CheezWizHed

I'm more concerned about the cap being maxed and no 1st round picks for years to use as trade collateral. Really reduces our flexibility. And I just realized that this trade puts Thanasis as our 6th man...

I choked a bit on giving up two players and three 1st round draft picks, but as I posted in another thread, our history of drafting has been horrid - especially on late 1st rounders. I do hope we protected at least a couple of these 1st rounders. Even if Giannis leaves this year, we are positioned well to make a final run at a title. Given that our last title was at the year of my birth, I'd be happy to win one and go back to sucking for a while. [sarcasm]Or maybe we empty the house and sign LeBron and his entourage next.[/sarcasm]

I don't think it makes sense to reduce the cap. Cap is a maximum. I can understand removing any minimums... But if a team can afford the cap, they should be able to afford it.

Wow. Foles clearly throws the ball and it gets batted backwards and incomplete. Meanwhile, Foles gets a full hand to the head by the pass rusher. Both refs behind the play throw no flags and let the play continue for fumble recovery until a ref on the side comes running in and calls it incomplete. What in the world were the back two watching? Streaming Netflix back there?

Cheer for dumb turnovers, bad coaching calls, and a tie.

Disappointing, but not surprising that Matthews opted out of his $2.7M contract. Surprising, but not disappointing that Robin Brooks also opted out of his $5.0M contract. I wonder if Matthews would take $5.0M? Robin might've done us a favor. I see that the Lakers might want to sign Matthews. Not surprising as he basically neutralized (well better than most) LeBron when playing LA.

First, I'm very happy to keep Bahk despite the price. He has been a top LT for a long time and at 29, I think this was well deserved. King probably was going to break the bank this year if he stayed as healthy as last year. With more soft-tissue issues, I'm guessing people will be wary of giving him a huge bonus. But for the same reasons, I'm thinking he will go. Linsley is very likely a cap-casualty and I'm ok with that. I'd rather find a center (which we probably have on the roster) than an LT (which we don't). Jones - If we have the room, I'd just tag him and play him on the tag. If not resign Williams for a reasonable amount. As others mentioned, I'd imagine that Kirksey, Lowry, Wagner, and P-Smith are gone. Kirksey did play well last night, but similar issues as with King at CB - your best ability is availability. Plus Martin and Barnes look very good at MLB. The whole DLine needs a kick in the pants; cutting Lowry will be the beginning. P-Smith has been better lately, but has as many really bad plays (mostly runs) as pass rush pressures.

Yeah, when he talks football, he is massively confident even when nothing backs it up. But during Covid, there have been a lot of other stories come out about the human side. He is a huge "player coach" and works a lot with his players and even some fans outside the game with personal struggles. And given the reaction people have to him that he has helped, I don't think it's just a public ruse.

I wonder if Sternberger will return to the HB role he had at the end of last year?

He seems like a really great human, but he can't seem to turn the program around, thankfully. I think the state of Minnesota just can't football.

Malcom Brogdon says hi. But seriously, I do agree that you should be looking at higher ceiling players. Just that sometimes scouting doesn't best identify a player's ceiling. I looked back at our draft history this morning and nearly cried. Brogdon is the only one that made a first year impact in a long time - basically since Jabari Parker. 2019 R1-30: Kevin Porter Jr. (Traded with Snell for Jon Leuer) 2018 R1-17: Donte DiVincenzo 2017 R1-17: D.J. Wilson 2017 R2-48: Sindarius Thornwell (Traded for cash) 2016 R1-10: Thon Maker 2016 R2-36: Malcolm Brogdon 2016 R2-38: Patrick McCaw (Traded for cash) 2015 R1-17: Rashad Vaughn 2015 R2-46: Norman Powell (Traded with a 1st rnd pick for Greivis Vásquez) 2014 R1-2: Jabari Parker 2014 R2-31: Damien Inglis 2014 R2-36: Johnny O'Bryant 2014 R2-48: Lamar Patterson (Traded) 2013 R1-15: Giannis Antetokounmpo 2013 R2-43: Ricky Ledo (Traded)

Not to mention that uneducated and unmotivated students become "expensive" adults later in life (i.e. less likely to contribute to the tax base and more likely to use the social services). When you say "you have 60 students", is that all in one class? Do they break down the class sizes down more? Seems like when kids are in high risk situations like this, they need more one-on-one attention and not less. It would be very easy to feel unimportant as an individual in a classroom of 60.

In pharmaceutical research, a larger study means more participants. A longer-term study is not a larger study; it means that participants are monitored over a longer period of time. Goodman said longer-term, not larger. Semantics. 44K is a very large study in pharmaceutical research. I've never heard of anything remotely close to that. I probably confused things by listing 44k in the "larger sample" comment. In this case, the samples are people in the study contracting COVID. They have 94 and need to get 164. They started in April and have 70 more to go. My whole premise was that I didn't think they would be ready by the end of the year.

No, I didn't say it. I know nothing about developing a vaccine. Jesse Goodman, a professor of medicine and infectious diseases at Georgetown University said it. I referenced his/her comment.

True. It minimizes the the old "its coming back on" yell from the other room and you have to dash back in to not miss your favorite show. Or now pause/rewind.

Not really. It is common (at least in other industries) to use internal independent reviews for the first pass verification. Then use external certification authorities before final approvals. For example, I can put software on aircraft for flight tests without the FAA's approval (internal independent verification only), but not for use on the general public. But re-reading it, it did say not "peer reviewed", so maybe I'm reading into it incorrectly. Why do you think this is the case? I believe Pfizer has stated that they'll file for an FDA emergency use authorization before the end of Nov. I already stated this: Results to be peer reviewed and a larger sample size needed. Given the first 44k sample size started in April, I'm not sure how they would finish the larger sample size by the end of the year. Does the emergency use authorization equate to doing the larger sample on the public at large?

The article states "The results, which were evaluated by an independent committee of experts..." The FDA will also review the results once they officially receive them and the FDA is free to audit the trial at any time. Yeah, I wasn't trying to disparage the results. Based on how the article was written, it sounded like the independent committee was still under Pfizer's employment. Thus the comments about other independent review. But my greater point was that there were a number of steps yet to go (i.e. further review + larger sample sizes). The press makes it sound like we would get conditional approval by the end of the year for public use. It doesn't sound like we are that close...

A lot of hype about the 90% success rate of the Pfizer vaccine, but it sounds like we are still a ways off of approval. Results weren't independently verified, the test was still at a small sample size (44k), and the people under trial haven't been tested long. Popular Science article “The results are really quite good, I mean extraordinary,” Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told The Washington Post. Other outside experts expressed similar cautious optimism. “We need to see the actual data, and we’re going to need longer-term results,” Jesse Goodman, a professor of medicine and infectious diseases at Georgetown University, told The New York Times. And I find it odd that testing is basically giving people the vaccine and then seeing who gets sick later. I'm not sure what I expected (maybe checking that their blood contains what is needed to fight off COVID?), but this just seems a little odd to me. Though admitting that I'm far from any biology expert. The results are based on a Phase 3 clinical trial which began back in July, enrolling nearly 44,000 people, with about half the cohort receiving the vaccine (in two doses, given over the course of a month) and the rest getting a placebo. The independent team of researchers who are responsible for reviewing the results are the only ones who know who got what. To evaluate the vaccine’s effectiveness, the researchers had to wait for enough people in the trial (in both the vaccine group and the placebo group) to catch COVID-19. This first analysis, announced today, is based on 94 participants who contracted the novel viral illness.

Seems like more and more, subscribing still has ads. Remember when cable/satellite TV didn't have ads because you paid for it? Amazon prime has ads at the start of a show (though you can skip it). Hulu has a quasi-subscription level that still does ads.

Since the Irish didn't show up, doesn't it make that a forfeit?

Jechtist, please note that this is a forum. If you have any comments to content to add to the site, it is most welcome. Please refrain from just providing links to other sites as it would seem your only intent is to drive traffic to the other site.

Technically, you are buying the game from the platform (Steam, xbox, Fanatical, etc) and not Jackbox itself, so each platform has different sales.

Now let's hope "all" is more than one game...

If Will Smith is legit as this good of a hitter he would probably take it up roughly 1/3 of the games when he's resting from C. Yes, but Braun playing 2/3rds of the games is probably the right level of involvement now.