buddha

more turnovers than made baskets....is that good?

looking good so far, cade! i mean, can you make just ONE shot? when killian is outshooting you....

that's funny. lol

all i care about is cade. he's the #1 pick in the draft. he HAS to be a star or they will never be anything more than a middling 4 or 5 seed.

i think part of the "value" argument is that the position of tight end really isnt all that valuable unless you are a unicorn like kelce or kittle (if he's ever healthy) or gronk. but hock isnt that type of player. he is a good, solid contributor. and that's good! but if that's your best player, youre in trouble.

he wont. so dont worry about it. and you keep answering your own question by bringing up matt flynn.

in a heartbeat. although i would have top 2 protected the 2023 first. eichel's injury is still a little scary.

you can find a guy like white in the same place the jets found him: on the waiver wire.

the jets are not going to trade a qb they drafted at #2 for a couple third round picks. white has played one game. come on.

no.

but that's more generalized. youre talking about a vote for a party who you dont think represents their interests. if there was a specific ballot measure that said "vote to increase taxes on billionaires and give it to decendants of coal miners" it would likely pass easily in west virginia.

detroit's largest voting bloc overwhelmingly voted to give itself money? i'm stunned.

whoa whoa, dont get greedy.

Eichel to vegas.

philly is injured and on a back to back...

im in oklahoma city. no one is wearing a mask except restaurant personnel. our judge is wearing a mask. the jury is optional (most dont). the parties dont. the gallery has to wear one. in the hallways outside court no one wears one.

using career average value he currently ranks #57 in his draft class. to put it in perspective...jahlani tavai tanks #63.

im fine with hock. i think they should keep him. but i also think he is NOT waller or kelce and never will be. he's just not that level of athlete. when hock gets hit, he falls down. he's a good tight end. that's something, but its not the player you build your team around, which is what you hope for at #8 in the draft.

right. most catchers cant hit. so they gave up something to pay him to not hit. but since i dont really think they gave up anything of value, im fine with it. which might say a bit about our draft strategy for a second rounder...

its an off year election with a down economy and an unpopular president. not unlike most off year elections with the party in power. we'll have to wait and see before making any long term pronouncements. but there are some worrying signs for dems.

yeah, i meant a co-starter. it's fine for what it is. i dont think it moves the needle for them, but there's nothing objectionable about it. but he cant hit.

i think va and nj were mostly about an off year election with an unpopular democrat president. but there are some cracks in the democrats' coalition. theyre built on the suburbs and minorities. if their advantage with either group begins to erode a bit, and the republicans continue their big advantage with white working class voters, the democrats margin to win becomes much smaller. the democrats' advantage would be to bring trump out of the wilderness. make him the center of attention again. then they go back to look like the party of adults, and the issues that hurt them (police, crt, education) can be classified as "trump" positions again, which will tilt the suburbs back in their favor. the democrats need trump to run in 2024. its their best hope to win (other than the economy turning around).

meh. gave up nothing for a decent backup defensive catcher on a one year deal. its fine. nothing major either way.

the law itself is very very very likely unconstitutional. the issue with this law is the ability to enforce it is relegated to private individuals rather than the state. therefore, the question became "who can you sue to enjoin the law from taking effect if you cant sue the state or a state official" like you usually would do. its a way to get around the usual way one would challenge the constitutionality of the law. the majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow the law to be enjoined (as in, temporarily stopping the law from being passed so the court can address the constitutional aspects of it in a separate hearing). now, this is all going on at the same time there is another case pending before the court on abortion. that's the mississippi case. that case challenges the casey roe line of cases as wrongly decided. the mississippi case is the more important one for abortion law moving forward. the court could overrule roe/casey and basically send the issue back to the states.

heck, can we swap it with okc for giddey and sga?