dbunting

Got tired of reading the 50 posts since it aired so I'm just gonna type instead and read more later.

I would've done what Joel did. I have a daughter and no way I'm letting them kill her under those circumstances, or maybe any.  They do not know for a fact that the procedure is the answer to the cure. They only have a guess that it will. Sorry but her life is worth more than a guess. Check blood, etc.. Hell I'd rather they said we need to get her pregnant to see if her kid is immune also, anything but kill her and hope that the one doctor there guessed correctly. This episode showed us that Marlene knew how Ellie became immune, that fact alone provides hope. They know a mother about to give birth, who gets bitten likely equals an immune child. Doing horrific experiments with this knowledge is no worse than killing Ellie.

However, I do not like that Joel lied to her about it. Had he explained to her that they were going to kill her without knowing if it would have worked, she may not like what he did but at least she would respect him for not lying to her. Which brings me to what I didn't like about this episode. That was a whole new Joel we saw in this episode. I know he was trying to get her out of her funk from the previous attack but turning Joel into a blithering chatterbox who then lies to her was totally out of character.

Side note about The Walking Dead. How Ellie became immune is somewhat how I thought TWD would show a cure, if it ever did. I thought that children born after it all happened would be immune to it, something about having been exposed to it in utero etc... I thought Judith would get bit and wouldn't turn and that would be the aha moment.

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

I’d have to go back and look at one of those “Gotcha!” websites that keeps track of predictions; but I remember multiple ESPN types who had them in there.

I remember the same thing. They had CMC, DJ Moore and the hope of Sam Darnold and playing in a weak division.  I don't think Vegas had them in the playoffs but some talking heads did.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I saw some speculation that during the first winter (1996/97) they'd get close to cannibalism and then be able to avoid it, and then Season 3 would be "lighter," in the sense it'd be flashing back to them in the spring/summer of 1997 with the hope of rescue or escape, and then during the second winter (1997/98) they'd run out of options and go full cannibalism at that point, in Season 4 and then go full grim.

That always felt a bit off though, given they covered something like 6-8 months in Season 1 alone and their options for finding fresh food once the bear meat runs out seem limited. Also Season 2 looks like it might be introducing a third time period after the rescue as well.

Also Grim... she is pregnant and in the future we don't see a child that age in their lives so....?

15 minutes ago, Werthead said:

What is startling is that Season 2 looks really fucking grim, which is a bold thing to do with a (planned) 5-season show.

Well it is a story that likely involves cannibalism so grim, yeah, that's gonna happen.

I don't think it seems like too much. If you believe THE guy is there in this draft and you can get him, go for it. But you better be right or you screwed the franchise for years. The curious part is giving up Moore, who you think your new QB would like to have as a target.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Has to be. How does he compare to Hardy in Warrior? Gotta look up the clip.

Bodies are different but he was ripped, like everywhere there is a muscle, it could be seen, if that makes sense, maybe lean and muscular is a better description.

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

I saw the mention before of a remake of the film that you linked, but didn't read it... but now learned that it's Doug Liman working on a "reimagined" Road House, with Jake Gyllenhaal to star. That seems too crazy to be true.

 

I saw this too. There was footage shot before last weeks UFC fight that Gyllenhall was there for, he did a mock weigh in and was ripped.  Assume the UFC part is his backstory for the movie, why Dalton is such a badass?

Yeah I saw he passed yesterday and thought about posting but got tied up. I do remember seeing Baretta reruns as a kid and enjoying them somewhat. The latter story of his life is how I remember him though.

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

Strap him to the wing.

I hear Flex Seal makes some amazing products

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Hell, the whole plot about resurrecting IG-11 was incredibly stupid. 

This I totally agree with, and the funny thing is, where would IG-11 sit on the new ship? 

I keep waiting for a clear bubble dome to come up and cover him. It could make sense to protect it since I assume that thing is made for babies?

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I found out earlier this week that Spielberg put in that tree that ate kids because he had a tree that looked like it had gnarly arms which scared him and FUCK YOU SPIELBERG

I was terrified of that for years as a kid. I saw Heavy Metal and it wasn't as scary to me. Damn man

YES! There is a movie that was out in the 70's, on tv in '76, where the trees killed you! I saw it at 5 years old and was terrified. The damn wind would blow and the branches would scrape against my window!

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

None of them lived up to the original, but there is much less drop off in quality than in Halloween or Nightmare on Elm Street.  I always thought Friday 13 was total trash, even the original.  I also hated the Saw franchise so haven't seen most of those.

That is true, most sequels went completely off the rails. They all fall into the same line of making the killer invincible. I liked the original Saw but after that initial surprise the others didn't match it.

I think Poltergeist and Amityville Horror scared me more than any other thing. The thought that your own home (basically) is trying to kill you and no place is safe.

54 minutes ago, Relic said:

Assumed he was pulled down by the Mythosaur

I assumed the same, but then why release him and why not grab her? I guess we will have to tune in next week to find out.

17 hours ago, sifth said:

What was the deal with the lighting this week? I could hardly see anything that was happening.

I had no problem at all, I see it in HDR. Not sure if that makes a difference.

One question, and I guess I could have watched it again or rewound it. 

I liked seeing Mandalore, or the remains of it.  

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I actually liked 3 a lot better than 2. Scream 4 was atrocious, 5 was better but the new cast doesn't do much for me.  It's definitely one of the better franchises.  I rewatched the first one a couple of weeks ago and it's still great.

I loved the first one, it felt fresh and new. Since then. eh.  I even went to the last new one and was glad the popcorn was good.

11 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Its a great return, because their alternative is getting nothing at all.

Or signing someone you worked with for his entire career, that you may not believe is the answer to a massive long term contract.

I think they sign him in the end, just not to the reported asking price from Jackson.

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Imo Lamar has become an avatar. People see what they want in him. If you always believed in his upside then some of the issues don't deter you and if you always had doubts you've got evidence you can point to. Frankly I've seen enough to invest in him for the next few years because like I've said before, he's never had a supporting cast and I think if you give him one you're so much more likely to get '19 Lamar than the '21 version. And even if he's never that good again the '20 version is enough to win a title on a good team. 

Again, different points of view. I don't see his 2020 season as exceptional. 3762 yards of total offense and 33 total tds.  I see that season as very good as I have said more than once, but exceptional, not IMO. 

I fully believe you can win a SB with him in the right situation. I just don't know what that situation is or what it looks like. Baltimore had been known for years as a well run team and they haven't figured out the right people to place around him to make it work.  

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So what's the alternative? The team is a contender with him and terrible without. Their recent track record suggests that if they let him go they won't be good for a few years and there's no guarantee they'd rebound back into contention in the same period they'd have to pay Lamar. I know there's sticker shock, but $50M AAV for a top 10 QB will be cheap in a few years considering the cap is expected to jump a shit ton during that time period. 

You can afford to lose a few players if you're going to upgrade your QB that significantly. And my guess is they'd stagger the deal in a way that wouldn't hurt them too much in year one.

We are just coming from different perspectives. I don't see the Lamar from the last two seasons as a significant upgrade.

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Why would I not include his MVP season in which his peers voted him the best player in the league? No one is arguing he's been as good since for an entire season, but he's had stretches where he's and it's fair to wonder if he could have kept up at that level if the Ravens didn't completely mismanage their personal. It's hard to find a team that's done less for their star QB than they have.

As for the contract goes, we're not far apart. He just turned 26. There's no reason to fear paying him until he's 29/30. It's the next contract that should be concerning.

 

I still maintain that if Lamar goes to Miami or San Fran he should be viewed as one of the favorites to win MVP. 

Because when you look at the rest of his career that season is a big outlier and he has done nothing (2020 was good but worse than 2019) but get worse since. 

Look at just his last two or three years taking away his name and memories of 2019 and does that look like a 250mill fully guaranteed contract you want to sign? No.

BTW if he went to SF or Miami, how many really good players are they cutting to get that 50-60 mill to fit? Be realistic and look at the numbers and think about how many of the players that make those teams who they are that would have to get released. 

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Gets injured and relies on the run game. Hmm, over the last four years...

P1: GS: 53, record: 21-31-1, Comp%: 64%, passing yards: 11,603, TDs: 60, Ints: 34, Rushing yards: 1,708, TDs: 12, fumbles: 42

P2: GS: 54, record: 39-15, Comp%: 63.7%, passing yards: 11,008, TDs: 95, Ints: 35, Rushing yards: 3,372, TDs: 19, fumbles: 30

Who has a one year deal for $32M and who has a four year deal for $160M? Odd, isn't it, considering Player 1 has literally all the downsides of Player 2 people like to mention without the massive upside the latter offers. 

Cmon man stop including the one great year he had, ONE great year. Look at the last 3 years, he has been bad and he is getting worse. This could be a result of shitty personnel around him, that's absolutely true. That doesn't change the fact that he is getting worse, not better. His running stats are dropping quickly, along with his knees, and that is his strength and always has been.

Like I said, I'd give him 3 years 150 all guaranteed, or even 2 yrs 120 mill and contractually say we would not franchise him after that. I don't see him being viable after three more years and a longer contract could be an anchor around a team.

49 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

After re-watching I'm thinking a detail I missed was James and David talking in code at the beginning, when David asked James how much food like venison and rabbit was left. So people wouldn't realize they were talking about the stored bodies. Because we see 3 bodies hanging in the storeroom, so it wasn't just that girl's dad they were eating, and when David tells James to go get the penicillin, he clarifies that he's not speaking code. 

Yeah, and I thought he was lying to her about the 4 mile round trip so her timing would be off watching for him to come back, but then I remember them talking at the resort about seeing deer a couple miles away.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think this should be more of an open conversation on QB's salary in general, but it's the going rate now and like I've said before, Lamar probably adds more value to his team than just about any other QB.

It's incredibly difficult to see how this goes well for the Ravens.

Why do people keep saying this? His stats are what he adds to the team and they have been declining since 2019, he is not an ascending player. He had a great 2019 and a good 2020 (3762 ttl yds and 33 ttl tds), poor 2021, and poor 2022. In 2021 he had 2 rushing tds, the team lead was 5 so it's not like they had a goal line monster in there taking the tds he used to get. Same thing for 2022. He had 3 and the leader had 4!

If anything this should be a cautionary tale to other teams about changing the whole offense to tailor to one player. Other than 2019 this has been a failure.

And I agree, this likely doesn't end well for the Ravens. I just think they are in a unwinnable situation.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s only smart business if the cost savings are substantial and you don’t mind alienating your most valued employee. And again, Lamar doesn’t have to sign the tag until week 10. If he does that the team will be really bad this year and they won’t even be able to plan around it and build for the future. Then what? Lamar can do the exact same thing again next year and will then be a FA in 2025, so worst case scenario is he wrecks two seasons, the team can’t properly prepare (also they have to leave the necessary cap space open so he can sign) and then they lose him for nothing. They should have either signed him long term after his third season when the value would have been best or just traded him this past offseason. It’s very difficult to see how they’re going to get the best end result by doing this unless there really is no market for Lamar which I find hard to believe. He’s not going to get the deal Watson got, but the numbers I heard the Ravens were offering was $250M over five years, but only $133M was guaranteed. If that’s accurate it’s really insulting. That’s $30M less than what Kyler got and Lamar is significantly better and more accomplished than he is while working with less and Kyler’s long term injury concerns are every bit as real as Lamar’s.

His leg injuries have to be concerning since he isn't known for his passing skills, remember that because he is a QB. He wants a salary that could cripple the organization for years if he can't live up to his performance from three years ago because his performance since then does not warrant it.

People have to stop living in 2019 and look at his last three years. 

Avg pass yds last three years, 2627. Avg Pass tds 19.6.  Avg Rush yards 845. Avg Rush tds 4, I had to go back and check that several times!

For the last three years he gives them 3472 yards and 23.6 tds per year. Is that worth the contract we hear he is asking for?

Kylers contract is already not aging well so to compare them isn't the best look. How many on here think Kyler is worth that? BTW, Kyler avg more yards, 3929, and tds 27.6 in the last three years as well. So Lamar is not only not significantly better, he is statistically speaking worse.

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

This is seems like a terrible gamble for minimal upside meanwhile every player in the league is watching how they’re treating the face of their franchise. This is bad business.

Is it? If the market says he isn't worth what he is asking for then isn't this actually sound business practice? To me this makes sense (admittedly I am an idiot sometimes), let the market tell you the worth. Let him negotiate and see what is out there and match it if you feel it's fair. 

It would be totally different if they were not far apart but it sounds like they are miles apart.