Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_T
ParticipantI liked it too, Zooey. Very important film. I think its flaws are far outweighed by its message, the quality of acting, directing, etc.
(Not a fan of the epilogue, but that’s a minor quibble for me)
The negative reviews? I think they miss the mark, pushing too much for “subtlety” when we’re drowning in it, at least when it comes to the big issues of the day. It’s as if certain powers that be decided Americans can’t handle the truth, so we have to spoon-feed them indirect indirections about massive crises, and that indirection, IMO, actually makes it far easier for the right to jump in and gaslight the masses directly. Ironic, aint it?
The film was great at showing this, and I think it was plenty subtle when it came to not naming at least two serious crises while suggesting them.
Anyway, I think it’s a must-see movie. Nathan Robinson posted a defense of the movie over at Current Affairs:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/12/critics-of-dont-look-up-are-missing-the-entire-point
Billy_T
ParticipantAny twitter info on Rams’ health issues, post-game?
Billy_T
ParticipantI think that was one of the best team wins the Rams have had in a decade.
I could claim that I called this before hand, that I predicted the Rams would rally around the Horns and overcome the major losses due to injuries and Covid. I could just say I knew it! But, um, well, that would be false. In reality, when I heard about the last-minute losses, I couldn’t help but think of the likely lineup as something akin to a third exhibition game, with players “on the bubble” vying for a roster spot. It all seemed far too dark for me, but I watched the game anyway.
And, then it happened. The D stepped up big time. Great plays, especially, from the Front Seven. The O played great, including the call-ups at TE. Stafford was on fire, as were Kupp, OBJ, and Michel, and the line was stalwart.
McVay called a really good game.
Echoing WV, what couldn’t they do this when they were at or close to full strength?
Billy_T
ParticipantMy view:
He’s not the best, or really even close, if we’re just talking about physical abilities. He’s slow. He’s never had a strong arm. It’s solid, but not strong. But he gets the ball out quickly, and, as you mentioned, he processes things really fast. He may be the best ever in that last category. A coach on the field like few others, he sees it all, has seen it all.
IMO, he needs a strong team around him, especially a good offensive line. He’s “elite” when he has great protection. Can pick apart a defense with ease. Another key: he knows his own limitations. Doesn’t try to do what he can’t do, which is another great trait. Few QBs have ever had a better handle on their own abilities. Perhaps few athletes in any sport.
I’ve always thought that Archie Manning was a great QB on a horrible team, that ruined any chances of him ever showing his skills. Put Brady on that team, and he would have been driven out of the league in a couple of years. Most likely, a ton of sacks would have crushed his development and his spirit. But Manning likely would not have had the career Brady has had, with the Patriots, and then the Bucs, because of that “know thyself” factor. Who can say? But Manning certainly had the better arm and was gifted as a runner, unlike Brady.
Bottom line: I think Brady’s football IQ is what sets him apart, and his self-knowledge. From a pure physical skills POV, he’s not even top 25 all-time.
Billy_T
ParticipantSpoilers ahead, for those who want to watch the series but haven’t.
|
|
|
|
|
I liked the introduction of the new Black Widow from the movie, and, before that, Kate’s attempt to help Hawkeye have a decent holiday time away from his family. Obviously, quite the contrast. But it worked for me. Knowing why BW wants to kill Hawkeye is key.
Still not exactly sure about the timeline, though. Don’t know if he’s missing Christmas with his family or if he’s about to. One of those “Be home in time for Xmas” dilemmas, etc. Seemed like the last two Avengers movies, using much less time, established a better connection between Hawkeye and his family. The series hasn’t utilized that yet, IMO.
Anyway, decent fight scenes, but a little bit dark. As in, not enough lighting, perhaps borrowed from GOT. Overall, seems to need a lot of fleshing out to rev up the intrigue. Doesn’t pull me in as quickly as Loki or Falcon/WS.
Still hoping they resurrect Daredevil, Luke Cage, and Jessica Jones.
Billy_T
ParticipantI agree that the Rams have done pretty well with late picks. But it’s a mistake for people to think that doesn’t come at a price — if they do believe that.
How much better would they be today if they had both — early picks and those solid to excellent mid to late rounders.
And, obviously, it’s not just a matter of the players the Rams could have had. “Opportunity costs,” etc. It’s that other teams added them to their rosters. It’s a double-bad-hit.
Speaking of Gaines and SJD. I’m hoping they can re-sign the latter, and then use a four-man front, often, in 2022. How good would it be to have both Gaines and SJD on the field at the same time? Donald and, say, a beefed-up Hollins, Floyd (or rook/FA) at the other DE?
I’ve always preferred a 4-3 defense. But I know that’s not what the Rams want right now. But they have been willing, at times, to mix things up a bit. Having that flexibility, talent-wise, would be great.
Billy_T
ParticipantHas anyone tweeted yet about McVay obviously reading my posts, finally, which led to his adding multiple sets like six linemen and extra TEs?
;>)
Billy_T
ParticipantSome further elaboration/refinements:
A person with plenty of capital could start a business, hire employees, but turn it into a non-capitalist enterprise, and rather easily.
Democratize the company. Relinquish control and the ability to appropriate the surplus value. Worker-control, instead, over the who, what, where, why, and when of production. Share the surplus value equally. Non-profit co-op or WSDE, etc.
Ironically, a Gates, a Bezos, or a Musk could do this easily, and still retain billions. They could set up truly non-capitalist enterprises, or go even further. Purchase islands, say, and set up an entire non-capitalist economy there. Or do this on large swaths of land inside America and elsewhere. Individual artisans, family farms, home production — the way it used to be. Plus scale up if needed to company size.
Far better still: A nation would set that up via democratic processes. No plutocrat or oligarch in the mix at all. Public monies for public benefit, controlled entirely by the public. We the People, directly.
I think Americans would end up loving this far beyond the current setup, and would vote to make it the social and legal norm. To me, that’s the way to make the transition non-violently, democratically. Start with public sector creation of non-capitalist, non-profit, publicly owned enterprises. Show they’d result in far more benefits for society, far lower prices for consumers, and far better rank and file compensation. That’s guaranteed, if there’s no private sector boot on their neck.
Billy_T
ParticipantQuick caveat:
There’s an argument to be made that people who use capital to make capital are capitalists too. Those who skip right over the “make commodities for money” part of M-C-M, at least in a sense. But they trade stocks in companies that still produce commodities for money, so they’re not really escaping the M-C-M equation. Crypto-traders come closer to bypassing the C in M-C-M, cuz they’re almost literally just trading money for money. Though the trading structure itself requires workers, commodities, etc. etc.
To make a long story short, “capitalism” is the most elitist and exclusive “club” the world has ever known, when it comes to economic systems. It’s appalling how capitalists and their PR folks have managed to convince so many people that it’s “natural” and supposedly benefits everyone. It’s appalling that I saw so many “farmers for Youngkin” signs this past election. Youngkin was the CEO of the Carlisle Group before he entered the race.
Billy_T
ParticipantGreat response from AOC, Zooey.
I don’t know the exact percentage, but judging from total numbers of American businesses with employees, this is probably close: Roughly 99% of the people in this country are NOT capitalists. Employees and sole proprietors are not capitalists. They may think they are, but they aren’t. It’s a bit like NFL fans who think they’re NFL players. Um, no.
An analogy to show the difference:
1. You build custom chairs for a living, with your own two hands. You don’t have any employees. You do the initial craftwork, the sales, the transport, the accounting yourself. Everything. You’re not a capitalist, even if you live in a capitalist society.
2. You hire people to build those chairs for you, and you appropriate the surplus value they generate as if you did all the work. You are a capitalist. M-C-M.
It’s not even really a matter of how much money you have, though “capital” is generally defined as money in excess of what you need to pay your bills, your debts, your necessities, so you no longer need to work for others. But you still have to employ others and appropriate the surplus value. It’s still a matter of using that capital to purchase labor power (as a commodity) to produce commodities for money.
Pre-capitalist economies are usually some variant of C-M-C. Commodities sold for Money to buy other Commodities, etc.
I love AOC.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_T
ParticipantI read the transcript. The video seemed to stop early.
A few observations: Stahl likely makes eight figures, and works for people who make nine or more. She isn’t going to tell the truth about capitalism, which is why she seemed intent on trashing China’s attempt to rein in its evil.
Capitalism killed off “free markets” on the way to becoming world hegemon — violently, thru slavery, genocide of Native peoples, and the mass theft of their lands and resources. I wish people would stop using that term as a synonym for it.
There is nothing capitalism produces than can’t be produced by a non-capitalist mode of production, and for far less, and with far better pay for the rank and file. It baffles me that so many people think that if we replace capitalism with economic democracy, suddenly all innovation dies and we’re living in caves again. Actually, the vast majority of innovation due to capitalism has been in the realm of squeezing more profits from workers, not in production of beneficial goods and services. Those have always come from the public sector.
No extra value is ever added by paying management or ownership hundreds of times more than the rank and file. In fact, and this is too obvious, all of that money hoovered up to the top radically reduces values for consumers, and dramatically suppresses rank and file wages. A company that pays its workers roughly the same amount, and its team leaders and management slightly more, has a ginormous amount of extra cash to invest in higher quality production, wages, etc. etc.
Every Bezos, Gates, or Musk is a horrible drag on the economy, on productivity, on consumer value, on wages, and inequality kills overall consumer demand, not to mention morale.
America has got to be the most gaslit nation in history, especially when it comes to capitalism, and we weren’t always that way. We used to know it was a terrible, immoral system. People just figured, “Well, we’ve got to make the best of it, right?” But roughly from Reagan on, that common sense/fatalism was replaced by a kind of religious devotion to a lie. No major party has the guts to tell the truth about it, tragically.
Billy_T
ParticipantThanks, Ag.
Billy_T
ParticipantAgamemnon,
Is that site/link safe? No malware, etc.? No computer issues as a result? And can you watch the games “live” or just after the fact like the NFL Game Pass?
So far this year, I haven’t purchased any additional services to watch the Rams. They’ve been on TV often enough to enjoy, so I probably won’t. Yesterday, watched a few key drives (close to “live”) via the NFL Network channel, and I was okay with that. Late games are fewer in number, so the rotation between active games wasn’t so bad.
I miss the NFL Sunday Ticket, but gave up on it a coupla years ago when I could not longer get it for free.
Thanks in advance.
Billy_T
ParticipantRutger Bregman’s excellent Humankind deals with the above. Latest science, studies, etc. etc on “human nature.” Came out in 2020.
Studies have shown that the rich and powerful, whether or not it’s new to them, become arrogant and all too certain of their superiority, when they have that wealth and power. And because of that, far less likely to listen to opposing views. They’re even less likely to listen to nuanced takes on those views, plans, etc. Other studies mentioned show that just a change in the status of one’s car impacts the driver’s willingness to put pedestrians at risk, to force them to jump out of the way, etc. BMWs were the worst, apparently.
The Neflix doc on Thomas Picketty’s Capital mentions a study of people playing monopoly. Simply granting certain players extra privileges alters their behavior. They become arrogant, lose natural inhibitions regarding basic civility, etc. They become far more ruthless.
Rich people lie, cheat, and steal more than the non-rich.
Throw in psychological studies regarding our unconscious, which seems forever at odds with our conscious mind, and you get a recipe for seriously effed up people.
It seems pretty obvious that the problem is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Best way to reduce the impact of the rich and powerful is to dilute that power and wealth, end those concentrations, disperse that to the four winds.
December 6, 2021 at 11:05 am in reply to: Roe Vs. Wade looks like it could be coming to an end. #134402Billy_T
ParticipantAgree with all of that, Zooey. What we should do, and how difficult it is to get there, etc.
Major frustration for me: Europe clearly gets far better results on all the matters discussed here. They have better health care, for half the price. Lower infant mortality, lower birth-mother mortality. People there live longer, happier, healthier lives. Heck, they even have lower incidences of abortions and SDTs due to their far more open sex ed, etc. On pretty much every quality of life metric, they kick our butts. Yet our “leaders” refuse to move in their direction. Quite the opposite, of course.
I know you know this. It also frustrates me that Europe is far from being “radical.” If only. They’ve had a mix of conservative and social democratic governance since WWII, but for too many Americans, they’re wild-eyed and “far left.” Ironically, social democrats there want to go much further and can’t seem to make that happen. They, too, are all too often jammed by conservatives.
(Personally, I think social democratic reforms, even if implemented fully, fall well short of what the world and planet earth need. Martin Hagglund speaks brilliantly about all of this in his This Life.)
Anyway, we’re so far from even half-way decent realities, and slipping further and further away by the hour . . . When I think about it, I hear the Stones “Paint it Black” again and again.
At least the Rams ended their skid.
Billy_T
ParticipantKinda side-note:
I think you’d enjoy Falcon and the Winter Soldier. As mentioned, it’s a very close second to Loki for me. Which makes me think of yet another point:
IMO, Marvel can be a bit schizoid when it comes to audience. Who are they really trying to reach? Kids of all ages, or actual kids. Nostalgia for, or recent discovery of. Sometimes it’s obvious. Sometimes it isn’t. But, for me, the Falcon/WS series seems more “serious.” Hawkeye, so far, seems like it hasn’t made up its mind regarding its audience.
Just a guess, but the rebirth of Marvel via the movies was likely powered by Boomer nostalgia, mostly. The first wave, anyway. But Disney has always been more geared toward raising new generations (youngins) on its content. With its recent acquisitions, audience selection is likely even more confusing. How to merge the two, or three, or four. Can it be done in the same movie or series? Or will they just segregate each to each, etc.
I’m partial to the more “serious” visions — which may seem absurd when it comes to comic book adaptations. But I get that they want to bring in Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers and the whole deal. Seems like an impossible task, though. IMO, Daredevil on Netflix is an example of it working.
Billy_T
ParticipantWell, ya see . . .
So far, I think it’s missing the best of Marvel elements: myth. I’m partial to Asian geography in that case, because of the obvious martial arts aspects. But it can be anywhere. Then again, Marvel doesn’t always make that work so well, with, perhaps, the best (worst) example being the Iron Fist series. In 2021, it’s very difficult to stick the landing, culturally. Movies like Shang-Chi, which I really liked, except for the kinda lame dragons, don’t have to go through so many potential gauntlets to just be themselves.
If memory serves, Hawkeye as Rodin has the geography, but not really the cool origin myth. Maybe memory doesn’t serve.
I’m willing to listen to alternative views, but I wish Marvel had chosen Black Widow to survive Endgame instead of Hawkeye.
(I haven’t kept up with the comics themselves since I was a kid, so I don’t know how far the movies and series veer away from them . . .)
Billy_T
ParticipantThat one I get.
Also: “‘Heroic’ vigilante rescues inanimate objects through murdering fellow Americans.”
December 4, 2021 at 10:51 am in reply to: Roe Vs. Wade looks like it could be coming to an end. #134338Billy_T
ParticipantZooey,
What’s your take?
Again, there is a huge difference between pre-Civil War American jurisprudence and post-Civil War. Amendments which came after it “nullify” the 10th for the most part (ironically), and the Tenther Movement is stuck in pre-1860 America, in my view.
Hoping Waterfield responds, but would also like to hear your take. Not only regarding interpretation of the Constitution, but also what we should do?
December 4, 2021 at 9:23 am in reply to: Roe Vs. Wade looks like it could be coming to an end. #134334Billy_T
ParticipantWhile there are many sections of the Constitution that demonstrate that the Federal government does have the power to make national policy . . . these four are perhaps the most relevant:
The Commerce Clause
The General Welfare Clause
The Necessary and Proper Clause
The Equal Protection ClauseBeyond all of that, in the philosophical realm, we need to decide. We need to choose. Do we want a nation, or do we not? Do we want to protect rights for every American, regardless of where they live within this nation, or not? If the answer is no, then we should be honest and break up, go our separate ways. Cuz a nation can’t function as a nation if the various states get to write rules that conflict with one another. There is no nation then. Why keep pretending?
December 4, 2021 at 9:15 am in reply to: Roe Vs. Wade looks like it could be coming to an end. #134333Billy_T
ParticipantWaterfield,
Actually, contrary to conventional wisdom, the founders granted themselves massive powers in their constitution. Article One, Section Eight gives sweeping powers to the Federal government, for better or worse. I’ve never understood how anyone can read those four pages and come away thinking it was written by Ron Paul. The anti-federalists lost the argument. We don’t go by the Articles of Confederation, etc.
And, then there was the Civil War, and all those amendments after the Civil War. Like the 14th, which reads in part:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Billy_T
ParticipantZooey,
Thanks. Makes me feel a bit better.
Kinda like, if I had joined the field trip on Day One instead of Day Eight, I’d probably get the humor.
Billy_T
ParticipantZooey,
Was wondering about some things. I think I have a pretty good sense of humor — believe it or not. Friends and family say I do, anyway.
;>)
But I have to admit to struggling with more than a few of those twitter memes and photos you guys post. Just like New Yorker cartoons, I’m all too often perplexed and can’t see the humor. At all.
Like the one with the wine bottle. And most of those “guy who leers at other girl while walking with his now angry girlfriend” captions.
Is there a special decoder ring needed for twitter humor?
Hope all is well.
Billy_T
ParticipantInteresting comments from Cosell. Makes sense. Woods was fully integrated into the offense, and he suited McVay’s vision to a T. I have no idea which came first, though. Did McVay customize things to suit his skills (and Kupp’s), or did Woods alter his game to fit in? Perhaps a bit of both? Anyway, OBJ isn’t that kind of receiver, though he has elite speed and hops, generally excellent hands, and is tougher than he’s usually given credit for. For the rest of the season, however, it seems obvious that McVay is going to have to bend his scheme at least enough to help OBJ be more productive. He can’t just expect it to happen on its own. If he does, that points again to his rigidity, and perhaps to a bit of arrogance.
Billy_T
ParticipantMcVay’s rep and his performance strike me as being at odds recently. Initially hailed as a revolutionary mind on offense, from this fan’s perspective, their offense seems all too vanilla and predictable these days. It also strikes me as very “conservative” and rigid. Yes, as many a commentator has said over the last few years, he runs variants from a basic setup. But the rigidity when it comes to that one setup makes it easier for teams to counter.
Wouldn’t it be all the more difficult if he switched up packages and ran variants within several? That would confuse the hell out of DCs.
Use an extra lineman, move him to the backfield now and then. Do the same with extra tight ends. Activate Perkins and run the option with him. More variants. etc. etc.
And, yeah, I know injuries have limited him. But they can still try these things with the players they have. If they’re good enough to make an NFL team, they’re good enough to follow an enhanced playbook.
Things gotta change. As others have mentioned, this is really screwing up the Rams’ defense too. Keeps them on the field far too long, and they can’t pin their ears back and rush when they’re down two touchdowns, etc.
A bad offense makes for a mediocre D, even one with Aaron Donald and Jalen Ramsey on it.
Billy_T
ParticipantWell, an injured/beaten-up QB needs a good OLine.
And the Rams drafted a tutu instead of an OLineman.
Thats still my biggest gripe this year.
w
vAgreed. It just seemed incredibly self-indulgent. One of those “luxury” picks, when the Rams obviously had holes elsewhere — as you mentioned, especially along the O-line. Plus, inside backer, corner, safety, etc.
(Creed Humphries, for instance, is playing great football at Center for KC. For what it’s worth, Pro Football Focus has him All-rookie and All-pro as of the midway point this season.)
Hated the pick. Tutu is a tough little guy, with special speed — though he wasn’t the fastest receiver in this draft. But at 5’8,” 155, he’s just an injury waiting to happen, which, well . . . . And, going into the season, with Kupp, Woods, Jefferson, and Jackson, he was likely 5th on the depth chart. It’s crazy to spend your first pick on someone that far down that chart. Nutz. I could almost see it if he had the makings of a future #1, which was never the case. But, even then, the O-line was a major need this season, especially at center and to replace the 40-year-old Whitworth. It also had ripple effects down draft, as it pushed back depth-picks for all three squads. Special teams, perhaps most importantly.
I’m guessing McSnead wish they had a do-over on that one.
Billy_T
ParticipantThat’s unconscionable. And incredibly stupid, cuz non-profit, truly public goods and services will always be cheaper for patients and consumers than for-profit, “private” goods and services. Recent estimates put the savings for M4A, for instance, at 600 billion dollars per year, just on admin costs!
But this move is also a part of the inexorable competitive “laws of motion” of capitalism, which David Harvey explains so well. Not only the pressure to colonize the future (debt, speculation, crypto-currencies, etc), but to forever expand markets spatially, geographically, and via “enclosures” of the Commons.
Going after Medicare and Social Security is a kind of reversal of reversals of those enclosures. As you guys know, enclosures happened primarily during the early rise of capitalism — and a bit before — as a way to kill off and privatize centuries-old common lands. FDR and LBJ took back some of that enclosed space, and now Dem moderates, centrists, conservadems, and the entire GOP are working double-time to take it back and then some.
The “then some” comes in by keeping taxpayers on the hook, regardless. The old “socialize the risk, privatize the gains” deal. Plus, prices will go up, so citizens will get screwed 8 days a week and twice on Sunday.
I really don’t know how much longer America will be able to hold together, with this grotesque combo of rising fascism, runaway “pragmatic” corporatism, cowardly leadership, pandemics, climate change, etc. etc.
Hey, but at least we have the surging Rams to take our minds off of things. Um, well, through the last 8 games, anyway.
Billy_T
ParticipantWV,
I haven’t seen any specifics. Just generalized stuff: back pain, ankle, and throwing arm. As mentioned earlier, McVay shows a pattern (to me) of not being all that open with the public about injuries, at least until the cat is out of the bag and he has no other choice.
Remember the endless dance regarding Gurley? I still don’t know the severity of his many hurts, at least once he entered the NFL.
I do know that Stafford has a long history of injuries, and playing through them, which go back to his rookie year. No idea about his college injuries, though. But Detroit had a lot of trouble protecting their QB, obviously.
Bottom line for me: I think McVay is a good coach, and Snead is a pretty good GM. But they have their share of major whiffs, too. I think this trade will end up really hurting the franchise in the long run, along with a series of buy-high, sell-low trades like Peters, Cooks, Watkins, etc.
Billy_T
ParticipantJoemad,
I was against the trade from the jump. I thought it was way too much to give up for a QB his age, and I didn’t think the level of upgrade was sufficient to warrant all those picks. I would have preferred it if they had just kept Goff, worked on his throwing motion, and supported him when he was down. Lift him back up. Cuz, given what he had done for the Rams in the past, it had to be mostly an issue of confidence, which McVay wasn’t helping.
Of course, then you have to go back to the stupidity of that huge contract extension, which was — what? — two years before they had to worry about it? Gurley too. And, all of those picks they gave up to move up to draft him in the first place. I’m a diehard, going all the way back to 1966, but I hate when they botch things like this. Though, I have to admit, when they botch things, they do it with panache!
;>)
Anyway, I think if Stafford is healthy, he’s better than Goff. But he’s not healthy, and he likely has too much wear on his tires to ever be what he once was. I wouldn’t have made the trade**, but I support him now, etc.
**Maybe Goff and a 3rd. Maybe. Even that might be too much. And Detroit wasn’t going to agree to that, obviously, which would have been just fine with me.
Billy_T
ParticipantI think Stafford has “intangibles” in spades. Very few QBs have ever played with more pain, for instance, and his teammates rave about his dedication and football IQ. He’s Gabe, but a lot smaller. As in, he has no business being as tough as he is, as he’s always been. His arms are even thinner than Goff’s. But that, IMO, may be a fatal flaw. That obstinate belief in his own ability to keep going. He will play through major injuries and refuses to acknowledge that these injuries are screwing with his passing. Throw in another pattern that seems to be emerging, and it has the makings of one of those “perfect storms”:
McVay doesn’t seem to admit to players being banged up until it’s too late.
Also: I’m not getting the Jeff George comparisons at all. George had a better arm. Stafford, when healthy, has a really good arm, but it’s not as good as George’s. But George, if memory serves, was a head-case, on and off the field, and that pretty much ruined him. All the “arm talent” in the world, but a head-case.
That’s not Stafford.
And all of those team injuries? Freakish for the Rams, based on past seasons. Which makes me think yet again how utterly stupid it was for the players to agree to that extra game. Players have been dropping like flies already this season. The sixteen-game schedule was already too long. And they agree to more? It’s pretty much a given that 17 will lead to 18 all too soon, as you can’t keep going with uneven home and away scenarios. Which means every team is going to have to live with umpteen players on IR. And the Rams are in cap hell for as far as the eye can see, with next to no draft capital . . . .
Oh, well. Whadyagonnado?
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts