PeterMP

I'm sorry, but the best teams in the league heavily consider need when they draft, especially in the 1st 2 rounds where you should be able to get guys that can contribute right away. They don't force picks solely on need, but they move up and down the draft board to put themselves in positions where a position that they need is a reasonable pick, and then draft taking need into consideration. There's a reason that teams like the Eagles and Chiefs are so active in draft day trades. Rookie contracts are too valuable to have a guy that can play whose playing time is blocked/limited because you have other players at that position.

It doesn't matter why they've been made. They've been made. That the politics have changed in a matter of months that Biden has the pressure to do it is telling. And the Ukrainians should be thanking Russia for helping push their application process for the EU forward. And Israel is an independent organization whose word we should take without question? (I'm not going to tell you that the UN isn't biased and even hasn't been infiltrated by Hamas but you are taking Israel's word for it while questioning everybody else's. And you've now done the same thing multiple times. You're posting everything in the most anti-Hama/pro-Israeli to the point that you've actually said somethings that aren't true. No different than the conversation about who shelled the area that around the pier. I'm not claiming Hamas did it. My point is that you don't know that and that's not what the US is saying. The point of the NYT story isn't that the UN is without fault. It is that there's no evidence of it than other Israel has claimed and Israel hasn't actually released any information to support their claims. And Israel has an interest in side lining the UN from delivering aid.)

“High-ranking Hamas political official Khalil al-Hayya said the group would consider Israeli forces — or forces from any other country — stationed by the pier to guard it as “an occupying force and aggression,” and that they would resist it.” "Thats who is building the dock in order to provide aid into Gaza." You do understand the difference between build and guard, right? We're building the pier. The Hamas statement seems to be have carefully worded at to not be threat to us, because we're doing the building and have said no US troops on soil. All Israel has done is anchor it to land. And that certainly didn't require the Israeli military. And is already done. Israel is saying their military has to be there after it is built and as aid is coming in. Israel is moving to make sure the aid flows through them, they control it, and their military has a station associated with the aid after the pier is built. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/24/officials-voice-concern-over-us-plans-for-gaza-aid-pier I think a lot of the Palestinian people support Hamas. I've said that multiple times in this thread. Polls show that Hamas has pretty wide support. Whether Hamas is helping Palestinians out or not is a matter of perspective and time. It could be (and has been) argued that the Zelensky government is harming the Ukrainians. If you are Palestinian and willing to die for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, Hamas might be considered to be helping you. Oct. 7 appears to have achieved several objectives that seem like they might be an important move in that direction (e.g. killing the Israeli/Saudi peace agreement, you have the US guaranteeing Palestinian security in a way that never happened in the past, and sanctioning some Isrealis and much of the rest of the world has even moved further away from supporting the expansionist policies of Israel.) Where do you get your news from? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/world/middleeast/unrwa-israel-hamas-report.html (And even Israel isn't claiming they all are members of Hamas.)

It does not appear that the US military is going to get directly involved in Gaza, so what Hamas could do against them seems irrelevant. Since Hamas is the major Palestinian organization in Gaza and can make delivering aid very difficult if not impossible, then yes you need to consider them if you want to help innocent people in Gaza. They haven't said they would attack people building the dock. And that doesn't appear to be what happened. The dock wasn't damaged in the attack. Israel isn't saying their military needs to be there to build the dock. I believe we're mostly doing that and have said we won't put any soldiers on Gaza soil. The Israeli's are saying their military needs to be there to guard the dock. Not build it. Now, you're just making stuff up. But yes Hamas is putting up barriers to get aid in. And so is Israel. Hamas doesn't want Israeli troops in Gaza for any reason, even if they are involved in delivering aid. What is Israel's excuse?

Why do you need soldiers to deliver aid? The World Central Kitchen was doing it without soldiers and still would be if the Israelis hadn't attacked their caravan. People yes. But why soldiers? There are aid organizations that work in Gaza without being directly guarded by the Israeli military. Why does the Israeli military need to be involved in this case? Do you really not see why Hamas doesn't want Israelis soldiers in Gaza even under the claim that they are there to deliver aid?

Yes. That's why I said: "Hamas has publicly said that they won't attack unless it becomes used to house foreign troops." and talked about the presence of Israeli troops likely triggering an attack and Israel saying they would have to have troops present for security. But Hamas also knows the US military is putting it together, and they haven't said that's enough for them to attack it. They've publicly taken a stand. Their public stand could have been the building of it by the US military was a non-starter and that they'd attack it. Our policy has been there will be no US troops in Gaza. Admittedly, I am reading between the lines some. Where do you see the US assessment is that it was Hamas? Are you getting your news from things like Daily Mail? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13354441/Hamas-fires-MORTARS-pier-built-army-coast-Gaza-worrying-signs-troops-targeted.html No where credible is reporting the US has said Hamas. Here's the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/25/gaza-floating-pier/ Here's the Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-mortar-fired-at-under-construction-gaza-aid-pier-as-un-officials-toured-site/ Nothing coming out of the US government that I can find says Hamas. (Though, it is also clear here that Israeli troops were present which seem to be consistent with Hamas' statement of what would trigger an attack (and also consistent with my other post). Hamas isn't going to support aid coming in through the Israeli military. They've made that pretty clear and given the history, it isn't really that shocking. Hamas doesn't trust Israel and especially not the Israeli military. They aren't going to believe that the Israeli military is functioning in a good faith and benign effort to help bring in aid even if they are. I'm not saying that Hamas didn't attack it. And based on reports of Israeli troops being present, it is possible they did. But that isn't what is being reported by any credible sources.)

Assuming you mean this: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2024/04/25/us-led-gaza-humanitarian-aid-pier-comes-under-fire-un-officials-say/ You've got your facts not quite right. Nobody has claimed credit for it, so it isn't clear that Hamas attacked it. Hamas has publicly said that they won't attack unless it becomes used to house foreign troops. We don't know if the attack was intentional or not. For all we know it could have been Israel. Now, there is some complexity because our military is putting it together (as they're really the only people that have the ability/resources to do so), but at least publicly that doesn't seem to be enough to cause a Hamas attack. In addition, Israel is claiming they are going to have to put troops there for security (which seems likely that it will trigger a Hamas attack). Which really underlies the larger issue of the lack of historical aid (even humanitarian aid) that the Israelis have given (and in some cases even allowed) to be given to the Palestinians that the they don't trust Israel (and at some by extension us). You've got decades of mistrust built up and Hamas sees what I hope is a good faith effort on our part to deliver aid is a cover for the Israeli military to conduct operations in Gaza.

Then you trade back up into the 1st round to get an OT. They had 2 2nd picks and they have picks next year. Giving the rookie QB a reasonable chance to develop and not just get beat up if you plan on playing him as a rookie has to be considered. Especially when your rookie QB is used to playing in games where the rest of his team is at least as good if not better than the other team. Daniels this year is going to be playing at a talent deficit on the rest of the team that he's not used to and that alone is going to be a huge adjustment from him. And not just OT. It isn't like our guards are great or our skill positions. The OL we did take to me seems to be a year away from being a really viable NFL starter because he needs to work on his technique. He might be able to play tackle in the future, but he's not even a good pro ready guard now IMO. There were more pro ready guards that would have been more likely to help you this year IMO. Longer term Coleman might be the better/more valuable player but the upside to me isn't enough to offset the need to protect a rookie QB this year if you are going to play him. McCaffery is an interesting pick, but he's pretty new to being a WR. Most of his draft profiles talk about work he still needs to do to get better, and you can see it in the tape. I also think he needs to get stronger which is going to take time. Between still learning to play WR, needing to get stronger, and adjusting to the NFL, he's going to struggle this year more than some of the other WRs taken around him. Maybe longer term he's better. But there isn't enough upside there to offset the loss of giving Daniels a better player this year. You've got 2 offensive player that I think weren't taken with the idea of helping a rookie QB this year, protecting him, and helping develop him, not moving up to get better players to help him this year, and taking defense with the top 2 picks. I know you want to draft with the longer term in mind, but you also have to be draft with giving the rookie QB adequate tools protection. In totality, the picks make more sense if you plan on punting this year and minimizing Daniels playing time.

Thinking more of this draft and it in totality, I wonder if there isn't already a plan to sit Daniels at least the first 1/2 of the season. The draft makes more sense to me in that case.

Actions speak louder than words. If you believe in Quan as a high level FS than our secondary shouldn't be too much of a weakness and taking a slot CB in the 2nd round given our other needs doesn't make much sense. (Quan was one of the few picks that I even sort of liked from last year's draft. It certainly seems to me that he had the making of being a good player. But I'm also trying to make sense of this pick in the context of putting together a team.)

I was never a huge fan of taking any of the QBs at the top of the draft, but over the last few weeks I've come around to the liking Maye the best. This draft and where his teammates are going just sort of solidifies that. Hope Peters and company are right on Daniels or good enough to put pieces around him to make it work. They really seem to get need another offensive player maker, unless they see something in our WRs that hasn't seemed to be there.

I think guys often fall for a reason. Taking the Eagles as an example, last year everybody was like, oh they got Smith at 30th. Their so lucky. But then he didn't really do much last year. And if the guy is a great pick at that position, given where we are, the pick should have value to somebody else that allows you to trade it to get something of good value and something more in line with what we need. Especially to help a rookie QB. Certainly, the guy looks like a good player, I understand the pick, but it is hard for me to say that's a great pick. (I also think the Eagles do a good job of moving up and down the draft board to get to positions where their needs are value picks. They have a history of trading up and down. And that sometimes people just don't understand what the Eagles do and don't understand how they see their needs.)

Seems like quite a reach to me. He's going to have to get much stronger without losing quickness/speed to have much success at the NFL level. Unless they like his skills as a QB enough to use him regularly in plays where he has an option to throw. Especially with Daniels athleticism/running ability it seems like you could keep him on the field and you'd have to have a legitimate defender to cover him. Not sure even if that would make enough of a difference to justify this.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/27/opinions/yale-student-palestinian-protests-berlin/index.html "Opinion: I’m a Jewish student at Yale. Here’s what everyone is getting wrong about the protests " He's been a leader of the protests at Yale and even talks about people showing up and chanting things not supported by the organizers and makes them feel intimidated, but the importance of allowing the protest to continue.

They aren't shy about taking guys that are positional converts.

Doesn't seem like a right away starter. Lots of technique issues and older. Have to worry larger issues underlie technique issues. Older players with bad technique always worry me. Though I guess that's better than an older player with good technique and still not very good. He does seem to have a bit of nasty streak as a run blocker. Maybe in the future a starter.

Maybe. But it certainly seems to lock him out of a route to get playing time. I'm also reading the pick somewhat in terms of needs and as such an indication that the secondary is a weakness vs. offense in general or edge rusher where for a 2nd round pick I would have prioritized one of those.

Like this pick. Certainly seems like he has a future in the NFL. Though I guess there is some thought he could have been gotten later. But have no issues with him here.

This would seem to suggest that the new administration isn't too high on Forbes or Martin. Probably not a pick I would have made even if you aren't high on those guys. Any chance he plays on offense at all?

1. Given our needs elsewhere, seems like an unnecessary pick. 2. The best teams have multiple DL that they rotate, so it isn't like we have no need at the position. 3. Seems like a guy that will be an impact player. Don't love the pick but don't hate it.

Prior to the end of WWII we were aiding a large group of German refugees (fleeing the invasion by the Russians) in terms of food, shelter, and healthcare. Israel has never done much to help Palestinian refugees and generally (including in this conflict) has restricted and obstructed the ability to aid refugees. And we certainly started to try to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan before those wars ended. Israel has a chance today to start building a strong Palestinian state by partnering with international organizations to aid Palestinian refugees from the current conflict and ones from other conflicts that live in the various Arab neighbors and get them homes in Palestine, Israel, or some other country. Israel has the ability to create a strong Palestinian state today by not depending on cheap illegal but allowed Palestinian labor and create a system where Palestinians can work in Israel legally (as many do illegally) at would be their actual market value wages (as compared to Israelis). They have the incentive to do so because if they don't want the land, they'd actually decrease their chances of getting attacked by Palestinians. People that have money, property, wealth, etc. tend to be less likely to start a war and risk losing. (I've made this point before. That was supposed to the lesson from WWI/WWII. After you win a war, you don't punish or even ignore the losers. You help them rebuild and become successful because that's what actually decreases the having to fight them in another war. Israel appears to have failed to learn that lesson.) Two wrongs don't make a right. That many (not all) of the Arab states are racist against Palestinians and see the Palestinians as a tool to achieve other objectives doesn't make it right or excuse the lack of help that Palestinians have gotten from Israel (and really the larger global community). (Though their direct Arab neighbors like Lebanon and Jordan are relatively poor and don't have much means to help them today, so I don't think you can blame them too much for the situation now.)

Like every other country in the world, Japan has to make complicated decisions where there are multiple pros and cons and things are not black and white. Japan wants protection/security as if they have nuclear weapons without actually having nuclear weapons. That comes with consequences. One of those consequences is dealing with demands from the US. If Japan doesn't want to deal with demands from the US and maintain their security as if they are a nuclear state, they have the means, the technology, the know how, the resources, and the material to become a nuclear state that would likely prevent them from attacks from N. Korea, Russia, and China. The US has gone to only nuclear powered air craft carriers. We had the choice to either build a non-nuclear powered carrier just for Japan, to try to fulfill the mission and protect our troops in Japan w/o an air craft carrier, or get Japan to accept nuclear powered air craft carriers (in some ports). The last thing is what is worked. That we didn't do the 1st 2 isn't outrageous. The fact that Japan doesn't get to solely dictate the means and measures by which we provide their security, doesn't make them our colony. It means that we aren't their colony. If they could completely dictate how we provided for their security, we would be the colony. Just to be clear, we've gone from you arguing we didn't colonize those countries because they were too far away to, well we did colonize them, but it just took another form. Today, cases were democracies were over thrown are recognized by most Americans as wrong and mistakes. And realistically, they were done in secret and really then kept secret for decades and still only made into the public knowledge because of leaks not because we actually publicly admitted it for a reason. (Partly because most Americans would have said at the time they were wrong and mistakes and would not have supported it.) Again no comparison to what is and has happened between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel is very open about what they have done and plan to do with Palestinian territory.

I will point out that I think for people a little older, this type of mind set isn't unthinkable. To my father, buying a Japanese car was unthinkable. And I suspect it went the other way too. On one hand, my father wouldn't buy a Japanese car. On the other hand, he had no problem with us having troops in Japan to fight the communists. There was a lot of racist propaganda in the US, especially directed to the Japanese, during WWII. The relevant attitudes didn't just disappear after the war.

This is moving the goal post. The point was that what we did in Germany, Japan, tried to in Afghanistan, etc. is fundamentally different than what Israel has tried to do. Doing just what you are responsible for isn't always the right thing or make things better. Were we responsible for rebuilding Japan and Germany after WWII? And even our allies? Did we have a responsibility to intiate, support, and fund the Marshall program? Today, do we have a responsibility to carry out much of the foreign aid spending we do? What country wants them wiped out? (I guess Iran but even much of that is garbage/propaganda I tend to think.) Even Hamas in their latest charter has backed off that sort of language. Israel is a nuclear power. One of the most successful economies in the world. Has the backing of the most powerful country in the world. Has consistently and soundly defeated its neighbors in every war they've ever fought. Nobody is wiping Israel out in the foreseeable future.

Japan and Germany have both signed new treaties since the surrender that cover US troops and bases. None of that is based on the older treaties. They don't get to independently set the terms. It is our military and our people. But they get a say and a choice (the choice being we leave and they are on their own). There are public opinion polls that cover things like our support in said countries. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/majorities-support-us-bases-key-allied-nations Over 60% of Germans and Japanese currently support US bases. (As shown, the numbers have gone up and down through the years but greater than 50% is the norm).