TBayXXXVII

I don't disagree. I just think that you can't really predict a game script with Kansas City. I'm willing to bet that there was a 0% chance that Andy Reid went into that Jets game saying, "Ok, we're going to really attack them with the run game". Now, I do think he was open to being more balanced against the Jets who are a bottom 10 team against the run, but I think it's safe to say that if the run didn't work early, he was going to abandon it. Why do I say that? The Bears aren't that good against the run either and the Chiefs never committed to trying to run the ball... even when they were up 31-0. So, I don't disagree with anything you're saying really, the problem for me with Pacheco is that if you start him, you're always playing with fire. Even though he may be an RB2... I'd treat him like a 2nd flex option until I see KC commit more to running. Now, if someone thinks they well, I'm certainly not going to tell them they're wrong... I'd encourage them to take the route they believe. Just that I wouldn't see it that way. He might too... we saw it in Philly with Westbrook and McCoy, but we haven't seen it yet in KC. My guess is because Mahomes is a much better passer than McNabb was.

Shocking!! Good for those WOMEN.

Oh, ok. I only read his initial post. I wouldn't drop a guy that I expect to start... to pick up Williams, but I would drop a bench guy that I don't expect to start unless it's for an injury replacement or bye week. I'd drop Roschon Johnson to pick up Williams. Johnson's only getting 5 to 8 touches a game on a team that doesn't move the ball much or have many offensive plays. Unless you think think the Bears are going to be more like Baltimore and run the ball 35+ times per game between their RB's and QB, then keep Johnson.

Last year, Pacheco was RB24 or better only 6 times (top 16 only twice). This year, he was RB30, RB29, RB12, and RB6... and that RB12 was a gift against the Bears. I see him as an RB3 with "hope" that he might be an RB2 as the season progresses. I think his ceiling is (on average), RB20 for the rest of the season. The Chiefs just don't run the ball enough. In that Bears game, when the score was 31-0, they still threw the ball 10 times and ran it 5 on their next 2 drives that generated 10 points... at which point, they pulled Mahomes and Pacheco. If you think the Jets game is a sign of things to come, then buy him as an RB1 to ensure you get him. If you think the Jets game is an anomaly, then buy him as RB2/3.

I'd hang on to him because he's the most talented back on that team, but I wouldn't consider him a must-start. I'd only play him if I had to until he shows 1) he can produce and 2) stay healthy.

If you have a spot and a need, sure, but I would never expect to start him unless I had to.

Never heard of that show. Had to look it up. After I did, still don't ever recall hearing of it or seeing it. Won't give away the answer because someone may actually know it.

I should've known you didn't come up with such a great idea.

I don't think that's possible. I believe that you have to back out of the draft by a certain date to be allowed to go back to college.

Exactly.

Sounds better yet. Let's do it.

I'm ok with that at our border. Great idea Mike.

Wow, you really are stupid, aren't you?

This.

Trump was absolutely wrong here, no question about it. Pelosi's walls DID work... the attacker came through the door.

Fair point.

It was 47k that would be "assumed" unreported. I don't think the number truly is 63%, I think that's quite inflated. It's why I only used 63% as the total number and not adding that to the confirmed 29k. I should have stated that in my post.

LOL, a lot of deflection there. You and your kind are such a joke. I gave you a link that said there were 29,000 cases of sexual assault and rape against educators (some administration/some teachers - NONE are students)... in ONE YEAR and you bring up priests who have "thousands". Here is a website that lists EVERY priest who's been accused of abuse in the U.S. To note, it's only around 5300. So, we have about 29,000 cases against educators in ONE YEAR compared to 5300 priests in the entire country, who are alive, meaning decades.

https://helpingsurvivors.org/child-sexual-abuse/schools/#:~:text=The GAO estimates that a,sexual assault other than rape. "The GAO estimates that a single teacher sexually abusing students can have up to 73 student victims. From 2017 to 2018, there were 14,938 incidents of reported rape or attempted rape in public schools alone. For the same time period, there were another 14,152 reports of sexual assault other than rape." In 1 year, almost 15k students REPORTED being raped or attempted being raped. Then, another 14k being sexually assaulted. These are REPORTED. Didn't #Metoo tell us that 63% sexual abuse goes unreported? So, if almost 30k were reported, how many does that make it if we add 63% to it, assuming that number is correct? Or, did you go to school in Baltimore where math wasn't important? Well, let's work that out together... 14,938 + 14,152 = 29,020 * 1.63 = 47,416. So, teachers accounted for approximately 45k sexual abuse instances that year. FOURTY - FIVE THOUSAND!!

Teachers are a right-wing institution?

You took a left turn. Let's leave it at, they all pander... it's just that Liberals are open about it by telling you exactly what they're doing. I think we can both agree that's what's going on. We can also both agree that the Liberals are ok with this type of racism, or prejudice... if you like that term better.

LOL You said you're sure that California did their due diligence. I said that they were just pandering. You then said everyone panders. I didn't deny that. But when I tried the same argument that you did "best candidate" (after you brought up Trump), you said they just pandered. Meaning, you're giving the Democrats the benefit of the doubt that they picked the best person, but you aren't giving that same latitude to the Republicans. You just confirmed your hypocrisy.

LOL

It should've been clear... you responded to this post: That's how it got started. LOL Trump didn't pick Pence, the party did. Trump never liked Pence.

To note, California has NO residency requirement to run. Only that they have to live in CA on the day that they're being sworn in.