TBayXXXVII

Yup

It can be, but when you look at the list of pre-2008 QB's, at lot of the top guys who had long careers, are Hall of Famers.

If he plays well, only 1 team is getting Caleb Williams next year. I don't follow college football that much but I heard one other kid who's looking to be a high pick, but if I recall, there's only 2. Arizona and Washington are going to make a run at #1 overall in the next draft, I think there'll be a few others like Denver and Vegas who'll be in the running as well, even Tampa if Trask turns out to be just as terrible as Mayfield. Now, all aren't going to be looking to take a QB #1, but the more that are in the conversation, the more likely teams are going to look to trade up or down. At least one or two teams in need of a QB will be on the outside looking in. I can see someone parting with a 2025 #1 pick for Watson.

My bad, I didn't mean to hit too close to home Mr. Simpson, no offense meant.

Common sense agrees, but not every GM/Owner has common sense. Look at the deal Daniel Jones got. It only takes one.

He was better than solid when he was healthy. He played almost every game of his career before the new passing rules... and he currently ranks 11th all time in completion percentage. Here's the list of the top 10... take note of how many played their entire career post-2007: 1 Joe Burrow 68.2% 2020-2022 cin 2 Drew Brees 67.7% 2001-2020 2TM 3 Jimmy Garoppolo 67.6% 2014-2022 2TM 4 Deshaun Watson 67.0% 2017-2022 2TM 5 Justin Herbert 66.9% 2020-2022 sdg 6 Kirk Cousins 66.8% 2012-2022 2TM Kyler Murray 66.8% 2019-2022 crd 8 Dak Prescott 66.6% 2016-2022 dal 9 Teddy Bridgewater 66.4% 2014-2022 5TM 10 Patrick Mahomes 66.3% 2017-2022 kan He ranks 28th all-time in passer rating. Of the 27 ahead of him, 18 are current players, and of the other 9, 4 are in the hall of fame with Brady, Big Ben, Brees, and potentially Rivers, in the future.

No, he's not close to Brady, but Brady is the exception. Laws of averages significantly favor the higher draft picks. We can disagree on the H.O.F., that's fine.

I'd favor Pacheco because I think he's going to have a more productive offense, opportunities, and TD's. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with Etienne. I wouldn't fault you for keeping him instead. While Pacheco is on a better offense, Etienne has a team with limited weapons. He could be used a lot more. The downside to that is higher risk of injury. That's the part that makes me favor Pacheco, but as I said, I think your fine with keeping Etienne.

If they really wanted him, they wouldn't need to part with a 1 & 2... my guess is that a 4 would be enough. Also, if he were really that good, the better move would be to trade Watson. There definitely would be a team who would part with a 1, and may be a 2, for him.

Agreed.... but Mahomes didn't take a pay cut. He's just re-working a current deal allowing the Chief's to kick the can down the road. In the original deal he signed, he had a $60M+ year that was set to hit in 2025, but now that's going to hit in 2027. He's still going to make the money he signed for, it's just the cap hit that's changing.

Well, it's liberal b.s. disguised to help the poor when it's going to help out the more well off people. Look, for a change, they're actually helping the middle class. But we all know what's going to happen. After the 2024 election, there'll be a black politician and say this policy helps white people disproportionately more than blacks or other minorities, and they'll change the plan at some point for the next election cycle.

It was created by politicians, if course it's going to go that way. LOL. Probably in less than 12 months. Wait, correction, it'll go that way after the 2024 election. Funny how this is presented as helping the poor, when all it did was help help the well off. You libs will believe anything. LOL

Ok. Just looked like by your post that you thought George Carlin was right in his condemning of Republican's for that point of view.

Agreed. That's why nothing had to change. It's simple, if you have people who need help, they apply for it. No one needs to know. It's all done between the parent and the school district. No one has to physically pay for food at school, it can all be done behind the scenes... but the parents who can feed their kids, should be the ones paying.

So you are a Republican then? I thought you've always said you weren't.

Seriously... you think that $1B going to the school is going to stay there? That other $55B is going to where ever it's going and they're going to find out they need more. When that happens, they'll start taking money from that $1B and eventually wrap it all into one pot. When that happens, that extra 4% is going to quietly go away, and you'll never hear about it.

LOL "State House News Service, an independent news wire, reported that $1 billion of the state's record $56.2 billion fiscal budget for 2024 will be funded by its new 4% tax." Where's the other $55.2B coming from?

I'm ok with the stereotype that I think people should be and act, in a responsible manner and be accountable for their actions.

Didn't see that in the link. Willing to bet that won't last. Also, no way $56B is coming from the millionaires alone.

Also like I said, that stigma is easily removed WITHOUT taxing people billions of dollars. The funny thing about this, which is even funnier that no one appreantly realizes, is that the people who can't afford to feed their own kids, will be taxed extra to feed kids who's parents not only can afford to feed their kids, but also the kids who's parents are wealthy. I can't believe there are people who think this even remotely to a good idea.

IF it's solely for families who can't afford it, I'm ok with it. To me though, $56B doesn't look like those are the only kids that this is applying too. If there are 7 other states where every kid is getting a free lunch, like your link implies, because it says NOTHING about the kids who's parents can't afford it, then that just means there's now 8 states doing it wrong.

Then they're late. NJ has done this for decades. When you title the thread a "Free lunch", the assumption is that it's for everyone. Plus, the headline of the article says "universal". Also, I have a VERY hard time believing that $56B is the cost for lunches for kids who's parents can't afford to pay for lunch, in the state.

I am on the right side, just because I have some people talking out of their azz are on it too, doesn't make my side wrong.

I'm against it because it's the one thing that people using the school system have to pay for, because they're using it. The people living in the district, without kids, are already paying for so much without using the school system, that to pay even more for other people's responsibility (feeding their own kids), is too much in my opinion. Also, the whole stigma stuff about rich and poor kids is ridiculous in the sense that, free lunch for everyone is the only way to avoid the issue. An easy solution is to this is to simply have parents supply an account for automatic withdrawal from their accounts to pay for lunch. If there are people who are poor and can't afford it, then they can apply for exemption. In the end, no one has to physically pay for their meal, but the kids who are there, and having their parents paying for it. Back when I was in school, 30 years ago, we had 3 different levels of lunch, free, reduced, and full. Kids who couldn't to pay for lunch, got a certain color ticket to hand over to not have to pay. Kids who could afford some, gave a different color ticket and a little bit of cash. Kids who could afford it, pay cash. None of that process has to change, from a financial standpoint. If the stigma bullcrap needs to be addressed, just do what I said, make the payment happen behind the scenes and the kids don't have to physically pay for anything, it happens in the office or even at the district office. Not that hard. I'm amazed at the virtue signaling from some of our posters. Obviously not for the liberals, because they don't see nuance, they just pretend to because their masters tell them how to think, but as for the others, I'm a little surprised. Let's be honest, the VAST MAJORITY of kids in school have parents who can afford to pay for their kids' lunches. Why should people who can afford it, get a get out of jail free card? If there are people who can't afford it, fine, file for an exemption or reduction on cost. As a tax paying citizen, I don't feel the need to pay for 90% of the kids who's parents make what I make (or more), just because 10% can't. I have no problem chipping in for the 10%, but the other 90% can take care of their own kids. Free lunches for all is Pandering 101.

If Chad Pennington stayed healthy, I think he'd be in the H.O.F.