WhiteWonder

where you gonna pull the over/under's from and on what date

I really don't know. Growing up, one of my dads best friends was a member at one of the nicer clubs in our area. Wait list, had to be recommended by another member to even apply, etc. Annual membership fee was a lot and there were other expenses to consider, for example there were minimum spend requirements on the non golf stuff (at the bar, dinners, etc) and it was not mandatory but highly encouraged to take a caddie, which when I caddied there it was 60 or 70 per bag plus tips. My dad could have joined. His friend would have recommended him but my dad is not a country club person. He wants to golf and maybe have some golf friends but he's not into the club lifestyle of it. His job didn't require him to network. You were not going to see him and my mother at fancy events in the banquet hall, stuff like that. So he stuck with his local Saturday golf league that plays several courses between two counties. For business purposes and networking, I always felt that Country Club memberships were more useful for someone looking to bring clients to a course they otherwise couldn't play and show them a good time and help close deals. In terms of meeting new, well off people who might be willing to donate to your cause... you're giving yourself a big expense to get exposure to what is really a fairly small amount of wealthy people at a single club, and that is assuming it's an actual wealthy country club and not one of those places with cheap memberships or semi private. I suppose those wealthy people will have wealthy friends who are not members of the club, etc.... but these people don't live at the country club. I think there are other ways to rub elbows with potential donors. But if you love golf, specifically the course of the club you'd be joining, and your wife and kids wants a clubhouse, pool, tennis courts etc... then go for it.

How often has it been tried? I get what you're saying and obviously if he gets injured its a moot point, but I dont think he needs to be 40+ Brady to give Wilson the bump he needs to be a top 10 fantasy WR. Drew Brees was like 41 his final season and he threw more touchdowns than the Jets entire offense scored last year and he only played 12 games that season.

First off, I never said he was a savior. Top 20 offenses were scoring 38+ touchdowns last year. The Jets were dead last with 22. No one seems to think that Rodgers is cooked in terms of arm talent. So even if he doesn't make them a title contender or even a contender to win their division, from a fantasy standpoint it's very hard to envision him only being marginally better than what they had under center last year. I think it's hard to argue that he wont significantly boost Wilsons production.

I dont like getting messages to make an offer because most of the time it is coming from an owner who has been pestering me to part with a specific player or two and low balling me. When they say "make an offer", you can be sure they wont accept that offer. Rather, they will pick 1 player you included and reconstruct another low ball offer that includes that one player you "showed interest in". they will then point to the fact that "hey, you were asking for Player A! Just trying to give us what we both want" when in reality you have no urgent desire to trade at all but you came up with a fair offer for the hell of it.

Well, in the sense that in most states your vote doesn't matter, then I guess you didn't waste it on Biden or Trump. You instead wasted it on a 3rd party candidate so you could reserve the right to play that card when it suits you ... ie. when Biden is no longer defensible . It's hard to believe that voting 3rd party sends any message. No one cares what message MDC is sending (or any specific voter)... it would take enough people to push a 3rd party candidate to legitimately serious contention late in a presidential race for any message to be impactful. Do we see that happening? If something like the geek club is a microcosm of society, people would rather spend all their free time bickering about the standard party candidates and then just casually mention 3rd party late in the game.

I hate to be a pessimist but history says this will never happen. There can be and arguably have been viable third party candidates and they simply have no realistic chance to win in a country that is so rooted in a 2 party system. In 2016 I did not vote... because my vote in NJ doesn't matter. The state was going Hillary who I would never vote for. In the back of my mind I was hoping Trump would win, if for no other reason than to deviate from the typical, career politicians we'd been used to. I hoped he wouldn't be quite so brash and quite so blowhard... but like you I agreed with a majority of his policies. Those who want to say he benefitted from a booming economy are likely those who would claim Obama created that (when in reality Obama came into office at the perfect time for things to take off as the height of the financial crisis was around september 2008)

Forgive me, because I have never pretended to be a crypto expert like some... but I do think I have got myself to the point, over the years to know enough about the major stuff. When I read a post like this and see 'pawswap', 'uniswap', 'shibaswap' I have 0 knowledge. Can you explain why I should care about these and if they are more than just flash in the pan? Legit asking / curious Then when people throw around terms like gas fees... I do know what that means but it also sort of reinforces my belief that so much of the crypto space is rooted in making up as many acronyms and silly sounding names just for the sake of it.

That's because a lot of geeks, just as many in our country, continue to live under the delusion that we have a true democracy. I saw some people mention voting for Gary Johnson... I mean, you went out of your way to crumple up your ballot and throw it in the trash. If it makes you feel good or special to say "oh no, I didn't vote for the dem or rep clowns!, I voted for Gary Johnson!"... then good on ya? Chances are your vote didn't matter anyway so do what makes you happy.

I will very rarely pop into a political thread. Recently made a few posts in the debate / biden is senile threads but I don't get bent out of shape over politics like most here seem to. After I posed my last question to you I did start to do my best to think of the show as a political agenda push and I immediately figured the "good guys".. Butcher, MM, Frenchie, Hewie, Starlight, Yumiko, etc were the "liberals". The true villians... I'd really only put Homelander and Stormfront in that category would be the conservatives .. kinda? All the other superheroes are just narcissistic dicks but they all have moments of redeeming qualities, specifically Maeve although then I guess you could argue shes the bi-female. But I could also see the super smart black character and what she is doing stoking the fires and intentionally causing turmoil for an end goal as a jab at BLM. Perhaps the firecracker stuff has pushed this new season over the top. As a fan, I am not sure these things yet outweigh the obvious satire in regards to token minorities in the workplace (as part of the 7), making fun of social media reliance in general, the storylines that ARE solid, the shock factor scenes and generally good acting. So maybe I am trying to hold onto that.

shocking revelation

I am also high on Drake London, much the way I was on Wilson last season, with the promise of a big boost at the QB position. I am not quite as high because I don't think London is quite as talented but he is still a target of mine. For example last year I would pick Garrett in the early second. London is more of an early 3rd consideration for me. (yes I know he will be gone)

The main issue is Rodgers age, coming off that injury and if we will start to see him suffer smaller, nagging injuries. But I would also be willing to say that Tyrod Taylor is enough of an improvement over Wilson/Boyle/Semien to boost Garrett up a few notches.

That is fair and it's why I asked you to expand. If your assessment is that you dislike politics as a main theme to the show, I fully understand and would likely agree, because I also agree that for most people, politics barely impacts our day to day lives. Although as someone who has only watched the show and not read any source material, the themes from the first few seasons such as Superheroes being akin to social media influencers, everything being scripted, being products owned by a company, manufactured not natural and how much control or influence they should have over military etc.. doesn't leave me surprised that politics has become a theme. I was curious if you felt that the creators were blatantly pushing one side of politics or not.

So much success is determined by volume. Everyone (aside from JJ) on this list received 145+ targets last year and the average targets (again minus JJ) was 165. This is kind of why I still trust a guy like Adams and don't mind taking a swing on MHJ. I have every reason to believe the target volume will be there for both players. Michael Pittman was 9th in targets last year, mostly with Minshew Mania. Adams is either going to have Minshew or status quo. MHJ should be a target hog immediately based on draft capital and lack of other options in the WR room. Trey McBride will get his share of looks but I expect Harrison to be fed. The guy who won't end up on any of my teams is Jefferson. Right now, I can't justify a top 6 pick with an unknown QB situation. Not that I am predicting a terrible season, I just anticipate other owners in my league being willing to draft him before me. I would much rather have a top 4 pick, or be 8-12. What is the difference between JJs situation and Davante Adams? I've seen Adams with O'Connell and seen Minshew effectively feed a #1 WR. And Adams is a mid-late 2nd rounder right now.

I hate to sound like a Jets homer, as for most of my FF life I have avoided drafting Jets so as not to be twice as disappointed after a bad Sunday... but I strongly disagree with the red highlighted statement. I think fans have absolutely seen the amazing talent Wilson has. If it wasn't for this talent, he would not have won offensive ROY and finished with back to back thousand yard seasons. Yes, he has been peppered with targets but only the best receivers in the league would be able to do what he has done with the same level of QB play. If anything, I would say his lack of stats (yards, TDs) is what we attribute to atrocious QB play. The Jets scored 22 touchdowns last season. It should be reasonable to expect a healthy Rodgers to have the offense scoring 40+ touchdowns. If you watch him play, you see the talent. If he had a Dak, Goff, Tua level QB? The numbers would have been there too.

reading through a lot of these replies, I can only laugh as FF continues to trend toward "I dont want to have to start _____, we should have another flex!" I hate to even be a tad political, maybe I've been at the geek club too long, but it's also funny that a few of the super conservative posters have these highly liberal FF feelings. as for the tight ends, Kincaid is high on my radar... but that is a popular choice. I think Pitts is being somewhat overlooked. it's been 2 straight disappointing years but I think the talent is there such that a new regime and proven QB can get him back to top 5 TE status. Njoku worries me with Watson back.

Unfortunately the NBA is not the NFL. It’s a lot of “family” stuff. Why is Giannis brother in the league? Rick Brunson works for the knicks, etc. nba teams bend over backwards to make their star players happy. That’s nothing really new. To tell the rest of their players what you just laid out above versus telling them LeBron wants out… now personally I’d let Lebron go but no NBA franchise would want to do that. As for the pick 55, second round stuff... I don't disagree with you in the sense that If I'm a GM, there has to be a prospect with more upside worth taking. Is it worth Lebron possibly leaving, even at this stage in his career, is what you have to ask. For the Lakers? I let him leave. Certain other franchises I can see the extreme value in Lebron, which is why I was more disgusted that no team had the balls to pick his kid and ruin his plan. I'm just pulling the Pacers randomly... you mean to tell me the Pacers wouldn't be a title contender with Lebron? Draft his kid at 50 and offer the Lakers a trade either FOR Lebron or rake them over the coals for Bronny. That's what annoyed me the most. That no team had the balls to throw a wrench into things because the players run the league

Thought about that but then realized most owners probably wouldn’t roster both their owned defenses and potentially not have the defense of the team you wish to drop. . I dunno

Neither have I. Someone suggested the show because I am a fan of Jensen Ackles even though he’s barely in it. the odd thing is I usually get annoyed and easily see the woke crap. Like umbrella academy for example when it wasn’t enough to have the trans actor playing a character, they had to make the character trans as well in season 2. I never really got annoyed with the boys because everything is so satirical. After season 1 or 2, gun to my head I would have said the creators of the show were more conservative and making fun of heavy liberals. But obviously that’s not the case.

I generally respect your opinion as one of the few level headed people on this forum. So I’m curious when you say it’s become too political do you mean that in a sense that the creators are pushing their own political agenda? Or just that the plot of the show has shifted to a political theme? maybe I just don’t care enough to see it but it has kind of just felt like a natural storyline with a “supe” possibly becoming president.

If anything, while watching the boys first few seasons I felt like they were almost poking fun at systemic wokeness. For example the super hero company just being like “well we need another black or Hispanic dude” “oh, the white girl is a lesbian? Let’s lean into that!” I guess their choice to make Frenchie go gay instead of being with the Asian chick so far in these new episodes could be seen as an extra push to have gay and bi characters.

Which parts are you referring to specifically? I watched the first three episodes and feel no differently about the show (edit: aside from them making frenchy bi…)

More reason to hate the NBA. And no, I don’t hate the Lakers picking Bronny. Yes you could argue there had to be some big euro guy to take a chance on and try to hit the lotto, but at pick 55, why not make the greatest active all time player happy? In terms of Bronnys future? Probably won’t make it once lebron retires but there are numerous players picked in round 2 who no one thought would go on to have solid backup type careers. It’s not out of the question. what annoys me is the rest of the NBA just letting LeBron get what he wants. Someone should have drafted him as a middle finger to LeBron and the Lakers. Grow a pair. Instead, LeBron runs the entire league. You can’t tell Me there are no franchises who could use a boost in ticket and jersey sales based on the name and circus alone… and hell, why not entice LeBron to come to your team next year? There are teams out there that could make a leap with an old man LeBron as a #3

I mean I guess that could be a reason I just don’t see why it would be. Why would a guy who most people agree would have elevated the offense in 2023, be a cause for concern for potential breece hall owners in 2024? If anything, I think the presence of Rodgers a threat of a passing game should be seen as an extra boost.