SigurdsSilverSword
No bio...
User ID: 3337
SigurdsSilverSword
14d ago
Not OP but I imagine his argument would be that the policies of 1960's Democrats would have more in common with today's Republicans than today's Democrats.
SigurdsSilverSword
15d ago
After looking like the worst team in the league the first half of the season, the Panthers have been sneakily competent so far in the back half. Their last three games have been against division leaders, and they lost all three by one score (including one in overtime). They may be a trap game but have been playing their best ball of the season lately. Bryce Young looks like a different player after his benching, and Canales deserves a lot of credit not only for that, but also for getting a full buy-in from the team. The Panthers are playing hard, and while they've come up short in these last few games and moral victories aren't "real" ones, it is absolutely encouraging for Panthers fans that they've been really striving for these games. It can be easy for a team like this to give up on the season - just look at the Giants.
As for MVP, even with the loss it feels to me like it's Allen's to lose at this point. Lamar will struggle to win the division at this point, which would make his candidacy non-viable. Saquon has been absolutely incredible, but I don't think the narrative for him has been that he is the only guy carrying the Eagles, the way Adrian Peterson was the entire offense for the Vikings back when he won. I think the Eagle's embarrassment of riches across the offense will hurt his candidacy. Meanwhile, Allen's supporting skill position cast on the Bills has been below-average, with one of the worst WR rooms in the league prior to the addition of Amari Cooper at the deadline (who has not done much as a Bill, either) - their most-played WR is former Eagles castoff Mack Hollins. James Cook has been good, but not to the point of overcoming their receiving shortcomings. And everyone watched Allen attempt to drag that team kicking and screaming to a victory Sunday night all by his lonesome, which will play well in the minds of the voters even though he couldn't quite manage it in the end.
SigurdsSilverSword
20d ago
Imagine after all the losses they took in regaining them, France sells Alsace-Lorraine back to Germany to keep their economy afloat.
Not a likely scenario by any means, but could you imagine?
SigurdsSilverSword
29d ago
Re: Daniel Jones cap manipulation, if they benched him for the season and released him next year with a post-June 1st designation they would be able to manipulate his dead cap situation; this is what the Broncos did with Russ, and why they didn't release him until the new league year started in March instead of when they benched him late last year. The downside to that is they would have to carry his full cap hit as if he wasn't released until June 1st*, so it might hamper their free agency plans to do it that way, but it would mean they can split his dead cap over 2025 and 2026 instead of just in 2025. His dead cap isn't insurmountable, though, so it isn't that big a deal to carry it all next year. (For comparison's sake, Russ was designated a post-June 1 cut by the Broncos; this didn't impact their FA since his dead cap this year was exactly the same as a post-June 1 cut as it would have been if he was on the roster, but by cutting him as a post-June 1st in March instead of releasing him in December his dead cap is spread over this year and next instead of taking a full $85MM dead cap hit this year, which would have made it almost impossible to field a competitive team).
The manipulation is that by benching him it makes him drastically less likely to get seriously hurt and activate the injury guarantee, which would guarantee him an additional $23MM next year. This is why they benched him in the first place (and why Russ was benched, and why the Raiders benched Derek Carr in 2022); they didn't want to be stuck paying him even more next year when they want to move on from him. Moving to Tommy Devito instead of Drew Lock, who was the No. 2 all year, makes it even more suspicious that this was not a move based on winning more football games, and the Giants' locker room mostly seems to agree with me (they sure played like it this weekend).
'* - this used to be the case; as far as I know it still is, although they've been changing some of these cap rules in the past couple years so I'm not 100% certain.
SigurdsSilverSword
30d ago
While the Giants and Raiders were both not great with their star running backs last year (although both had seen average-to-good offenses built around them in the not-so-distant past), both have seen significantly worse results since letting them go.
The Giants with a healthy Saquon (2018, 2022) were an extremely mid offense, averaging the exact midpoint in the league (16.5) in points (16, 15) and yards (17, 18). The Giants with an unhealthy Barkley (2020, 2021, 2023) were one of the worst offenses in the league in both points scored (31, 31, 30) and yards (31, 31, 29). Without Barkley this year they've scored the fewest points in the league and are trending in the wrong direction.
The Raiders are less obvious since Carr's departure had more of an effect, but this is the worst year they've had offensively since drafting Jacobs (even comparing the past two Carr-less years, they've clearly regressed offensively this year), and have had noticeably worse RB play even compared to Jacobs' poor last season in black and silver. He actually led the team in AV (football-reference's attempt to make a WAR for football) in 2022, for whatever that's worth (not a ton, in my opinion).
Even a very good running back will heavily rely on their offensive line, and a bad offensive line will make even the best ones have mediocre results, but the position in general has been overly devalued if you ask me - a good running back can still be the focal point of a successful offense.
SigurdsSilverSword
1mo ago
Qui uincit non est uictor nisi uictus fatetur.
I suppose the opening line was a bit antagonistic? But the Steelers lost, so I think that can be forgiven.
On substance I completely agree with this. Losing (and later gaining) one hour of sleep, once a year is such a trivial "cost" that it barely warrants noticing. I am more likely to mess up my sleep schedule, and with more significance by degree, from any of the dozens of meetups, holidays, events, etc. that I will go through in the year than I am from changing the clock forward an hour. The benefits of extra sunlight (for those with a "standard" wakeup schedule of 5:30 or later, apologies to @FiveHourMarathon ) vastly outweighs the negative of losing one hour of sleep, on one of the two days with the least time constraints for the general population (other than church (which commands less and less relevance), what would the modal American have as a firm time constraint on a typical Sunday?). I could see the argument for moving the clock forward and just leaving it there, the point others have made about kids blundering in the dark getting to school being the only significant pragmatic drawback I can think of. The only other argument I have against is a pure "Noon should mean Noon", which connects with me on an emotional level but doesn't really do much for the pragmatist argument.
If forced to choose I think perma-DST is pragmatically the clear choice over Noon-Is-Noon even if viscerally I prefer Noon-Is-Noon more than "My life would be better if time worked differently, so DST should be permanent." A transition to an 8-4 workday would solve the problem better than a perma-DST move, but I don't know how easily one could convince the entire workforce of that.
More options
Context Copy link