That hardly means they’re investigating how to take over instances… These egghead think tanks will do research on anything that matches a couple buzzwords and this is one of them.
Someone’s researching governance in a federated environment and that’s scary because…?
The pro bowl is not a way to evaluate if a team has good players.
It’s not perfect but when’s the last time a successful team in the postseason had ZERO pro bowl nominees. It’s just another indicator that this lineup has fallen into disrepair (and that’s not ‘cause of their historically frugal spending…)
Spending future money to have good players now is literally unconditionally not a legitimate approach to rebuilding.
I’ve literally never disagreed with you that wasteful spending is dumb but not every player is getting a 10-year Mahomes contract. You’re more likely to see a 2-3 year contract for a wideout that works perfectly with the ample cap during that window.
And to say pursuing a short-term veteran is never a solution to performance struggles is actually hilarious since it’s historically worked for a number of teams to get into the postseason and even win the Super Bowl.
This is the worst part to me. All this just to “cloud sync” or something silly.
You really don’t know how to read. Just quit if you really need to mischaracterize everything and can’t see the value of having any good players.
All I said was that we needed to be more aggressive and get some sort of good player to anchor a team around and you made up the rest, insinuating that we were strapped for cash or that a 2-year deal would somehow annihilate the far future. You’re out of your mind to somehow forgive the dogshit team building that has happened. Best of luck to you though since you wanna keep feeling really smart but making up shit.
Okay, thanks for not making a meaningful point and just deciding to insult me. Turns out my POV is what the organization cares about, rather than accepting a mediocre team like you think we should.
You’ve yet to point to anything that indicates we’re at risk of being non-compliant with the cap. I’ve never said “blow the whole cap” but have really just emphasized that we needed something, anything to act as a kickstart on offense. It’s just a flat out GM failure to build this team without a single pro bowler.
It does bother me that they're saying Dan Lanning is their target for HC. He literally just gave an impassioned speech about how Texas A&M couldn't get him for all their money. No clue why Alabama thinks they can pull him but I'm always nervous when it comes to Alabama.
Welp, the Crimson Tide to Patriots pipeline has been severed.
Not really. There are ways to wiggle around with bonuses and other financial tricks to sneak past cap. All that aside, you've said that we've cursed our future selves with past signings to which I literally cannot find on any cap statement anywhere. We've even had the coach saying we spend low and the owner explicitly stating that money is not a problem. Can you show me any source anywhere that indicates that the Pats are in a financial situation that makes them uncompetitive for offensive players in free agency? Are you perhaps just making a generic statement that we shouldn't be competitive in free agency because it costs money? If so, that's a weird one when it's been proven that we have $100m less on the books than the Ravens.
You all can downvote me but if you're not interested in living in the land of facts, demonstrating any attempt at backdooring Fediverse products beyond "bad money in a think tank", then there's literally not even the smoke to indicate a fire.
Can you share anything that indicates that understanding governance is even tangentially related to backdooring these products or the teams behind them? Is the best response really "wait four years and see"?