KSpan

I don't disagree. Just sharing a thought as a Panthers fan.

Like, I know it's Tampa Bay, but it just feels like a mercenary team this year and some key guys just happen to be wearing those jerseys.

I'd like to see the Packers go but I think Tampa has a (marginally) better chance of beating either AFC team at this point. The NFC South troll in me though hopes the Bucs lose in spectacular fashion.

How does that refute anything I'm saying? I would bet big money that those 12 hours were as full of detailed prep as physically possible. He does not get the job without understanding as much about organizational specifics as situationally possible, period. Will be very interesting to see how things shake out this offseason.

So a professional like him decides to make a move up the ladder into his first NFL GM role and doesn't put the time in to do his due diligence? Interviewing 101 is to understand the specific challenges facing the role at the place you're interviewing and have somewhat specific plans on how you'll address them if/when the conversation turns that way. I know how I prepare for a job interview and this type of role is on another plane so yeah, I disagree with you there. Dude knows what's up even if it's just top-level understanding.

I don't believe that at all. Sure, he hasn't had a chance to go full-on into things but there is a near-zero chance he didn't evaluate the team, the core players, and recent overall team performance as part of his own decision-making process. Given that Tepper is still a relatively new owner I'd be scrutinizing that stuff even more. If he truly didn't do those things then that's a red flag in and of itself IMO.

Mannnnn... perhaps it's just my own confirmation bias but shots fired in his answer about what makes a franchise QB. Elevate the team, win games in the 4th quarter...

And here's the question asking Tepper if he'll be involved in the QB selection process. His answer is that he's much more interested in making sure the right processes are in place rather than the decision itself. Also said he's "not the evaluator Matt and Scott are".

That encapsulates the entire experience though with this type of QB. Their team can win when they're surrounded with excellence, but they can't/won't elevate the team when they're not: we saw that time and again this year. With the nature of the NFL (injuries, roster churn, etc.), IMO that's simply not acceptable for a full-time starter of a team that wants to compete year in and year out. "Possibly good enough when everything goes right" can't preclude striving for better, particularly when the weaknesses are so glaring and easily exploited.

I think this is precisely why there is so much focus on the QB position. The team wasn't expected to be nearly as competitive, and even at what should be 'the bottom' for the roster they were still competitive. A more effective player at the QB position definitely changes the story of the season.

Exactly. Also, looks like 23 of the Week 17 starting QBs (I'm including Mahomes, Burrow, and Ben here since they'd typically be starting) were all drafted in the first round (I'm also including Brees since he was pick 32, but that was top of Rd 2 back then). Another 2 were picked at picks 35 (Dalton) and 36 (Carr); excluding Dalton since he's a backup would drop the total to 22. From there guys like Lock, Henne, and Hurts were 2nd round picks. Wilson, Brady, and Cousins are the only quality starters chosen outside of the first round. I'm not making any definitive statements, but the Week 17 data support your premise.

Brady's also 43 years old and has struggled his way to 4600 yards and 40 TD passes. Not too shabby.

I daresay that Rhule and Tepper were setting the bar low with these quotes. After the performance this year and a few specific glaring weaknesses being clear limitations I want to believe they're smart enough to not play dumb and try to ignore them. Even if the wins weren't there this team showed too much promise and quicker than expected.

This new ownership, coach, and FO sticking with Teddy would be an incredibly huge red flag signalling zero change . I've been a diehard fan since day 1 and this would be hugely disappointing. Nice attitude, btw. Y'all are welcome to enjoy perpetual mediocrity if such low-hanging fruit like not starting Teddy is ignored. Been a fan since day 1 and it would be a huge gut-punch.

I really dont see how this staff trots him out again. If they do I may completely lose interest in this team.

There are 23 Assassin's Creed games? Jeebus... I lost track somewhere around 3 and 4.

What are you talking about? There are no therapeutics proven more than anecdotally effective, though things like dexamethasone and corticosteroids absolutely are utilized in attempt to counteract severe inflammatory reaction, and the many things in global trials are as much in the US as elsewhere. Trying a bunch of stuff off-label to see if anything sticks can be as detrimental to the patient as no treatment at all.

Oh good god. The problem with things like this is that there is valid information mixed in with unprovable nonsense, aka things that most folks won't bother to look into and will accept as truth. The one concern I do share in this is about the speed and rigor of the development process. These things are moving at unprecedented speeds and part of vaccine safety evaluation is long-term effect... there simply will not be long-term data when these roll out. Perhpas there will be breakthroughs and advancements in vaccine development that come from this but I've seen studies and programs for numerous vaccine IPs and it's always a horizon of years. I have other concerns as well but this is definitely my largest.

I agree with you completely in terms of medical risk if all things are equal but it's the necessity that separates them, like how shopping trips for groceries and shopping at Gucci (an extreme example but chosen for clarity) are both shopping trips but one has to happen and the other doesn't. Also, shouldn't all of the 'open back up' protests like the one in Michigan (as one example) not be included in this conversation? The ones here in Kansas were making int a point to be unmasked, even increasing the relative risks.

One is protest of injustice, the other about folks that feel like partying. What are protestors going to do? Zoom call their representatives? It's tough for me to stay objective on this topic because the two situations, civil protest (of any sort) and discretionary gathering, are not equal in any way, shape, or form.

For the sake of discussion let's say that fatality numbers are 20% too high when we factor in both deaths that aren't actually directly attributable to COVID or associated complications as well as deaths that were missed and aren't being counted... it changes nothing in the big picture since deaths are still over 110K and climbing rapidly. I also don't think the numbers are anywhere near 20% too high and again, it's about more than just deaths.

Come on now, that's a whole 1 sample more than necessary to calculate a coefficient of variance. Airtight.

You and I discussed this yesterday and you posted that same graphic, but since we already discussed it I'm not clear what you're trying to emphasize further. As I said yesterday I recognize that this is a very complicated situation and feel that weighing of all factors must come into play when performing risk/benefit analyses. Deaths are an incomplete metric, similar IMO to overall infections, and it's possible that vaccines may even be ineffective. I'm not suggesting that everyone shut in forever but a semester/year of limited action as more data are obtained may be a prudent course of action. I'm not saying there's any good or possibly even notable chance of this happening but 5/10/20 years from now it sure would suck to have strong links between COVID infection and onset of any number of debilitating conditions if a few more months of caution and data generation while folks carefully tread the line between 'old normal' and current conditions might minimize that risk. Overall, it sucks and the US seems to be performing poorly by most accepted metrics.