September 12th, 2018 at 12:08 PM ^

I thought the episode was decent, actually, but I was thinking the whole time, "man I hope Mindy Kaling isn't a regular now and Dennis just comes back." So, I agree. She just is not a fit with those characters and the humor on the show. 

Nothing is worse than a show trying to mess with perfect chemistry/character fit.

Perkis-Size Me

September 12th, 2018 at 12:30 PM ^

Sounds like Dennis will be back on an at least a somewhat regular basis this season. I think Mindy Kaling was just there to try and fill the void, which to me never really made any sense. For one, I don't think she's all that funny to begin with. Two, in no way does her character mesh with any of the others. There isn't supposed to be a pragmatic, smart voice of reason in that group. They're all supposed to be narcissistic, idiotic psychopaths constantly working to screw each other over. 

If Dennis was never coming back, they would've been better off moving forward with just Dee, Frank, Charlie and Mac. Or if someone had to fill the void, bring in Rickety Cricket (possibly my favorite character on the whole show). He seems pretty far gone at this point and embraces his role as a lowlife homeless crack addict. Would fit right in with the gang as a series regular. 



September 12th, 2018 at 12:40 PM ^

I do think Dennis will maintain his status as a main character, even if he's in the show for fewer minutes. 

The show has such strong side characters that they could fill any Dennis hole (lol) with them - Cricket, the McPoyles, the Ponderosas, the Waitress, Artemis, Gayle the Snail...hell, give the Maniac a more frequently recurring role. The show already has an amazing cast of characters to pull from.


September 12th, 2018 at 12:19 PM ^

I liked her character. It’s not one that’s going to stick around more than just a recurring character for a season though. The Gang is already established and you can’t add someone to it like you could early on in the show with Frank. She was what each member of the gang would be if they were competent and rational.


September 12th, 2018 at 11:36 AM ^

I second this one. 

Is it better to get young guys live reps in the first four games because early action results in faster improvement?  Or do you keep them sidelined until later in the year so that they've had a couple of extra months' practice and can provide much need support when starters wear down over the season?  Should the coaches identify the worst four teams on the schedule and just plan to play them in those games?


September 12th, 2018 at 11:52 AM ^

I have never seen another blog, message board, website, etc so obsessed with redshirts.

It's particularly strange given at least half this blog demands our recruiting standard should be  on an Alabama/OSU level and constantly producing high end NFL talent.  If you're burning 5 star rocket fuel redshirts are pointless, you're only getting 3 years from those guys anyways.


September 12th, 2018 at 12:05 PM ^

There's also been enough cases of players who redshirt as freshmen, then wind up missing all or most of a season to injury later in their careers to have rendered me more or less indifferent to redshirting.  I do think with the new, clean four games rule there will be some instances where it really isn't going to be worth putting a guy in for marginal contributions on special teams when you can play somebody else and preserve that guy's redshirt.  But as a general rule, if a guy is ready then you might as well not worry about it.


September 12th, 2018 at 12:57 PM ^

I'm less interested in who will burn redshirts... if they're playing in at least five games, they must be ready to contribute.

My questions are more geared toward how the coaches will handle the players who, before the new rule, would never see the light of day.  But now they can squeeze up to four games out of promising but not quite ready players.   A DE who is just not quite heavy enough, a WR that needs to develop his route running, a QB who can throw it 70 yards without trying (want to see, please)... those guys who can't get into the regular rotation, but may be able to contend with the low- to mid-level competition on the schedule.  


September 12th, 2018 at 12:07 PM ^

Along the same general theme... Why would we ever base our projections of the likelihood of a successful season on the results of an early season ND game?

I have had the impression for the longest time that ND is either seriously over-hyped or seriously under-rated (far less frequently).  When we win, despite early season hype, ND turns out to be garbage.  When we lose, they go on to be world-beaters.  Of course, this is only based upon my foggy impressions of years gone by... not even anecdotal...


September 12th, 2018 at 3:19 PM ^

I realize that. I also don’t think sending a kid up in a tower that was probably built to withstand those wind conditions and failed is as much at fault as not calling an ambulance for an hour while a kid is having a heat stroke. It’s also about how the school reacts once something like that occurs


September 12th, 2018 at 11:41 AM ^

Why are mobile/running QB's seemingly more likely to be injured long term vs their less mobile counterparts?  How do they fare compared to running backs who arguably take as many hits?