TrueBlueGED

This is correct. However, I love GA's Dahlin love. Give me more! Right into my veins!

You have officially fallen into the same trap scouts did. Congrats :p Seriously, I hope you're right. But it's not like his competition was stiff, and he couldn't elevate the play of his team...which isn't that what we're all hoping who we drafted this year does? We didn't spend a year passing on other viable QBs and spending valuable draft capital to get a guy who is alright when everything else is okay.

I love experimental stuff! This one just happened to be awful and super expensive. I stand by terrible. 60 is good, and I love 90 to pieces.

Part of the reason I don't read HF anymore: all prospects are talked about as if they are already at their ceiling. I couldn't take it anymore. But with Dahlin? Give me all of the irrational exuberance you can. I want it all! If this kid were Canadian and playing in the OHL, I firmly believe his hype (even if the substance isn't quite there) would be at McDavid levels.

I just really don't think his particular flaws are coachable; the accuracy is only one of those things. The other is his ability to process the game, particularly in the face of pressure. Maybe. I've said it before, but I genuinely feel this way: you can miss on a QB and you can trade up for a QB, but if you trade up for a miss, you're probably getting fired. Especially when you have passed on Watson, Mahomes, and Rosen, in the process (no pun intended). This was their plan, they literally spent two years executing it, and the guy they picked has all kinds of question marks. I don't think they get a second kick at the can.

I'm glad you have been persuaded. I, on the other hand, continue to be of the opinion taking him over Rosen will cost the entire regime employment in two years.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say it: LeBron is the best basketball player ever, and he might be the greatest pure athlete I've ever seen.

I hope I never get to the point of fandom where I can't be over the moon with my expectations about a prospect as universally revered as Dahlin. Maybe he doesn't get there. So what? Why let disappointment 5 years down the road ruin the experience for me now?

....Jerry to George: "You're worse"

The 120s are terrible. Truly. One of the worst beers I've ever consumed, and the worst overall if you want to include cost into the equation. It's a lesson that more hops and more alcohol is not always a winning combination.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just post a picture of the Grinch? :p

Is there any truth to the rumor they're rebooting Die Hard with you as the star and a plot centered around unwavering belief in disappointing prospects?

So I'm visiting my parents, thus i have access to cable TV. I just saw a commercial with Morgan Freeman lip syncing Mary J. Blige. That did more to make me think about getting cable again than every annoying mail advertisement I have ever received put together.

Because they've proven to be failures. Nobody said that upon their hiring.

You're officially worse at life than I am. Congrats!

He's a more athletic Byron Leftwich.

I don't think I can say it any better than Smell or Dark. But essentially, it's not necessarily safe to assume that somebody's interactions with us are representative of their interactions with others, particularly others who are not like us, nor representative of any particular value set they may hold. We live through a series of anecdotes, and the plural of those anecdotes is not data. Maybe even impossible.

You could at least say my name. And for the record, this is the second time he's discussed it on-air, separated by a full day or two (depending when the podcast was actually recorded) and came off buffoon-ish both times. It's not hard to be thoughtful and intentional when talking about this stuff, but you have to have some basic idea of how gendered language works. Friedman, I think, means well in his comments, but clearly has no idea what he's actually talking about.

Except that there is. He's using personal experience with Harrington as a reason to believe he's not sexist. Edit: "I've known Mike a long time, I don't think he's a sexist guy, I really don't." It's in the same sentence, FFS! He's clearly and blatantly using his personal experience with Mike to infer Mike's intentions regarding Kim Pegula. I want him to be better. If he's going to advocate for a better level of discourse, he himself needs to be more cognizant of the language he himself uses. FYI, I'm not mad at him or anything, I just find the whole thing hilariously inept. He's obviously someone who knows there is something there, but legitimately has no clue how to talk about it properly.

As it should.

Grabner would be a great add if he can be had relatively cheap and short term (see: 1 year). He's exactly the type of addition I'm looking for to fill the roster while the kids develop.

That's the thing. It's not about trying. Nor is it about intent. Implicit bias is a subconscious process that often manifests itself in subtle ways, such as language.

When talking jointly about the owners, he thinks they're learning. When talking about the female owner, he hopes she's learning. That's not a meaningless difference in language.

My biggest hope for Botterill is that he's smart enough to avoid paying for past performance long into the future.

Oh FFS. 1) "And I think they're learning now that you have to go slow." 2) Then consecutive mentions of hoping that Kim "gets it." Either Friedman isn't capable of chaining coherent thoughts together or what he meant in #1 was he believed only Terry was learning.