TBayXXXVII

If I were Volpe's dad, I'd sit there and laugh out loud while my kid is one of only 20,000 people to ever play in MLB, and this dope is telling my kid that he stinks.

Two? They only drafted two. Are you saying that Allen is "good"? Is he even going to make the team? If he does, I don't think you'll have to worry about Etienne, because I don't think all 4 of those guys are going to be on the team.

If you're in a 1 QB league, very few QB's are worth drafting. Well, it depends on where you think the drop off or value is. Meaning, at what point is the difference nominal? Last year, 12 QB's averaged over 17 fpg. If you don't think there's a draftable difference between 15 and 18 point guys and view them all as streamers, then only 7 QB's averaged 19 fpg. The number increases to 10 QB's if you reduce the range to 17 instead of 18. So, if you're in a 12-team league and you don't have a top 6 (20 or more fpg), there's not really much of a point in drafting a QB. In 2023, there were only 4 (the next 10 had a maximum gap of 1.8 fpg). Obviously, the top 5/10/15 change every year and the we don't know the results ahead of time. For that reason, we draft QB's in the hope that find one of those top end guys. Let's say the top end "draftable" QB is at 19 fpg. FFToday's QB projections only has 4 QB's hitting that number (323 total points - standard scoring). ESPN has 6. One website I looked at, has 5... yes, all 5 are the same: Allen, Burrow, Jackson, Hurts, and Daniels (Mahomes was #6 on ESPN). Between #7 (Mayfield) & #17 (Lawrence), ESPN is projecting a 1.8 fpg difference. Between #6 (Mayfield) & #15 (Herbert), FFToday is projecting a 1.9 fpg difference. Between #6 (Mayfield) & #21 (Tua), a website I looked at is projecting a 2.2 fpg difference. All 3 of those sources seem to agree that Young will be around 15 fpg. What's "Draftable" to you?

At quick glance, I'm thinking this might be cherry picking. I looked at the box scores of his last 7 games, and I'm not seeing anything that stands out. I don't have a Fantasy Pros account, but their preview of QB plays over 20, 30, 40, and 50 yards... Young didn't rank in the top 8 of any of those categories.

Gotchya. I never had a dog, so I never had to deal with that. My brother has, and on a couple occasions I needed to bring them to the vet, but they were all pure bred Boxers and absolutely looked it, so my guess is that's why they never asked me what breed they were and why I never offered the information. Makes sense though.

Seems reasonable. Thanks. Probably couldn't hurt to know for training purposes. I'm guessing breed and how quick or susceptible to training they are, may go hand-in-hand.

Something I heard today on the fantasy sports channel (I think it was Jeff Mans), is that he thinks that Jeanty may be in contention with Bowers, for the most targets on the team. Last year, between Ameer Abdullah, Sincere McCormick, Alexander Mattison, Zamir White tallied about 300 carries and totaled around 1100 yards (3.6 ypc). I don't see why with 220 carries, White can't average 4.0 (at worst). From that standpoint, you're looking at 880 yards. They never addressed the hole at WR, so lets say that Mans might be right. Lets give Jeanty 115 targets (Bowers had 153 last year), and 75 receptions while averaging 7 yards per reception. You're talking about a RB with 1400 yards and 75 receptions. That's 215 fantasy points without taking into account TD's. Last year, that would be RB19. Give him 10 TD's, now he's at RB7. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he could be a top 5 RB.

Outside of wanting to breed or find a genetic history of illness, is there a reason to want to do this? I would also assume you'd want this before purchasing the dog... no? Just curious as this is something that I would not even consider doing.

It's almost as if the guns themselves aren't the problem... but the people obtaining them through illegal means.

Nope.

Yes, mental torture is worse than physical. I thought this was already known. They actively create victims. That's a huge problem. Then, they pander to them and blame someone else. Meanwhile, they never actually fix the problem... they just move the goalposts.

...and that's where you lose. Just stop dude. You're already wrong... you've double downed, you've triple downed, just end it. I'm going to stop your bleeding for you.

To HIM, not gay people. You said it was a slight to gay people as she was "homophobic". That's where you're wrong. You trying a bait and switch here? LOL LOL, the new Rick Roll ="@TimHauck"

Not against gay people, no. The comment only has to do with Olbermann, not gay people.

I just said it wasn't a slight against gay people.

That’s certainly a take.

So you agree that she isn't homophobic then? Good for you. A step in the right direction. Now, just admit you were wrong and that'll be "the end".

Where she's wrong, is lowering herself to the standard that is Keith Olbermann. Her actively trying to trigger him on purpose, using something she know will piss him off, is funny. No, it has nothing to do with gay people... it has everything to do with getting Keith Olbermann's blood pressure up. It again, is why you're wrong.

You're a clown because she's trying to trigger him. She's actively trying to pizz him off. It actually has nothing to do with gay people. You're such an idiot.

Ok, I will start slowly. You are a clown.

LOL, yeah, wrong again. You should say "The end". I'll hold you to it... let's see how long that lasts.

What @TimHauck does is, when he knows he lost, he'll inject an inference that was never made, then hold you accountable to that inference. He'll do that ad nauseum until he can find a gotchya, and claim a win... even though his original point was an actual loss. Then during his lashing out phase, he'll "@" you to call you out, as if he was never wrong in the first place. The best part is, he'll hammer on the fact that you never admitted you were wrong (even though you weren't), but won't admit when he is. ... and we're the ones that are "predictable". The dude is such a clown.

Republicans are bad, never said they weren't. I've always maintained that there's always 537 azzhats in DC and to specifically call one out, is just being a hypocrite. That said, they are bad, but not as bad. The current DNC is the worst political party this planet has ever witnessed. They are quite possibly the most disgusting people to ever live.

She didn't. @TimHauck has a hard time admitting he's wrong, even though he demands it from others.

Thank you for proving me right.