screwed by one call (the Ravens on a phantom DPI and the Bills on a phantom hold, both off the turnovers in the first half), so the refs did not play any factor in the outcome, to my mind. In the end, the Ravens looked like they're probably the more talented team that just shoots itself in the foot at important moments, which has been the book on them since Lamar's first MVP season back in 2019. Also, just for the record - even if Mark Andrew catches that ball, Josh Allen and the Bills would have had over a minute thirty and two timeouts to get into field goal range and win the game. Do you really think they wouldn't have been able to do it? They had just gotten a chip-shot field goal on their last possession. The discourse around the play has been that it single-handedly lost the game for the Ravens - and while it was the final nail in the coffin, I firmly believe they would have lost even if he held on. Hell, it didn't even give them the lead! It was only to TIE the game, not win it! Overtime is basically a coin flip for these two, so their chances imo went from maybe 25% down to 1. A huge play, to be sure, but less impactful than Lamar's fumble (and Andrews' own, to be honest, although that was a fantastic punch on the ball by Bernard while Lamar just straight-up dropped the ball on the turf for no reason).
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
The divisional round will be upon us tomorrow! Lots of familiar faces left in the AFC; in fact this is only the second time in its history that all four finalists from last year made it back to the Divisional Round. The NFC has a lot more turnover, with only the now top-seeded Lions returning from the contenders last year. Let's dive right into the slate:
Houston Texans (+8.5) @ Kansas City Chiefs: After taking care of business at home with a dominant second half against the favored Chargers (rip @Hoffmeister25), the Texans now face a showdown with my Super Bowl favorite, the top-seeded Chiefs. The dominance of the Chiefs in recent years is hard to overstate: they've made four of the past five Super Bowls, winning three, and are on the hunt to be the first team in the history of the league to win three in a row. They seemingly sleepwalked their way to a 15-1 record this season before laying off the gas and resting everyone of importance in their final game to keep the rival Bengals out of the playoffs. They have the unquestioned best QB, a coach making his case not only as a Hall of Famer but as a GOAT contender, a stifling defense, their best pass catcher dating the biggest superstar in the world, and this year even the hand of God on their side. Seriously, they got to 15-1 with some of the luckiest wins you can think of - a toenail out of bounds, a dropped snap, a blocked field goal, the amount of lucky breaks the Chiefs have had go their way make you believe this team might actually be blessed (whether by God or the devil is probably based on your perspective). There aren't many giving the Texans much of a chance against this Juggernaut, but led by second-year standouts QB CJ Stroud and DE Will Anderson the Texans aren't planning to roll over just yet. Even so, it's hard for me to think they stand a real chance of beating these Chiefs. The spread makes it a much more interesting call. The Chiefs haven't been blowing teams out this year; they only one three games by more than one score, and only one of those was against a team that would make (or even come close to making) the playoffs - the Steelers, whose team nosedived in the last part of the year. In their game less than a month ago (also at Arrowhead), the Chiefs won by 8 - our math-inclined friends will notice this wouldn't cover the current spread. My prediction: Chiefs win, Texans cover.
Washington Commanders (+9.5) @ Detroit Lions: Rookie sensation Jayden Daniels continues to lead the Commies to new heights, as they've earned their first trip to the divisional game in almost 20 years. They'll have a tough task in the top-seeded Lions, who dismantled the Vikings in their most recent game and will get back talented running back David Montgomery in a win that looks a little less convincing after the Vikings' subsequent implosion against the Rams this past Monday, but still gives some reinforcement to how good they've been all year. While their defense remains injured to hell and back, they at least saw the return of Alex Anzalone steady the interior of the defense against the Vikings, something that could prove crucial in stopping the non-Terry McLaurin parts of Washington's passing attack. The Commander's defense, meanwhile, inspires little confidence that it will be able to stop the best offense in the league, absolutely chock-ful of weapons and led by the resilient Jared Goff at QB, supported by a line that if not the best in the league is at worst top-2. While their defense hasn't been on that level, they should be able to handle what is essentially a two-man Washington offense (WR Terry McLaurin and the aforementioned Daniels) enough that their offense can win this game without too much trouble.
Los Angeles Rams (+6) @ Philadelphia Eagles: After a week dealing with the LA wildfires ravaging the city and forcing the game out of Sofi, the Rams said fuck this noise and hammered the Vikings, considered one of the top teams in the conference. In the span of eight days, the Vikings went from playing for the one seed to out of the playoffs entirely (with free-agent-to-be Sam Darnold likely losing himself millions if not tens-of-millions of dollars in the process); life comes at you fast. A fairly mediocre defense during the season, the Rams dismantled a Vikings offense that had looked potent before their ten-day collapse; they managed to tie the playoff record with NINE sacks of Darnold. Now they come up against another of the best teams in the conference in @FiveHourMarathon 's Eagles, who are coming off a fairly easy win over the Packers in a game that felt decided after the opening kickoff. Despite a pretty painless walk to the finish, the Eagles' inability to bury the Pack after a nightmare first half was pretty confusing to some, including yours truly; they may have felt as most of us watching did (ie that as long as they didn't try and hand the game directly to the Pack, they could mosey to a win without much trouble), but it was odd that they never seemed to want to go for the killshot and just let them bleed out. A pedestrian outing by QB Jalen Hurts and newly-revealed bookworm AJ Brown didn't matter much in this game, but a better performance out of the passing game will likely be needed to beat a Rams team with a lot of playoff experience on the offensive side between renowned head coach Sean McVay, QB Matt Stafford and former Super Bowl MVP Cooper Kupp, plus fantastic second-year receiver Puka Nacua and solid RB Kyren Williams. They're not quite as good as Philly's Big Three weapons in Saquon, Brown and WR Devonta Smith, but it's a very strong group. Philly will have a much more pronounced advantage in the less-sexy parts of their team; they continue to have arguably (see my comment on Detroit) the best offensive line in the league and a smothering defense, two things that have not been the case for the Rams this season. I expect Philly's offense to give a better showing than it did against the Packers, and as long as they don't fall asleep against the Ram's excellent passing attack they should control this game (though not quite to the degree they did against the Packers). I'll pick them both to win and cover the spread.
Baltimore Ravens (-1) @ Buffalo Bills: The marquee matchup of the week. The two top MVP candidates face off for a trip to face the Chiefs in the AFC Championship game. Unquestionably the most hyped playoff match of the year so far. These two played in September, with the Ravens smoking the Bills 35-10 in either Josh Allen's worst or second-worst game of the year - he had a rough two-week stretch between this game and the following one against the Texans (who coincidentally are also left in the bracket); of course, both teams have played a lot of ball since then, and relying too much on a game three and a half months ago to predict the playoff rematch isn't wise. Both teams looked good in the wild card, rolling to easy victories over the Steelers and Broncos, respectively. Personally I think the Ravens are probably the better overall team, but the margins are slim enough that the home-field advantage might really matter, particularly for a cold weather team like the Bills. My head says the Ravens are the smart choice, but despite my Jets fandom my heart is pulling for the Bills. Personally I think Josh Allen deserves the MVP (due in part to thinking the Ravens are the better overall team), which shouldn't factor into predicting this game specifically but (even though it has no effect on the voting, which was already completed) still makes it really hard to pick his biggest competitor over him; plus, the Bills are too good to be an underdog at home to anyone in my view. In the end, I'll take @Walterodim (and my girlfriend's) Bills to win outright.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
How do you feel having seen that game in person? It felt like the Eagles should have buried the Pack a lot earlier, and they just kinda chose not to go for it and just play it safe. Which, fair, they still won and it never felt like the game was in doubt; sometimes that's all you need. They'll be the favorites against whoever ends up winning tonight, but they feel like they have another level yet to reach.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
receive both the credit and the success he was denied by his first few years under a rudderless and inept regime.
Herbert haters remain undefeated!
Seriously though, he seems to be overrated by the "football nerd" class and underrated by the bar-watchers. Like he's clearly good, but he's not on the level of the real elite guys. A back half of the top 10 type guy, rather than a front half.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
It seems to me that often as not tragedies make teams/players more connected as a unit, rather than preoccupied with their off-field lives (as I would be - if my house burned down you can bet my focus at work would slip that week.) So for now I'll stay with my original prediction (even though most of them this week have been wrong!)
What a regular season! It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Well, that's not entirely true - as a Jets fan it was pretty much all the worst of times after boat racing the Pats in week 3 (though at least my fantasy teams did well?). But now we're onto the teams that aren't abominable dumpster fires, at least most of the time. Spreads are taken from my (just for fun) Yahoo pick'em league - I don't gamble but it gives a good indication of what people are thinking for the matchups. (for those who don't know, spreads are effectively the margin by which teams are expected to win. If a spread is -7 for example, a team has to win by more than 7 points to win the bet. Negative numbers mean the team has to win by more than that amount, while a positive number means a team has to either win or lose by less than that amount. If the team wins by exactly the amount, its a push and the bet is returned.) Many thanks for the format!
Kansas City Chiefs: They Can't Keep Getting Away With It, and yet somehow they do. After completely laying down against the Broncos (even compared to other teams that rested their starters), the Chiefs have shown that they are not only the best at winning; they're also the best at tanking (RIP to the Bengals' playoff hopes, and may their defense be executed for crimes against humanity). Seriously, all the teams that blew their chances at the #1 overall pick should take some notes (Giants/Raiders/Pats, I'm talking to you). Similar to the Steelers of a few years ago being "the worst 10-1 team of all time", the Chiefs' performance this season has to put them as one of if not the worst 15-1 team of all time (excluding the last game). Time and time again they snatched victory from the jaws of defeat (as opposed to my Jets, who remained the experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory during the most depressing season of my fandom). Between their overwhelming dominance of the league by the slimmest of margins the past couple years (and the Travis Kelce-Taylor Swift relationship that still sticks in the craw of many for some reason), most fans of the NFL are sick of the Chiefs - but they just keep winning, and are my favorites for the Super Bowl until someone finally manages to slay the dragon (and even then, they better make sure it's dead - I'm not counting them out until the clock hits zeroes).
Detroit Lions: After a dominating second half against their surprising contender, the Lions finally managed to secure the top spot in their best season since the merger (at least). No one needed the first-round bye more than the heavily injured Lions, who hope to have star running back David Montgomery back for the playoffs. If you found it hard to notice his absence, blame other star running back Jahmyr Gibbs, who showed himself more than capable of handling the load in Montgomery's absence. The Lions are stacked throughout the offensive roster, with top pass catchers, a kick-ass offensive line, and the best running back room in the league by a wide margin, led by the resurgent Jared Goff. Their defense has been absolutely crushed by injuries, but looked strong against the potent Vikings offense last week. If not for the Chiefs' devil magic, the Lions would be my favorites for the Super Bowl.
Wildcard Games:
Los Angeles Chargers (-3) @ Houston Texans (Sat, 4:30 ET): The Houston Texans and hosting the early Saturday wild card timeslot: name a more iconic duo, I'll wait. Seriously, the Texans have played in this time slot literally every time they've made the playoffs. In what was expected by many to be a rebuilding year in their first year with new coach Jim Harbaugh, the Chargers have exceeded expectations to get this far in a tough division featuring two other playoff teams. They face off against the Texans, who despite winning what remains the worst division in the league did not look particularly convincing doing it. Last year's rookie phenom CJ Stroud took a step backwards this year despite the addition of talented WR Stefon Diggs, even before Diggs tore his ACL halfway through the year. As a whole, after exceeding expectations with both a rookie head coach and QB last year the entire team seems to have hit a sophomore slump. They are still the more talented team, but Harbaugh is a damn good coach who's been here before, and the Chargers have played above their level all season while the Texans haven't looked good in over a month. I would take the Chargers to win, and even with the point spread the Chargers would still be my choice.
Pittsburgh Steelers (+10) @ Baltimore Ravens (Sat, 8:00 ET): In their third matchup of the year, these two will face off in Baltimore once again, where the Ravens handled the Steelers just three weeks ago. These two teams seem to be heading in opposite directions, with the Ravens defense finding itself after a rough first half and the Steelers offense collapsing after a strong start with Russ. In fact, the Steelers enter the postseason on a four-game losing streak after a brutal schedule to end the season, facing the Eagles, Ravens, Chiefs and Bengals in succession. Lamar and the Ravens have not been able to elevate their play in the postseason, and Ravens-Steelers games have tended to be close slugfests throughout their history. This year however, the Steelers seem to be just about out of gas, while the Ravens are hitting their stride. I expect the Ravens to come out on top, while the Yinzers continue to question their team's inability to make the divisional round (if they'd like to move on from Tomlin as they seem to argue for every year, I'd take him on the Jets in a heartbeat). Against the spread, 10 points is a lot, particularly for a divisional playoff game; while I expect the Ravens to win, I would probably lean towards grabbing the points.
Denver Broncos (+9) @ Buffalo Bills (Sun, 1:00 ET): The Broncos demolished the preseason-level Chiefs last week to squeeze out the last playoff spot. Their reward is to face the Buffalo Bills and likely MVP Josh Allen (I would give it to him, personally). The Bills have had some of the most impressive wins of the season this year, handing the Chiefs their only full-blooded loss and beating the other #1 seed Lions in a thriller. However, they have a clear Achille's heel, and in their case it's less a heel than it is an Achille's left arm: the Bills' defense has been unable to stop anyone except my inept Jets all season. They lost to the Rams despite Josh scoring six touchdowns, and gave up six TDs to the Lions in that thrilling game. The Broncos have a competent-if-not-awe-inspiring offence, and a more-than-competent defense; the Bills D is probably the worst unit in this game. Even so, it's hard to pick against Josh Allen here; he's been able to carry them this far, and the Broncos have generally not looked good against other good teams this year. Additionally, their best player on defense, cornerback Pat Surtain, will have a limited impact in this game as the Bills don't have a true #1 WR for him to erase - Amari Cooper is generally considered their best, but his impact has been limited since he came over from Cleveland in a midseason trade; their most-used receivers have been third-year slot man Khalil Shakir (by targets and yards) and Eagles castoff Mack Hollins (by TDs), neither of whom are particularly frightening. No one on the Bills reached 1000 yards receiving, and Hollins led them in TDs with all of five. They barely even had a 1000-yard rusher, with James Cook managing only 9 past that mark (though he did lead the league with 16 rushing TDs). This team has been nothing but Josh Allen, and I have to back him to carry them through this matchup with a decent, but not inspiring Broncos team. With the points, however, 9 is a lot to give up for a team that doesn't have a strong defense; I would likely take the Broncos to cover.
Green Bay Packers (+4.5) @ Philadelphia Eagles (Sun, 4:30 ET): In a rematch of the second game of the season, a green team with a 26-year-old mobile quarterback, a strong offensive line, an overload of weapons in the passing game and a rejuvenated veteran RB in his first year on a good team faces off against a green team with a 26-year old mobile quarterback (fun fact, Hurts is about two months older than Jordan Love), a strong offensive line, an overload of weapons in the passing game and a rejuvenated veteran RB in his first year on a good team. While that's a bit reductive, the two teams do legitimately have a number of parallels; the Eagles are (imo) basically a better version of the Packers. The Packers have 4 #2-quality receivers (or did, before Christian Watson went down), looking to overwhelm you with options; the Eagles have 2 #1 quality WRs, forcing you to choose which one to focus on while the other beats your worst corner. The Packers have a continuous tradition of having a top-10 offensive line; the Eagles have a continuous tradition of having a top-3 offensive line. The Packers went out and got Josh Jacobs in free agency coming off a down year in a terrible organization; the Eagles went out and got Saquon. Everything the Packers do, the Eagles seem to do better. Both have solid defenses, but the Eagles is (again) just a better one than the Packers. They are the better team on paper, and should win this game. The one place the Eagles have a disadvantage, in my opinion, is coaching: I would rather have Matt LaFleur than the oft-maligned Nick Sirianni. Unfortunately for them, coaching is one of the more significant areas to have that disadvantage; that said, they're so talented it's hard for me to really argue the other way. I'd take the Eagles to win the game and cover the spread.
Washington Commies (+3) @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Sun, 8:00 ET): In one of the biggest surprises of the season, the Commies rode rookie QB Jayden Daniels and new HC Dan Quinn to the playoffs after being one of the worst teams in the league last year. Although they did have to pull out some improbable wins (including a Hail Mary) to get here, they are by no means undeserving; it was clear pretty early that they were legitimately a good team, and other than when Daniels was limited with a rib injury they looked good pretty much the whole season through. The Bucs had an interesting season, handing the Eagles their only real ass-kicking of the year but playing below-.500 during their rough early schedule before rolling through the easier back half to clinch the (weak) NFC South once again behind touchdown king Baker Mayfield, 11-time 1000-yard receiver Mike Evans, and a combo of WR Chris Godwin (before a season-ending knee injury) and rookies Bucky Irving and Jalen McMillan, who took off after Godwin went down. I would back the Bucs, but this is probably the weakest matchup in the NFC, only rivalled by Chargers-Texans for weakest overall.
Minnesota Vikings (+1) @ Los Angeles Rams (Mon, 8:00 ET): After a horrific offseason featuring (among other things) the season-ending injury of first-round rookie QB JJ McCarthy and the death of fourth-round rookie DB Khyree Jackson (car accident), it's safe to say things were not looking up for the Vikings entering the year. While they still featured All-World WR Justin Jefferson and a good OL, their offseason additions of aging and injury-prone RB Aaron Jones and retread QB Sam Darnold (who was expected to be replaced at some point by McCarthy before his knee went pop) on one-year contracts did not inspire confidence that this team could improve on the one that lost QB Kirk Cousins to a monster contract from the Falcons. In a remarkable turnaround, probable Coach of the Year Kevin O'Connell rallied the team and they came out firing, winning nine straight games after losing to the eventual #1 seed Lions in week 1. Sam Darnold turned in by far the best year of his career, throwing for over 4000 yards and 35 touchdowns en route to a likely Comeback Player of the Year award and a large payday this offseason. The team finished with 14-3 record, their best in more than 25 years. In the last game of the year, they played the division rival Lions with a chance at the #1 seed; however, after a close first half in which the Vikings couldn't find the end zone the Lions (and standout RB Jahmyr Gibbs) ran away with the game in the second half. They will try to bounce back this week against the Los Angeles Rams, who overcame the retirement of all-world DT Aaron Donald and a horrific start to the season that saw standout WRs Cooper Kupp and Puka Nacua both miss several games to win the mediocre NFC West. Sean McVay continues to be one of the best coaches in the league, and the offense led by veteran QB Matt Stafford was supplemented by a hungry young defense, particularly a defensive line that remained strong even after Donald's retirement due to second-year DT (and talented singer) Kobie Turner and rookies Braden Fiske and probable Defensive Rookie of the Year Jared Verse. This should be an interesting game, as the two coaches know each other very well; O'Connell served as the Rams' offensive coordinator in their Super Bowl-winning season before accepting the head coaching job with the Vikings. While the Vikings have been a very strong team throughout the season, the emotional letdown of losing the #1 seed to the Lions has me worried about a potential hangover in this one against a Rams team that, while young on the surface, retains plenty of institutional playoff knowledge with McVay, Stafford and Kupp. Many of the Vikings' important pieces have never been important pieces on playoff teams; how will they respond? With the line of 1 implying this as basically a pick'em, this is considered the most even matchup of any, and it's definitely the one I have the hardest time choosing. In the end, I think I'll go with the Rams' experience taking it over the Vikings, but my confidence level is not high.
In the Commie's case, Fedex Field (or whatever they're calling it now) is falling apart to the point that:
-
Sewage occasionally leaks onto fans.
-
The hot water stopped working in the locker rooms.
-
A railing broke and fans fell onto the field, almost landing on Jalen Hurts.
-
The playing surface was famously awful for years. It famously bears part of the blame for RGIII destroying his name (personally his being allowed to pay at all on an unstable knee was the biggest fuckup in my opinion, but the shitty field definitely didn't help). By midseason it looked worse than many high-school fields. They did renovate the field a couple years ago and I haven't heard complaints since, so this problem seems like it may have been fixed.
Some of the seat views are obstructed. They've somehow managed to lose 30,000 seats of capacity since it opened. Not that they've needed it considering the team's ineptitude and the subpar stadium experience, but still. Also, while not the stadium itself's fault, it's located in a high-crime area. Doesn't have the surrounding development that more modern stadiums try to cultivate.
Honestly, the fact it's fallen apart so quickly considering it was only built in 1997 is almost impressive. I don't know if they just straight-up didn't have a maintenance department under Snyder or what, but a stadium shouldn't be in this bad of a condition after less than 30 years.
As to their name, I don't type out Redskins anymore when referring to them but I definitely think it when I think of them, and will slip up often when just saying it off the top of my head. Same for the Cleveland Guardians - they were the Indians through all my formative years, including when I had a personal connection to the team; internally, they're still the Indians even if I type out Guardians and understand the change (Chief Wahoo was pretty bad). With time that might change, although the looming potential name change from Commanders->whatever else doesn't encourage too much reprogramming (although the Washington Commies is definitely fun).
I estimate public construction projects in a major Democratic city, which has plenty of bureaucracy baked in. Our general job costs (project managers, project-related office spaces, permits, etc.) usually comes out to about 12% of the total, assuming we actually want the job. Additional overhead/profit is usually another about 15-20% on top of it (note the profit part of that calculation, which theoretically shouldn't exist for nonprofit government grants).
I don't know how universities are run, but there's no reason I can think of that they should need 70% additional funds beyond the cost of the research itself unless the original grants include almost none of the actual funds. That's an extreme number.
More options
Context Copy link