You wouldn't be saying that if our best player wasn't dead.Remus West wrote: Romo will probably be given say in where he ends up as well so that pretty much assures you he won't end up behind a paper offensive line.

Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
You wouldn't be saying that if our best player wasn't dead.Remus West wrote: Romo will probably be given say in where he ends up as well so that pretty much assures you he won't end up behind a paper offensive line.
A saucer and a cup of coffee to a one armed man...Jeff V wrote:Not unless he goes for a bargain price.Rip wrote:Romo to the Bears in 3....2....1....
The Bears are in such miserable shape right now that even PEDs can't even help them win. This week, the second starter in as many weeks was suspended. That they seemed content with the performance of a career backup earlier this year, I'll expect the Bears to go cheap at QB (or maybe draft one). If they were a big time QB away from contention -- then maybe an interest in Romo. Given their utter lack of receivers, hiring an expensive QB would be like giving a diamond ring to someone with no fingers.
I never really felt like the 'Skins were actually in it. There were a few glimmers, but trading TD for FG never really works out well. Cousins lit it up again though - pay the man, Danny!pr0ner wrote:Redskins/Cowboys was an electric game.
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Through eight seasons, including the playoffs, Cutler's win-loss record is 52-52. During that time, the Bears have paid him $103.8 million. That's almost $1 million per game – $998,077 to be exact. That's quite a bit of money to be paying a guy with just one career playoff win.
Of course, football is a team sport, and Cutler has had his moments. He's the franchise leader in wins, career passing touchdowns, yards, and game-winning drives.
Fortunately I just tuned in for the (good) ending.stessier wrote:That Pats/Jets game took years off my life. Nice win to keep pace with Miami. Ugh.
Ugh. Hopefully he'll be back by the AFC Championship game (if they make it that far), but even that seems aggressive.Captain Caveman wrote:Gronkowski is having surgery for a herniated disk and will be out for 2 months. If anyone can survive a loss like that, it's the Pats, but man that's gotta hurt their chances in the playoffs.
Jay Cutler's 2016 season is now officially over, and it seems very likely that his career with the Bears is over as well.
On Thursday the team announced Cutler would miss the remainder of the year and undergo surgery on a torn labrum, which will result in him being placed on injured reserve.
...
There's a very good chance that Cutler is no longer with the Bears next year. The dead money on his contract drops from $19 million -- which made him essentially uncuttable coming into the year -- to $2 million, which makes him imminently cuttable, especially when his cap hit is $16 million.
It's entirely possible that Cutler remains Chicago's the best available option in 2017, even at a pretty high price, given what's considered a weak QB class in the draft. There could be some big names in free agency, like Kirk Cousins, but it's not guaranteed.
Saw a report that the Redskins already plan on giving Cousins the franchise tag again if they can't re-sign him.Isgrimnur wrote:Nope.
It's entirely possible that Cutler remains Chicago's the best available option in 2017, even at a pretty high price, given what's considered a weak QB class in the draft. There could be some big names in free agency, like Kirk Cousins, but it's not guaranteed.
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
We can agree on that even if we put him at different starting points.rshetts2 wrote:He had shown flashes of potential but this year its seems like he has taken a big leap forward.
They made me watch this year, and I didn't think I would. I figured this would be the third year in a row I claimed my Sundays back after week two. OtOH, being a not so true Lions fan, I don't think it takes the wheels coming off the cart. If Green Bay wins out and we go .500, the dream of home field advantage goes away, doesn't it? And that's the real dream, not just to make the playoffs (even if that's way better than I figured they'd do) but win the division and then win a home playoff game.Preseason I did not think the Lions would be a playoff team, especially with the loss of Megatron but after a shaky start with a bunch of new receivers, Detroit has seemingly figured it out. Being a true Lions fan I am still waiting for the wheels to come off the cart but its starting to look like that may not happen. It sure is strange to be in a playoff race in December.
If Detroit wants to take that next step forward, beating GB at home in the final game is a great way to do it. I dont know if they can beat the Cowboys or the Giants on the road, I certainly dont count on it but those two games become moot if they take care of business at home. They are facing the toughest final 4 games of anyone in their division. We will get to see exactly what kind of team they are down this stretch.LordMortis wrote:We can agree on that even if we put him at different starting points.rshetts2 wrote:He had shown flashes of potential but this year its seems like he has taken a big leap forward.
They made me watch this year, and I didn't think I would. I figured this would be the third year in a row I claimed my Sundays back after week two. OtOH, being a not so true Lions fan, I don't think it takes the wheels coming off the cart. If Green Bay wins out and we go .500, the dream of home field advantage goes away, doesn't it? And that's the real dream, not just to make the playoffs (even if that's way better than I figured they'd do) but win the division and then win a home playoff game.Preseason I did not think the Lions would be a playoff team, especially with the loss of Megatron but after a shaky start with a bunch of new receivers, Detroit has seemingly figured it out. Being a true Lions fan I am still waiting for the wheels to come off the cart but its starting to look like that may not happen. It sure is strange to be in a playoff race in December.
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
I assume the Rams owner promised the other owners he has what it takes to make an LA team successful. He'd look like an idiot if he has to clean house the first year he's here. So he justs continues on this path, playing it off as if this disaster is all just part of the process. "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing" something like that.Ralph-Wiggum wrote:It continues to amaze me that Jeff Fisher is still an NFL head coach. When was the last time one of his teams was anything better than mediocre?
For me the games are way too long with way too many interruptions between the action. I don't have 3 hours to hang out in front of a TV anymore. Too many other things I would rather or have to do.Theories abound about the NFL’s ratings decline. And critics have pounced. Everyone with a grievance against the league can now project their issues about what is to blame.
The quality of play stinks (subjective). Quarterbacks can’t throw (they can). Games are too long (maybe). Referees are blind (more than before?). Too many penalties (flags have increased). Players protest too much (not quantifiable). Concussions are brutal (yeah they are). The hypocritical commissioner doesn’t care about domestic violence (plenty of op-eds on that subject). Too few star players (maybe). The market is over-saturated with a blizzard of games, such as Thursday night (maybe).
Moliere wrote:For me the games are way too long with way too many interruptions between the action. I don't have 3 hours to hang out in front of a TV anymore. Too many other things I would rather or have to do.
I used to think that, but I've been to three live games this year, and it was significantly less noticeable to me than years past. I suppose if I was sitting by myself, I would notice it, but when watching the game live with friends, it gives you a chance to talk about the game and stuff. Or laugh about dildos that are being thrown on the field right in front of you.rshetts2 wrote:If you think the pacing due to commercial breaks is bad on TV, go see a game live. The breaks in the flow of the game are painfully long, when there's nothing else to fill that time.
I certainly don't disagree with you on that, since that's your subjective opinion. But in most respects, the thing that changed is you, not the NFL. Which is totally fine. As the biggest block of NFL fans in the history of the game get older, it makes it more likely for life to pull you away or for your interest to slip.Moliere wrote:The games might not be longer, but I have more entertainment options than I did 20 years ago and I have other commitments that keep me from having 3 hour blocks of time to sit in front of the TV.
The games actually are longer...7 minutes I believe was in the article I saw.RunningMn9 wrote:What a bunch of complainers.
The games aren't any longer, there aren't more commercials or more breaks (else the games would be longer), refs aren't worse.
We're just crankier and older.
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
7 whole minutes?!?!?stessier wrote:The games actually are longer...7 minutes I believe was in the article I saw.
RunningMn9 wrote: But in most respects, the thing that changed is you, not the NFL.
Not saying anything is different just posted it because it breaks down the actual time frame for football and its a bit surprising how little actual football there is in a football game. Its an interesting perspective. It also shows why watching a game live vs TV seems stretched out. Without all the filler commentary and stuff TV provides, its a completely different game experience.RunningMn9 wrote:Right, but that's been true forever, there's nothing new there. It's not like the game clock used to be 6 days and we were getting 78 minutes of actual football plays in yesteryear. For my entire adult life (20+ years), football games have taken around 3 hours to complete, including now.
And I would guess that there are more actual plays in a game today than there were in 1984.
I consider a lot of things "football" that doesn't occur between the snap and whistle. When I coached Midget football, I was shocked at how fast games ended, because the actual play was a respite between the real work, which was calling the game and getting kids where they needed to be, doing what they needed to do. In an NFL game, there is an awful lot going on before the snap and after the whistle, and I am intrigued by all of it. TV time outs at games aren't exciting, but that's when you talk to other humans.rshetts2 wrote:Not saying anything is different just posted it because it breaks down the actual time frame for football and its a bit surprising how little actual football there is in a football game.
And I don't think we are being replaced by younger fans. They have other toys and they see all of the negative news about rapes and beatings and concussions and their parents are concerned about that news as well. And have other distractions also isn't driving them to fantasy football, which I think was cause for a big spike for a long time. What are the Fantasy Football participation levels comparatively?RunningMn9 wrote:We're just crankier and older.
That's 7 more minutes of not playing when you are watching TV. It's 7 more minutes to get distracted by something else. In my case, it's 7 minutes more likely that I'm going to nap while watching.7 whole minutes?!?!?