Roster Prediction / Cuts Debate

[TSE]

I figured it might be good to have a 3 week thread going to have a place for anybody to bang the hammer here for guys that should be considered as keepers. I'm going to start it off and list an initial placeholder 53 man roster, and as anybody proves themselves further feel free to show your support for who you don't want to see get cut!

QB: 3
Stafford / Hill / Stanton

RB: 3
Best / Harrison / Brown (FB: None)

WR: 5
CJ / Burleson / Titus / DW / Stovall

TE: 3
Pettigrew / Scheffler / Heller (H-Back)

OT: 4
Backus / Cherilus / Fox / Culbreath

OG: 3
Sims / Peterman / Hilliard

C: 2
Raiola / Gandy

DE: 4
KVB / Avril / LJ / Young

DT: 5
Suh / CW / Fairley / SLH / Fluellen

LB: 7
Levy / Tulloch / Durant / Carpenter / Hogue / Palmer / Ekejiuba

CB: 5
Houston / Wright / Alphonso / B Mac / Berry
Just missed: Madison

S: 5
Delmas / Spievey / Coleman / Silva / Wendling

ST: 4
Hanson / Donahue / Muhlbach / Logan
Just missed: Harris

Bubble list: CB Berry / S Wendling

PS Candidates: QB Zac Robinson / WRs Hughes, Toone & Ballard / FB Clapp / DTs Calloway & Pitcock / CB Miller / LB Mixon

[kellmellus50]

TSE you made a very good list.

i am hoping Rayner beats out hanson
and bell beats out harrison

i would like to keep toone but i need to see more of him to really go that way,hughes is looking good too. they may make the extra squad after the cut.

[TSE]

Oh thanks. But I think that Mike Bell sucks. I've watched him for years and always thought he was a weak player that was highly overrated. I never understood why people like him. He doesn't have much talent. No way he's going to beat out Harrison. TBH I am SHOCKED that Bell would even join this team, there are a lot of teams in the NFL he would have a better chance of winning a job. He'll soon be out of work cause he picked the wrong team. There are going to be tons of waiver wire RBs that I would take over Bell.

And Rayner hasn't shown anything special in college or the pros to suggest that he is going to be an elite kicker. There's no reason for us to do anything unusual there, and Hanson is kicking gold, Rayner can't hold that old man's jock strap. If somebody wanted to actually trade us for Hanson and we could get something relevant for him, then I wouldn't mind going w/ Rayner. I'd hate to not have Hanson retire a Lion, but every little bit counts and we haven't done a good enough job in the past to take the Hanson trade off the idea-table unfortunately. Tough **** for Detroit fans cause we haven't been responsible in the past.

My main hope is that any of the guys on the just missed list (or from where we are deepest) can make the team because we free up spots by trading guys above them to create a new value to add in other positions. If we do things right, then we should be cutting 0 useful prospects or other relevant players. But I fear that we won't do those trades and so we will let some miscellaneous value slip through the cracks. We're still spread to thin and need to consolidate loose ends. And we STILL don't have logical shape for the next 2 upcoming drafts, which is WAY behind on preparing for the future. Two sets of 1-7 picks is not what this team is going to need. That's only going to give us a rising glut of future tough cuts and more small ball value that we will fail to capture and keep in the system.

Oh and Toone could increase his chances by about 5% if he would get a hair cut. When he's ready to take this football thing seriously he'll show up with a bald head.

[kellmellus50]

I agree williams will be cut he drops too many balls

S Silva will make the team he had an int in the game and looks good

Remember their will be a lot of players on IR so there will be many open spots for players by the end of the 4 th exibition game.

I also think the lions can pick up abetter RB than what they have right now after the cuts.

[TSE]

Yeah maybe TB will cut Blount again, or NE will cut Woodhead. My roster this year would be those 2 guys and I would have left the 3rd spot blank for wire day. We could have had 2 good players there using no draft picks on it, and saved a ton of money. Pisses me off bigtime you have no idea.

[kellmellus50]

I don't think TB would cut Blount but i would trade a one draft pick for him a 4th ,5th ,6th, or 7th.

[TSE]

I don't think TB would cut Blount but i would trade a one draft pick for him a 4th ,5th ,6th, or 7th.

Yeah I was being facetious. I'm basically hoping for the impossible, or the automatic as it should have been if we were run logically.

[OB- wan]

Maybe Blount will punch a team mate or something and you'll get your wish.

[TSE]

Odds of that happening and then subsequently resulting in his release and to then get picked up the Lions is a ridiculous longshot. If I was going to get a million to one shot wish come true I'd rather use it to simply just have the GM job handed to me, then I can have 53 roster spots as I wish instead of one.

[Piston Pete]

CHANGES:

RB/FB: 4
Best / Harrison / Brown / Felton..........to Best, Morris, Harrison, Felton

WR: 5
CJ / Burleson / Titus / DW / Logan..........to CJ, Nate, Titus, Stovall, Davis. Hughes to PS.
Just missed: Hughes / Toone

OG: 2
Sims / Peterman....................add Gandy here

C: 2
Raiola / Gandy......................add Niswanger here (remove a S)

S: 5
Delmas / Spievey / Coleman / Wendling / Silva.............one of Coleman, Wendling, or Silva will be cut.
Just missed: Phillips / M Johnson

ST: 3
Hanson / Donahue / Muhlbach..................change to Hanson, Harris, Mulbach
Just missed: Harris / Rayner

[TSE]

If Morris or Stovall or Davis or Harris are good enough for our roster, then they should be good enough to trade to another team or they don't belong here. Veterans are a waste of space and money if you keep them despite them having zero trade value, and I think all of them have pretty close to that, except for MAYBE Morris or Harris if somebody gets an RB or P injury before the season starts.

Wouldn't you prefer to trade them all away and get something for them, or do you think there is a big dropoff from those 4 guys to my younger and cheaper guys? Keep in mind that talent and experience are one thing, but saving money and staying younger also have value to keep that gap small if you truly think those are good useful players.

[Piston Pete]

If Morris or Stovall or Davis or Harris are good enough for our roster, then they should be good enough to trade to another team or they don't belong here. Veterans are a waste of space and money if you keep them despite them having zero trade value, and I think all of them have pretty close to that, except for MAYBE Morris or Harris if somebody gets an RB or P injury before the season starts.

Wouldn't you prefer to trade them all away and get something for them, or do you think there is a big dropoff from those 4 guys to my younger and cheaper guys? Keep in mind that talent and experience are one thing, but saving money and staying younger also have value to keep that gap small if you truly think those are good useful players.

I don't understand your argument. You say you want to trade them, but also go on to say they have "zero trade value" or "pretty close to" zero trade value. If true, rather keep them over the unproven guys you want to keep.

Why don't you want to keep proven vets over unproven youth?

What team will trade value for a punter?

[TSE]

Because they are proven to suck! lol

The young guys are not and they have a chance to be the next diamonds in the ruff. A player is only good if he has a possible peak of an upside that interests you, which the guys I cut don't. If you had the perfect team imaginable at 50/53 positions, but you had zero QBs, well in that situation you can look for a veteran that will give you more likely a "for sure minimum respectable amount" and that can fit and be all you need to accomplish what you need to do. But our team is way short of where we theoretically should be, and we can't afford to take on guys that are guaranteed to not become NFL superstars. We have to force explore for better players because of the position we are in if we want to have any chance of winning a SB and then being the best team every year in perpetuity. We aren't remotely close to having enough established players to do that, so we need to open up as many roster spots as possible to experimentation.

If we would have done things properly 5 years ago, then we would be the hands down best team in the NFL right now THIS year. I want to open as many roster spots as I can NOW, so that in the future we are more likely to have those spots spoken for for LONGER periods of time with good players. It's all about the cycles. I'm looking to get as many great players on the team that have shelf life as that's the foundation needed to build a superior dominant long-term team. It's the only possible way to do it. Using up roster sports for imminent future cuts is illogical and counterproductive imo. Let's say Tom Brady was 40 years old and Stafford was a rookie. Would you trade Stafford for him? Brady's the better player and we are more likely to win the SB this year. To me that's a bad trade, because if say Tom Brady was twice as good as Stafford, well that's 2x to one x in overall value. But the young Stafford might have 15 years left for us, with at least 5 under contract, and Tom says this is his last year. So in the 5 year contract Stafford has 5x worth of units of value to offer us, and potentially 15x over his career. That destroys 2x. It may hurt us in this year because we have "LESS x's" now, but as a franchise we have a lot more overall x-points. If we did that at every single position, something has to give to the point where our surplus of x's surfaces to usability as well as sustenance for the future. All 32 teams in this league are undervaluing the larger bank accounts in exchange for being able to spend money they don't have today in a sense. If you are trying to build wealth, you don't burn up your bank resources to buy material goods and then get in debt and have to bail out a 20% interest rate on that debt. You avoid debt and stockpile wealth and then you earn interest on that wealth to make the wealth grow even more. If you are the only person to do that out of 32 people in your family, it's only a matter of time where you become so wealthy that the interest you earn on an annual basis is more than the entire wealth of any other single person. So if you want to spend for material goods, you could match everybody without ever lowering your bank account in a given year, and you can continue to get richer beyond that. This is the same thing. It's just swapping out dollars for football resources, a different name but the same logic. Good things come to those who are both smart and efficient in utilizing resources to maximize wealth.

And all the guys that I have cut on my list, all of them go to the trade market. Any guys that can pull a salvage price we will get that, but any that don't will get cut. You are a different person with a different opinion, so as you step into the hypothetical GM role and you say those guys are worth roster spots, then I now see buyers out there willing to pay more for them than I previously thought. They aren't good enough for my team, so if they are good enough for another GM's team, then I will gladly take whatever that amount is worth. Until you or anybody says that they can make a roster, they are worth zero to me and I can't expect to get anything. Only you and others that are prepared to give them a job can set the price above zero, not myself cause I think they are worthless as young guys that have never played football are worth more to me than them. It's not about the men, it's about keeping the roster spot open. Have you ever played fantasy football and left 1 of your RB slots open just in case somebody new emerges and you are in a better position to scoop him up? You don't keep that spot open because of how you value a guy like Maurice Morris, you see the value in empty space itself. The guys that make up those empty spaces on my team are just placeholder shots for now, if they don't hack it then I play the waiver wire and keep cycling in new guys til I get lucky.

Any team that's not happy with their punter. Every single team in the NFL has to have a punter, and that's good for us, cause any team that isn't happy with their punter will likely consider Harris, and they will have a list of guys on their team that are on the bubble. Somebody has a player they can swap, or if not then we can elevate a draft pick. If we can turn a 7th rounder into a 6th that's better than nothing. We already gain age and money by removing Harris for Donahue, and so I require 0 in trade to make that move. But there's no point in cutting Harris if some team has a player that we can use that are upgrades to the freeroll prospects we currently have. Take Legarrette Blount for example. He was cut by the Jets before the season started. So if they needed a punter, they KNEW they were going to cut Blount, they could have swapped him to get a free punter in their minds. If I think they might cut Blount, I don't want to chance the waiver wire and risk losing him. Also, I think the Jets are out of their mind to cut Blount, and so when the offer surfaces I'm ecstatic. They have me at a disadvantage cause I would never have guessed they would cut the guy, but I don't care what foolish rationale they have, I just know he's one possible player I would have traded Nick Harris for and I get what I want is all I know, and I'm happy. There's 31 other teams out there and 31 chances that they have a valuable young prospect that they think is worthless that I might think has a chance to be a star in this league. Let them make a decision and a mistake to my advantage for a guy that I don't even want on the team because he fails to impress.

[Piston Pete]

Changing Brown to Morris at RB is hardly keeping an old, washed up vet over a young diamond in the rough. With Best and Harrison kept, we need another banger - which Morris is, and Brown is not.

Changing DW and Logan to Stovall and Davis is nearly a lateral move in terms of age. However, in terms of talent, Stovall >>> DW, both in terms of recieving ability as well as in special teams. I wouldn't mind keeping Logan over Davis, just depends on what the coaching staff wants. Davis is the better reciever, but Logan is the better return man. I'm thinking with the reduced role of return men (kickoffs from the 35 now will translate into many more touchbacks) will hurt Logan here.

And Hanson/Harris are both TONS better than Rayner/Donahue. Maybe if Hanson decides to retire before the season, then Rayner sticks, but I doubt the Lions cut a long-time Lion like Hanson off this squad unless he's cool with it. Similar to Ben Wallace and the Pistons....

And really the only other change I have is removing one S (do we really need 5 S's?) and adding another O-lineman.

[ajaX82]

Because they are proven to suck! lol

The young guys are not and they have a chance to be the next diamonds in the ruff. A player is only good if he has a possible peak of an upside that interests you, which the guys I cut don't. If you had the perfect team imaginable at 50/53 positions, but you had zero QBs, well in that situation you can look for a veteran that will give you more likely a "for sure minimum respectable amount" and that can fit and be all you need to accomplish what you need to do. But our team is way short of where we theoretically should be, and we can't afford to take on guys that are guaranteed to not become NFL superstars. We have to force explore for better players because of the position we are in if we want to have any chance of winning a SB and then being the best team every year in perpetuity. We aren't remotely close to having enough established players to do that, so we need to open up as many roster spots as possible to experimentation.

If we would have done things properly 5 years ago, then we would be the hands down best team in the NFL right now THIS year. I want to open as many roster spots as I can NOW, so that in the future we are more likely to have those spots spoken for for LONGER periods of time with good players. It's all about the cycles. I'm looking to get as many great players on the team that have shelf life as that's the foundation needed to build a superior dominant long-term team. It's the only possible way to do it. Using up roster sports for imminent future cuts is illogical and counterproductive imo. Let's say Tom Brady was 40 years old and Stafford was a rookie. Would you trade Stafford for him? Brady's the better player and we are more likely to win the SB this year. To me that's a bad trade, because if say Tom Brady was twice as good as Stafford, well that's 2x to one x in overall value. But the young Stafford might have 15 years left for us, with at least 5 under contract, and Tom says this is his last year. So in the 5 year contract Stafford has 5x worth of units of value to offer us, and potentially 15x over his career. That destroys 2x. It may hurt us in this year because we have "LESS x's" now, but as a franchise we have a lot more overall x-points. If we did that at every single position, something has to give to the point where our surplus of x's surfaces to usability as well as sustenance for the future. All 32 teams in this league are undervaluing the larger bank accounts in exchange for being able to spend money they don't have today in a sense. If you are trying to build wealth, you don't burn up your bank resources to buy material goods and then get in debt and have to bail out a 20% interest rate on that debt. You avoid debt and stockpile wealth and then you earn interest on that wealth to make the wealth grow even more. If you are the only person to do that out of 32 people in your family, it's only a matter of time where you become so wealthy that the interest you earn on an annual basis is more than the entire wealth of any other single person. So if you want to spend for material goods, you could match everybody without ever lowering your bank account in a given year, and you can continue to get richer beyond that. This is the same thing. It's just swapping out dollars for football resources, a different name but the same logic. Good things come to those who are both smart and efficient in utilizing resources to maximize wealth.

And all the guys that I have cut on my list, all of them go to the trade market. Any guys that can pull a salvage price we will get that, but any that don't will get cut. You are a different person with a different opinion, so as you step into the hypothetical GM role and you say those guys are worth roster spots, then I now see buyers out there willing to pay more for them than I previously thought. They aren't good enough for my team, so if they are good enough for another GM's team, then I will gladly take whatever that amount is worth. Until you or anybody says that they can make a roster, they are worth zero to me and I can't expect to get anything. Only you and others that are prepared to give them a job can set the price above zero, not myself cause I think they are worthless as young guys that have never played football are worth more to me than them. It's not about the men, it's about keeping the roster spot open. Have you ever played fantasy football and left 1 of your RB slots open just in case somebody new emerges and you are in a better position to scoop him up? You don't keep that spot open because of how you value a guy like Maurice Morris, you see the value in empty space itself. The guys that make up those empty spaces on my team are just placeholder shots for now, if they don't hack it then I play the waiver wire and keep cycling in new guys til I get lucky.

Any team that's not happy with their punter. Every single team in the NFL has to have a punter, and that's good for us, cause any team that isn't happy with their punter will likely consider Harris, and they will have a list of guys on their team that are on the bubble. Somebody has a player they can swap, or if not then we can elevate a draft pick. If we can turn a 7th rounder into a 6th that's better than nothing. We already gain age and money by removing Harris for Donahue, and so I require 0 in trade to make that move. But there's no point in cutting Harris if some team has a player that we can use that are upgrades to the freeroll prospects we currently have. Take Legarrette Blount for example. He was cut by the Jets before the season started. So if they needed a punter, they KNEW they were going to cut Blount, they could have swapped him to get a free punter in their minds. If I think they might cut Blount, I don't want to chance the waiver wire and risk losing him. Also, I think the Jets are out of their mind to cut Blount, and so when the offer surfaces I'm ecstatic. They have me at a disadvantage cause I would never have guessed they would cut the guy, but I don't care what foolish rationale they have, I just know he's one possible player I would have traded Nick Harris for and I get what I want is all I know, and I'm happy. There's 31 other teams out there and 31 chances that they have a valuable young prospect that they think is worthless that I might think has a chance to be a star in this league. Let them make a decision and a mistake to my advantage for a guy that I don't even want on the team because he fails to impress.

Please stay on topic. Your rants about your logic and whatever just get everyone distracted. From the TOS

Members who disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users’ ability to engage in real-time exchanges may be warned.

This kind of stuff disrupts the flow of talk about roster cuts and gets everyone talking to you. Start a blog if you want page long talks about how great you are

[TSE]

If Brown's not the answer, then he can be replaced for a wire cut that is better, but Morris isn't the answer either, he's too old and unspectacular and he doesn't deserve a roster spot either. If you want a banger, well then I'm not keeping Brown as a "banger" but as a supplement to Harrison in case he can beat out Harrison as a "non-banger". Brown still has potential to breakout, but Morris does not, and that's why he wins the tie.

I haven't seen Stovall play so I can't qualify him, I picked DW, but if Stovall is better then that's fine with me, I have no issue with that. I'm just merely guessing DW over him for now, but I also am tempted to consider Hughes over DW and/or Stovall. Rashied Davis has been in the league for a while and he's proven to be unspectacular, so he shouldn't even have a tryout with us, let alone a roster spot.

I dont' know how good Donahue is, and I don't know how you could know that for sure. It's impossible for anybody to know as his development of improving as a punter could be anything at this point. I didn't pick him because I think he is good, I picked him specifically because Harris isn't good enough, and he makes a lot of money and that's a waste to me for a punter, especially one who isn't convincingly good enough. i'd rather support a different position with the money savings and take my chances on freeroll punters until a better option for the long-term than Harris presents himself.

And if you go to my list, I chose to keep Hanson, to me Hanson is a sure thing as I know I can count on him, but I can only hope to count on Harris. So while Hanson is old, he's at a high enough level where his age and contract are justifiable to me.

Wendling might be more of a ST player, so I could have put him in the ST list, but since he can also be used as a safety I just put him in that column instead. Same with Gandy, he's the backup OG by default despite that I didn't put that next to his name. I just assumed that was implied, with only 2 guards, the backup C is the obvious choice although sometimes you can use a Tackle there. I figured everybody reading this would have assumed Gandy to be the backup OG in place of those T choices. I should have marked it though just for extra completeness.

But for having 5 safeties, yeah you dont need 5. i don't intend to have 5. I just intend to have 5 for now and that gives me TWO extra young guys to gamble with to find the ONE I intend to keep for the future. It's a temporary overload to try and get one player at any position that can be useful, and Silva might be that guy. Once it is resolved then we can go back to a normal 4 safeties and at least have that position more secure. I also pick a heavy amount of LBers as that's another position I need to spend extra to find another keeper. If we still had Turk McBride, then I would have cut Silva and put Willie Young as an overload at DE, cause overall I like Young's chances better than Silva, the position is irrelevant as 1 year or 2 years from now it will all be evened out. But I'm going to find my extra DE or S, doesn't matter which, and the other will be handled another way. Coleman at S is a guy that should have more trade value than say Nathan Vasher. So i keep the extra S over extra CB for now, cause then I have the option to trade away a guy from the S spot moreso than I can at the CB spot.

[Piston Pete]

How many guys can we keep on the PS? Guys I'd like to see stick on the Practice Squad:

WR Demario Ballard
WR Nate Hughes
DT Robert Calloway (if he doesn't outright make the 53-man roster)
LB Caleb Campbell
LB Cobrani Mixon
FB Matt Clapp
TE Richard Dickson
S Randy Phillips
S Ricardo Silva

[TSE]

I'm not entirely sure what the PS rules are, as there could have been some tiny rules changes that weren't highly publicized. It was 8 players in the past, but I thought that I heard a rumor about that possibly being increased to 9. So I think you can have 9 if you qualify for it, but maybe Icness knows more about that. All of the guys you listed appear to be eligible since they are all 2 years or less with the team and not enough active games towards accrued seasons.

I like that you picked Dickson instead of Finley, cause of that drop Finley had, and later in the game he had a catch where he had a pretty lousy stiff arm and went down in a girly fashion instead of toughing it out and defeating his man. If I was a big man like that no way I let some little shrimp pull me down until I've gotten all the yards I want to get. He needs to step up soon.

And I'd like to see Calloway make the team, to me we should be trading away at least 1 if not 2 DTs while we can, so that we don't have to keep 6 on my list. I'd like to trade 2 of those guys, and we can't trade Calloway cause he has zero value compared to the rest, so we have to stick ourselves with him and gamble on him and turn 2 of those other DT's into different positional assets. I personally wanted to draft DaQuan Bowers instead of Leshoure, so my plan was to trade 2 DTs, along with KVB and one other DE as well, and that way we could have kept Turk. So we would have had to trade either Avril, LJ, or Turk, and only Avril had decent trade value, but he is worth a lot and would have saved us some money too, so I think that could have been an interesting segway to cripple our elite DL a little bit in order to get then 4 player units of value shifted over to other areas, and then if our young DEs didn't suffice we could have drafted one next year but hopefully not had to do that. But it would have been ok to draft a DE considering up to 4 other positional units would have been enhanced. The PLAY there is to hope that LJ + Turk + Willie + Bowers are all able to stick as keepers, and that would be sick if it panned out that way cause it gives us a SHOT at having our cake and eating it too, in a really big way because of how young and cheap they all would have been.

I think Hughes has shown some interesting promise, and we still have a glut of dark horses in DW and Toone and several more, so I still want to trade the older and more expensive Burleson cause I think lots of teams would have interesting players to swap for him. We have Pettigrew AND Scheffler who can help subsidize the receiving corps to be able to allow us to gamble like that. Same thing with the safeties, you got 2 guys that are interesting to take a flier on as a 4th or 5th safety on the roster, so to me we should be trading Coleman first if we can, then Spievey if we can, then Delmas if we have to. Spievey looked pretty good in his first game this year and I doubt anybody would give us a good price for him so we're better off rolling with him and scratching that ticket off for ourselves, and Coleman was a FA we paid near market price for, so not sure how much we can get there, our best option to investigate might be a Delmas trade. Sure it will give some fans a heart attack, but I at least would like to know what the trade market price is for him. If we can get more than what he's worth then fine with me, and I just think there's probably one team out there that would accidentally overpay. It's just worth investigating for a peek in an off the radar discrete kind of a way. You don't go tell teams you want a price on Delmas, you just find a way to ask what other teams will pay for any of our safeties and see if anybody volunteers a heavy interest.

[Piston Pete]

LOL, we're not going to trade Nate Burleson, Delmas, or Spievey. IMO, they are all starters and will be a big part of our success this season and moving forward. You have to admit that trading and stockpiling talent is all fine and dandy, but sooner or later, you have to start KEEPING some of the better talent.

I think if the Lions wanted to, they might have a few tradeable assets that might net us mid-to-late round draft picks. Those guys are: S Coleman, DT Fluellen, DT Williams, WR Derrick Willaims, RB Bell, QB Hill or QB Stanton (only one QB).

Again, not saying we SHOULD trade them, but those are the guys I see as realistic tradeable assets who we could see as expendable now and that other teams might also have interest in.

[TSE]

Please stay on topic. Your rants about your logic and whatever just get everyone distracted. From the TOS

Members who disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users’ ability to engage in real-time exchanges may be warned.

This kind of stuff disrupts the flow of talk about roster cuts and gets everyone talking to you. Start a blog if you want page long talks about how great you are

Oh. I thought I was on topic. I don't understand your claim of rules violation. How about I just post whatever I want to post? I never make a post that intends to break the rules and I rely on the quality of my character and common sense to guide me in what I post. If you have a problem with the way I post then just ban me from the site, but I'm hear to talk about the Lions however I feel like talking about the Lions. Either way if you have an issue with long posts, then why bother quoting the entire full page of what I wrote just to supply your couple sentences of commentary? You could have captured just one sentence and we would have known which post you were referencing without distracting the others by wasting all that space to follow along in the conversation. So I'm going to resume doing my best to honestly convey what I consider to be my free and harmless thoughts about the team.