Boo Khaki

Has to be Gonzalez

It's a pretty grim WR class all-told, certainly compared to most recent years. JSN is about the only guy I think would have still been a nailed-on 1st rounder in the past 5 years or so because every single other guy has serious questionmarks or shortcomings. Addison is just really 'meh', Flowers size doesn't bode well, Johnston is a shit Mike Williams who will struggle to get open in the NFL, Hyatt a one-trick pony. The guy I think might turn out to be a surprise is Mingo, but he still shouldn't be anywhere near the 1st round.

Only guy they should have on their board at 21 is Smith-Njigba, but I don't think he'll be there. Flowers fits the bill for the supposed 'need' for a dynamic game-breaker, but I'm not sold on him as a 1st round NFL WR. I'd rather wait and see if Hyatt is around in the middle of the 2nd.

f**k me that's a reach

Got a feeling in my bones Telesco will take Mayer if he's sitting there at #21. TT loves a Golden Domer, even though most of them he drafts turn out to be out of their depth in the NFL.

Still plenty of QB-needy teams to pick in the 1st. I reckon both Levis and Hooker will go today. Commanders, Bucs, Seahawks, Vikes, and Saints could all conceivably be looking at QB, and then there's always the wildcard of KC trading 31 to a team with a high 2nd rounder so they can have the 5th year QB option

That's a stupid trade by the Texans. Give up the farm to get a marginally better player than one they could have taken 9 picks later. Richardson has an enormously high ceiling, but his fundamentals are awful and I don't fancy anyone's chances of fixing that. 90% chance he busts, 10% he's the best QB in football in 5 years time.

FFS Carolina. You've been on the clock since bloody February or something. How difficult does it have to be?

Players I think the Chargers should draft if any of them fall to #21 - Bijan, Smith-Njigba, any of the top 4-5 DE's. Players I think will be there at #21 who the Chargers will probably end up with but I'm totally 'meh' on - Addison, Flowers, Mayer, Kincaid. Players I'll be fucking livid about and burning my non-existent season ticket - Quentin Johnston, another fucking Corner. LAC should be looking to add an offensive weapon and End/OLB help early, then later on ILB and possibly even double-dipping both DE and WR if there is a return guy there. I like both Mayer and Kincaid as players, but LAC is in win-now and 1st year TE's rarely contribute anything. It's a deep TE draft with good prospects likely available in day 2, so I see no reason to spend a 1st rounder on one when there are bigger needs on the team. Looking forward to seeing which 5th round graded prospect from a community college Belichick takes with the Pats 1st round pick this year.

Your point is fairly accurate for the most part, but personally I've been a Chargers fan since the mid 80's, feel as much affinity for them as i do Dundee who I started following in the mid-late 70's, and I think that's why I don't really have the same interest in other NFL franchises and can't get at all excited about London games and so on. I think we're a bit spoiled nowadays with Gamepass, the Internet and so on, and perhaps 30 years ago i would have felt differently about games at Wembley. I think its also a factor that i've been to dozens of games all over the States, including a season where I was lucky to get to every SD home game, so the draw of watching a game played in the UK probably isn't there compared with a fan who has never or can not get to a game in the US.

Dads shut out for the fourth time in ten days. Now the worst team BA in the majors.

Could the Leafs finally.....

Williams has released a statement clarifying that he what he bet on was perfectly permissable, but he broke NFL rules by placing the bet while on team premises, which he can not do.

Yet another 2 hit, 0 run night for the Pads. Manny and Soto are both walking outs right now. It makes you wonder what the hell the hitting staff are doing to have such a talented line-up routinely being shut-out for days on end. Team is collectively batting about .135 with RISP. Also have the second poorest team BA in the Majors.

Pads megastar-laden offense has put up a mighty 2 runs total in the past 35 innings

280million dollar team currently on an 18 inning scoreless streak. This is all very pre-ASB 2022. Think the Pads' record last year was something like 26 innings.

I'm not going to ask you to go back and read every post of mine in this thread, so for the sake of convenience I'll provide a brief summary of views I've already expressed in here regarding how I see the 'GC' position. For a start, despite being an advocate of GRR myself, I'm technically 'Gender Critical' as I do not believe human beings can change their biological sex, and 'Gender', despite being a very real 'thing' with significant implications, is nothing more than a social construct and not something that is innate. I have also said that I do not accept that every single person with gender sceptical views is a bigot, phobic, hateful, misinformed, or easily led by biased media sources pushing an agenda. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the people expressing 'genuine concerns' absolutely legitimately hold those concerns and are not motivated in the slightest by hate, however, if you take that position you must also accept that you are indistinguishable from the element who are absolutely and entirely motivated by hate of trans people. I find it bizarre that when someone like Nicola Sturgeon makes this exact point, it's invariably met by howls of outrage along the lines of 'how dare she call us transphobes!!' by the people who are adamant they are not transphobes and merely hold legitimate concerns about rights to single sex spaces etc (hello mumsnetters). After all, if you are not a transphobe, then the point being made does not apply to you, so you have no reason to be offended. Why I reject 'GC' arguments about single sex spaces in spite of my own compliance with what is generally described as the underpinnings of 'GC' view is really quite simple. We are told over and over that the threat to women and vulnerable people comes from predatory and abusive men. I do not accept the conflation between these two groups, and I see no legitimate reason whatsoever to continue to deny dignity to trans people based on the actions of a criminal element of society. To argue for this is to lump all trans people in with, and hold them accountable for the actions of 'predatory men', and that is both repugnant and entirely unjustifiable. Abusive individuals absolutely do require better detection, policing, and management, but I can not countenance impeding a different class of people simply because of an inadequacy or deficiency in managing the former. I do reject the protestations by GC people that the trans 'debate' is nothing at all like what society went through with regard to homophobia a few decades back, because this aspect of the argument is absolutely the same. It was a commonly held view that gay men specifically could not be permitted to work with children and vulnerable people for fear of them taking advantage, so again, the conflation of two separate groups being deliberately contrived to posit an argument about restricting the right of one because of the actions of the other. Where there is a genuine threat to vulnerable people from abusive men, campaign for better policing and management of abusive men, and stop conflating them with trans and gender non-conforming individuals. It's this part that I find utterly objectionable, and it's the main, but not the only reason I do not accept the 'but single sex spaces' argument. Trans people have been using single sex spaces perfectly peaceably for decades without the sky yet falling in, so how there can be such a backlash against a piece of legislation that actually adds some barriers to abusive individuals over and above existing law, is beyond me. The outrage over people like Isla Bryson potentially claiming trans status for sinister purposes, the apparent fear of the GC lobby, is perfectly possible already, yet the GRR Bill added in some safeguards to address this supposed issue, yet it's been poo-pooed by those very same people expressing concern about abusive individuals ability to do just that. There is nothing about GRA that actually permits people to use a bathroom and suchlike, as they already have that right regardless of holding a GRA or otherwise, but the GRR amendment was intended to place some impediment upon sex-offenders obtaining a GRC where there are none currently, so it seems to me this was specifically intended to allay the precise concerns voiced by the 'but Isla Bryson' circus, yet the people being most vociferous about this rejected the very thing they are purporting to want, which lends credence to the suspicion that the reality is many of the 'GC' people are actually motivated by a desire to see GRA struck completely, which does just stink to high-heaven of phobia.

The NFL's ridiculous 'next man up' QB contract nonsense continues. I'm not suggesting the Eagles shouldn't have been looking to extend, but I just don't understand why it's taken for granted that the next guy to get a contract has to get the new biggest deal ever when it's hardly ever the best QB being extended. At some point someone has to stand up to them like the Ravens have, and point out that if they want the biggest deal then they need to outplay every other QB in the league or go f**k themselves.

Anything from this match would be great, but I'm not going to be unduly concerned even if it's a defeat because the reality is that even after a loss the title would still be entirely in our own hands. Lose here, beat Cove, beat Queens, and we are Champions by 1 point at minimum.

@f_c_dundee Just a minor point of pedantry, but absolutely nobody gets put in prison because they haven't paid TV licence. This is a wilful mangling of truth that has somehow become accepted wisdom. I have no idea why, unless it's been contrived to paint women as unfairly targeted by both the BBC and the judicial system, but it simply is not true. Non-payment of TV licence carries a maximum penalty of a £1000 fine, not a custodial sentence. It is non-payment of the fine that potentially results in a custodial sentence, but even then you will not find anyone jailed for that alone. The reason women's prisons have an inordinate number of inmates who are currently serving a sentence for non-payment of the fine is because they were people who were on trial for an unrelated offence and had that pending, so their solicitors ask the Sheriff to take that into account and permit them to 'clear' that offence by serving the sentence concurrently with whatever they were actually going to prison for in any case. In Scotland, even when you are punished for watching TV without a licence the fine is typically in the region of £40-75 I want to be clear, the point of bringing this up was not to attack you just for making the claim, because as I said, this appears to be a commonly held belief for some reason, so it's not at all uncommon or unusual to see it repeated as fact, but it simply is not what it is purported to be, i.e. "women being sent to prison because they didn't buy a TV licence".

Third poor start on the spin from Snell. Once Musgrove is back in the rotation I'd be thinking about keeping Martinez and Weathers around and pulling BS until he can figure out what the hell is going on.

Schefter reckons it's unlikely to happen before the Draft.

Watching this sort of TV requires suspension of belief etc etc, but surely it's not just me that is a bit at the New Republic transporting Gideon in a solitary, unescorted shuttle, and apparently not even noticing that he didn't arrive where he was meant to?

Maybe if Rodgers was actually a Jets player they'd be more inclined to invest resources in helping him QB their team.

What makes you think the Westminster government would do anything more than shrug and move on? They are not about to go altering the EA to accommodate a Scottish Government Bill, when the likes of Badenoch are already agitating for the EA to be amended to effectively render transpeople legally non-existent. As I said, Jack made it clear at the point of announcing the s35 in the HoC that as far as they were concerned, this was the end of the matter, and it's entirely up to Holyrood to resubmit the bill in a format that is agreeable to WM even though no such format exists. It's entirely unrealistic to expect the Westminster govt to amend a UK Act pertaining to reserved matters just to facilitate a bill pertaining to devolved ones. Isn't going to happen in a million years, even if the WM government of the day wasn't already utterly hostile to the aims of the SG Bill in the first place.