Yeah, Carmichael is actually great based on prior stuff, but this is all weird and confusing and upsetting. I don't really get what's going on, but clearly something is going on.

Does Burneko ever invite the rest of you over for his delicious dinners, or does he just send you spiteful Snapchat pictures to salivate at?

Yeah something's going on here, but I'm not sure what. I can't tell if it's a mass exodus, or Denton putting on his firing shoes.

And maybe Dodai....

To be fair, we know the answer is "Not as far as 21 of the other 31 guys."

Ooh, interesting.

Wait, what? That's a strange reading of the rule, isn't it? I thought being engaged in blocking meant you were not considered a receiver?

Agreed. I think a rule that treats in season (broadly defined, to include training camp) and off season usage differently would be logical.

It's bizarre of you to compare drugs that allow players to continue practicing/playing to drugs that might inhibit a player from doing so, as if they're the same thing used for the same purpose.

Fair question! Prater is a relevant example, but you're right that they should be treated more similarly than they are (i.e. be nosy dickheads about both, or about neither).

Currently airlines aren't even built to accommodate the average person comfortably, though. And your summary of "knee defenders" didn't really explain what your argument against them is, if any. People DO need to use common courtesy, sure, but common courtesy probably implies no one should recline their seat if…

That'd work for me, although I think you go a little earlier since camps start in mid-to-late July and presumably playbooks go out earlier. And conversely, maybe make it when the team is eliminated from contention rather than the Super Bowl.

Oh, for sure. That's not quite what I mean. What I mean is that the owners want avoid, say, someone having a shit day of practice. because they're feeling the after effects of a coke binge last night. Or seeing their health degrade because they have a substance problem and the income to fuel it. Or going to jail.

So um, what do you think that is showing? Because it's demonstrating the opposite of what you think it is showing.

That's my memory too re: film study, playbook study, and meetings, although I'm also not sure I care about the distinction. Both are performance enhancing at the end of the day, so it kind of seems like a distinction without difference. I don't care much about PEDs, personally, but both seem to qualify.

Presumably because the owners/coaches have a vested interest in scaring the players away from drugs. It's clearly in their interest that the players are as close to sober at all times, since that's where they'll be most effective.

Is the logic here that it is overwhelmingly more likely that, were a player to test positive for amphetamines, it's recreational? That seems to be lacking a basis, although I also don't have any basis to disagree. It just seems arbitrary.

Not just irony, but authenticity. By drinking it, they can act like the moral credibility, for lack of a better term, of working class backgrounds can rub off on them. It's a beer for Real People In Touch With the Common Man.

Rules to wearing shorts:

Even as a Wolverines fan, Michigan's high spot seems suspicious given the rapey kicker thing.