TBayXXXVII

School and endocrinologists I talk to. This is NOT and good vs bad situation, it's a really bad vs just as bad, but slightly worse situation. Every nutritionist and endocrinologist will tell you to avoid both, but if you don't and have a choice, choose sugar cane. Both will do the same thing to your body, but the risks are greater with corn syrup. Also, your brain doesn't recognize corn syrup as an adequate nutrient. When that happens, your body doesn't register it as satiating and you're more likely to keep eating/drinking. This is why the risks are higher. Again, people should avoid both. There's no winner. In a way, it's like a football team losing 14-0 or 17-0. No one wants either, but you're better off losing 14-0. Like you noted, the difference isn't great, but one is worse. Why choose that one?

"Nutritionally", this is true... long term, sugar is better. HFCS has a bigger negative impact on your metabolism, liver, and gut health. Neither are particularly good for you, but considering that the majority of people consuming them aren't doing it in true moderation, they're definitely better off, with cane sugar.

Information I like to hear. Makes him a better option in my keeper league for a future investment.

Obama and the Democrats did that, not Trump.

Are Schiff and Warren scared that CBS has been red pilled?

Exactly. The Democrats stopped existing in the 90's. Bill Clinton's telecommunications act allowed major media & multi-media outlets to buy up all of the small ones essentially restricting free enterprise. They went full corporate (weird, that's what conservatives were supposed to be). Then, he good ole' racist Joe, write/pass the crime bill that puts all those black guys in prison for smoking pot. Weren't they all a bunch of pot smoking hippies in the 60's and 70's passing these laws? Nah, Democrats need to STFU with their bs trigger words. They just show their incompetence and willingness to believe the crap shoveled to them by their masters in the MSM that Bill Clinton designed.

Voting ages should be increased, not decreased.

HIS team: 182.2 Sam Darnold 25.78 Mason Rudolph 13.02 James Conner 2.8 Tee Higgins 41.1 Mike Evans 29.7 Puka Nacua 22.9 Malik Nabers 36.1 T.J. Hockenson 11.8 Cowboys -4 Chad Ryland 3 MY team: 175.84 Joe Burrow 36.98 Baker Mayfield 34.56 Saquon Barkley 18.9 Jonathan Taylor 27.6 Ja'Marr Chase 19.2 Jaxon Smith-Njigba 6.2 Courtland Sutton 16.5 Chig Okonkwo 10.9 Colts -4 Joshua Karty 9

It's on the ESPN Channel.

If he's guilty, prosecute... same with all of those corrupt dbags. If he's not guilty of that (he's probably guilty of something else), then you don't prosecute. It's not that hard. Media on both sides will make it political though.

Here's my guess... the position they were initially in, were positions that they were put in because of circumstances. It probably wasn't the best case scenario for them, but it was the best case scenario for the team at the time. I say that because I see it in baseball. My nephew plays travel and HS baseball. His travel team is actually made up of about 50% of his high school team. There are kids playing 2B, SS, and 3B for HS, but on the travel team, they're outfielder's. It's because they're better suited for the OF, but because of the make up of the high school team, they play in the infield. The issue is that the kids who play the outfield in high school are not good infielders at all, but good in the outfield. The kids who play the infield are good at it, but are way better outfielders. So, the high school team is better off being "good" in the outfield and "good" in the infield than they are being "great" in the outfield and "bad" in the infield. Since the travel team has good infielders, the kids who play the infield in HS are able to be at their best in the outfield.

You will find that many Eagles fans (probably Chiefs fans as well), will justifiably criticize Andy Reid for this as well. As well as in-games decision making. In the Super Bowl loses to the Bucs and Eagles, Andy Reid was out coached in the first quarter and NEVER adjusted and it's a reason they lost. Here's the thing, they lost both in blowouts because of the same reason. Tampa got pressure on Mahomes with just their down linemen. No one was able to get open down field, so no matter who Mahomes could throw to, that person was double teamed. Instead of keeping Kelce in to block and/or adding an extra blocking TE, the Chiefs kept letting Mahomes run for 400 yards behind the line and throwing incomplete passes. The result, a blowout. The Eagles did the exact same thing... got pressure with their down linemen and no one was open. Reid did the same thing... nothing to stop it. The result, another blowout. Andy Reid has been to what, 6 Super Bowls, won 3? Been to 12 conference championship games... won 6? He's not good at clock management either, like Quinn and he's not good at making in-game adjustments.

We know the Trump trial in NY was a sham the second the judge never sentenced him. We know this because, if there was a sentence, Trump appeals to a higher court and will be found not guilty. The trial was 100% election interference.

That team won the championship last year.

Our league doesn't veto trades, no one is trying to rip anyone off, plus just because some has an opinion about a player it doesn't mean they're right. The NFL and the future, are finicky things. My thinking on this is that I can't (and am not), keeping Mayfield. I don't think that Taylor + his cost is enough to get McCaffrey, so my theory was to include Mayfield since it upgrades him at the QB position. Both RB's carry an injury risk, so I figured we'd exchange injury risk RB's, but the cost for me is to throw in another player because his guy has more upside and is cheaper. Every player who's drafted after R10, their draft value increases 3 rounds... so R11 this year will be R8 next year. For players drafted in the first 10 round, they increase by 2, so R10 player will be R8 next year. Draft rounds for the 3 involved are Mayfield - 9, Taylor & McCaffrey - 1