TBayXXXVII

Wilson, despite any production, is a head case. It's clear that's true because no team moves on from a franchise QB while he can still perform even if a cheaper option is available. Teams only move on from them if they're tired of the act. Whether Wilson is better at the QB position or not, I believe he's a one and done in Pittsburgh and if they can pull the plug on him at any point, they will. I think their plan at acquisition was to bring in Wilson as the starter and have a year to analyze and build up Fields if possible. If Fields progresses like they want, they give him a new deal and let Wilson walk. If not, I think they evaluate the drama that Wilson and the Mrs, brings and the production he yields before signing him long term. For fantasy... 1 QB league I don't waste a spot on Wilson, but I would on Fields because he has high end potential. Wilson's ceiling, I believe is a QB2. If I need him in a bye week, I'll go pick him up off waivers. 2 QB/Super flex league, I'm fine with Wilson as my QB2. Keeper/dynasty, I'm only rostering Fields.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. Trump felt that Viktor Bout was too high of a price to pay for Whelan. Apparently the communist party felt that to get Griner back, Bout was acceptable. So, if the Russians got Bout for Griner (which was too high of a cost for Whelan), how much did we pay to get Whelan back?

Well, you could try the whole story, but why would you do that. Who said I wasn't happy they're coming home? I'm just calling the administration a bunch of pieces of trash for prioritizing a pot head over them and thinking that a mass murderer was a fair price. Curious to see what we gave up here.

Libs pretending to have a "gotchya". How cute.

Considering they never said they were, I'm going to say no. They made it known that they were working on bringing Griner back. Why not say the same for the others if they were working on them as well?

What's horrible is that these two were there longer than they had to be. Amazing that a basketball player was a higher priority for this administration. I find that to be rather disgusting that a soldier had to wait 18 months longer than pot smoker. If the trade off for Griner was an arms dealer, what's the exchange for these two? If it's way less than The Merchant of Death, then one would have to ask "Why did it take so long to bring these two back if the price was cheaper?" If these two are worth more than Bout, what are we giving up? Nuclear war heads?

Yup

11 years!! Let's GO Mike!!

I was at game #2132 in Cleveland.

LOL I think he and I are on the same page as this simply being a discussion, not an argument or one saying you're wrong / I'm right.

Oh, I get that, I just think it's inevitable... not unbreakable.

For football, I agree... not baseball though.

I think that's fair, but I do think that with the knowledge we have with keeping yourself healthy, there's going to be people who are able to play 15 years or so, and produce the numbers Rice did because of the state of the game and the fact that they play 17 games and 18 sounds like it's on the horizon. Rice, for the bulk of his career, was a volume guy, not a big play guy. His first 5 seasons he was a "go out and I'll heave it down field to you" guy where he averaged like 18 yards per reception. His last 15 though, he only averaged 13.7. He was a big possession type guy, for that era, and they used him for that... that's partly why he was able to play for 20 years. That's the type of guy Mike Evans is, and he's at 15.3 yards per catch. Through his first 10 seasons, he's played in only 2 less games. CeeDee Lamb is also the same kind of receiver that Rice and was. He's at 13 ypr and through their first 66 games, Rice is only 400 yards ahead of him. Like with Evans, Lamb is 2+ years younger than Rice. Neither have to play into their 40's, like Rice did.

You keep pretending that's true. If I were you, trying to sit on a false pedestal, I'd do it too.

LOL, keep fighting the good fight sheep. Ironic how you say it's the right that just follows their leader.

LOL You're point is, my side good, your side bad... even though they're both the same (but I'm denying they're the same).

Fine... and Harris encouraged the riots by supporting donations to be raised so that the 2020 rioters can get bailed out. So, I'm not supposed to vote for Trump because he's a "pathetic little betch", but you can vote for Harris even though she supported violence against the citizens of the country. Got it. I'll hang up and listen for when you tell me why "it's (D)ifferent".

I think Rice's number can be beat, it's just a matter of durability. In his first 10 seasons, he had 13,275 yards. At the time, that was insane, but today it's not that amazing. Mike Evans is only 1600 behind that. If Evans plays 10 more seasons like Rice did, he'd have to average 1,122 yards a season to break the record (right now he's averaging 1,168). Over Rice's last 10 seasons, he averaged over 1,113 a season... if you pro-rate that over 17 games a season (by today's league). Note, Jerry Rice's 10th season, he was 32... last year, Evans' 10th season, he was 30. Both eras had their advantages and disadvantages... Rice in the 80's and early 90's had no free agency, so people didn't leave their teams... free agency didn't start until '93 (Rice's 9th season). Today, players have a more pass friendly system and an extra game. Will Evans pass him? I have no idea. I just think that Rice's record is more of a durability record than a production record at this point in time. If you told me that Mike Evans will play 11 more seasons, then I'll say there's a 50/50 chance he breaks Rice's record.

So, it's (D)ifferent? LOL I'll refer you back to my previous response to you. I'll include you @purdygood in this...

Yes they were. I don't have a problem admitting that over 8 hours a couple hundred dopes acted recklessly. Apparently you don't want to admit that the left's violent rhetoric caused millions of dollars of damage over 3 months. Look, I don't blame you. Why would you want to admit that your party is the party of violence and division? ::cough:: hypocrite :: cough::

I don't know if they vote or not. I don't know if they consider themselves "Democrats" or not. What I do know is that they follow the Democrat lead. Their actions are the feelings of the Democrat party as a whole. They believe that America is bad and the historical way of life that was build, should be destroyed. That's the Democrat agenda. That's why it's a fair label.

I think considering that the average height of an NBA player is 6'6, my guess is that you'd probably have a hard time finding a real answer to that question... only because, I'm guessing the vast majority of players are between 6'4 and 6'8. I think for the most part, we all agree that you only get out what you put in, right? If you go out and put the effort in to being a really good free throw shooter, you'll probably be a really good free throw shooter... though, not a given. That said, I'm willing to go out on a limb and assume (I know), that the majority of good free throw shooters fall within a certain height range. Now, is it 6'4 to 6'8? I don't know... maybe it's 6'2 to 6'6. I just think that math plays a part. I think the trajectory of the ball leaving the hand tends to yield better results from a natural position of people at certain heights than others. Again, I'm purely speculating, but math is rarely wrong. Top 10 NBA free throw shooters (all-time)... Steph Curry (6'-2") Steve Nash (6'-3") Mark Price (6'-0") Damian Lillard (6'-2") Peja Stojaković (6'-10") Chauncey Billups (6'-3") Ray Allen (6'-5") Rick Barry (6'-7") JJ Redick (6'-3") Calvin Murphy (5'-9") You have 2 outliers, Peja and Murphy. You have Price at 6', but the 7 of the other 10 fall between 6'2 and 6'7. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that if you go through the top 100, you won't go too far off that 70% hit rate.

I think so.

I believe so. Hey, I think they should all do what works for themselves. If bouncing it on the floor, going up through the rim and coming back down makes someone better from the line, then they should do that.

LOL, I was being sarcastic with the height issue and tried to exaggerate it. I never looked anything up. I do however think there's probably some legitimate merit to it. I've seen international games between the US and other Asian countries, and while I did exaggerate the height difference for comedic affect, it's still there... and obvious. Now, while I do think the height difference is definitely less than a foot, even if it's like 4 or 5 inches, we see how that affects the NBA. Historically, a guy who's 7' tall and a guy who's 6'8", are only 4" different, but you'll find free throw percentages to favor the shorter players. Keep in mind that it's not just height, it's wingspan because when a player is shooting, they're extending their arms up and out and that makes a difference. If you have someone who's 6'4 and someone who's 6'2 stand next to each other, you'll see a 2" difference at the shoulder... but if they raised their arms, their finger tips are likely to show a 4" difference. So, when I did say I exaggerated the heights for comedic purposes, looking at your link and a link I found online, the average Asian player is around 6'2" (your link)... ironically, the average NBA is in fact 6'6" (google... a lucky guess, nothing more). That's 4 inches, and when wingspan comes into play, that's 8". That's rather substantial and it's possible that shorter players benefit from shooting off the glass.