jersey cubs fan

ST isn't a big deal and is fine. I've been screaming about the ST since July, and many of you have told me to stop over reacting. Congrats

The guy that lost to a 3rd string QB on the worst team in football today? Nope, the guy who kept us competitive for a long time. Lose big or go home, it's the Chicago way.

Good night

Why? That deep? Why?

Josh Rimer @JoshRimerHockey · 47m The NHL has just confirmed to me no more HBO 24/7, however there's going to be same access show around WC, new name, different partner.

GD this conversations sucks.

4-7 wins is a big spread. I think a 4 win season means Cutler either got injured again and/or [expletive] the bed, which could effectively end his career in Chicago. I think 7 wins is enough to keep everybody employed as long as the offense looks good. I don't see how it'd end Cutler's career in Chicago. They'd owe him an awful lot of money. I'm not saying they would necessarily cut him the next day, but a disaster year by Cutler now, in year 2 of Trestman, pretty much demands a first round QB drafted in the offseason. They can't run the risk of struggling again in 2015 with the same group because that is when everybody loses their job.

4-7 wins is a big spread. I think a 4 win season means Cutler either got injured again and/or [expletive] the bed, which could effectively end his career in Chicago. I think 7 wins is enough to keep everybody employed as long as the offense looks good.

Retweeted by Chris Kuc Greg Brady ‏@bradyfan590 · 40m JUST IN: Sources tell me HBO is done w/ the NHL in terms of producing a 24/7 Series, revolving around Winter Classic or otherwise...

uhhh

I'm sure he will. I didn't think that I said he wouldn't. All I'm trying to say is that I could see players beginning to question him a little quicker than usual. Could even lead to him being replaced sooner than one would originally think. You said barring a complete collapse... I think that's on the table right now. Detroit looked good. Vikings looked good - better than I thought. GB will put it together in all likelihood. Beyond that it's SF, CAR, ATL, NE, NO. All of those could be losses. Let's say they go 2-4 in division, with another 5 losses outside. 7-9 in his second season isn't going to satisfy many people. It's a game worse than year 1. Another game like BUF and we're talking 6-10. What do you think anyway? I'm just curious. IIRC you were one who said Trestman might have more trouble if the team struggled. I've thought from the beginning that Trestman's touchy feely ways were something that could lose a team in a hurry, and given the parity in the NFL it wouldn't take much to knock a should be contender into a dumpster fire. He did more with the offense than I expected in week 1 and that sort of thing can allow him to keep his job a bit longer. However, I thought they were running the risk of completely losing the defensive veterans (already happened) and there are not enough young-uns to step-in. I still think Trestman is going to be walking a tight rope. Lovie got the most out of his guys almost everyday and the worst he ever did after his first year was 7-9, in part because he got the most out of guys and never lost the room. He commanded respect and at the very least he had a stable defense that kept them in almost every game. Of course it didn't do much more than that. I think Trestman's Bears are a little more susceptible to the disaster seasons and those can lead to quick turnover of coaching staffs, including the head coach.

disagree and will not obey screw the whiners that don't want stuff to get in the way of their football talk

Feel free to continue the Ray Rice/Rog/Video discussion here or the previous thread, but there is another week of football. NFL Lines For Week 2 - NFL Football Line Week Two NFL Line 9/11 - 9/15, 2014 Date & Time Favorite Line Underdog Total 9/11 8:25 ET At Baltimore -2.5 Pittsburgh 44.5 9/14 1:00 ET At Carolina -3 Detroit 43.5 9/14 1:00 ET Miami -1 At Buffalo 43 9/14 1:00 ET At Washington -6 Jacksonville 43.5 9/14 1:00 ET At Tennessee -3.5 Dallas 49.5 9/14 1:00 ET Arizona -2.5 At NY Giants 42.5 9/14 1:00 ET New England -3 At Minnesota 49 9/14 1:00 ET New Orleans -6.5 At Cleveland 47.5 9/14 1:00 ET At Cincinnati -5 Atlanta 48.5 9/14 4:05 ET At Tampa Bay -5.5 St. Louis 37 9/14 4:05 ET Seattle -6 At San Diego 44 9/14 4:25 ET Houston -3 At Oakland 40 9/14 4:25 ET At Green Bay -8.5 NY Jets 46 9/14 4:25 ET At Denver -12 Kansas City 51 9/14 8:30 ET At San Francisco -7 Chicago 48.5 Monday Night Football Line 9/15 8:35 ET At Indianapolis -3 Philadelphia 53.5 http://strongtakes.com/2014/09/lets-all-forget-about-violence-against-women-for-one-night-and-watch-ben-roethlisberger-play-against-the-baltimore-ravens/

Barring a complete collapse, including a bad offense and a 4-12 type season, Trestman is going to get a chance with a new DC.

I have no idea what this means. That the nfl didn't actually NEED to suspend ray rice at all. They do so for PR purposes and are not compelled to by any agreements or laws. They needed to I guess from a pr standpoint but I'm not aware that their antitrust exemption or tv deals require suspensions for immoral or illegal acts. what in the living hell is this?

I think there are a few teams that would strongly consider signing him following a cooling off period, and assuming no indefinite suspension.

I have no idea what this means.

Rich Campbell ‏@Rich_Campbell · 1m Bears have signed WR/KR Chris Williams to their practice squad and released undrafted rookie LB DeDe Lattimore from the practice squad.

And do what after you look at the owners? They're paying him 30+ mil a year to handle issues like this. They shouldn't have to instruct him to suspend him further that's his job, they're not babysitters for Goodell. They pay him all that money to keep their hands clean from this. Um ok. So if I ever own a massive hugely profitable business exempt from us antitrust law that also benefits greatly from state and local land and tax deals and questionable accounting principals; as long as I pay an unlikeable guy a lot of money I'm exempt from criticism. I just think it makes more sense to narrow the scope to one very hittable target. Goodell taking a fall will hurt the owners. They will wind up buying him out and then hiring a new guy who will come under the microscope. If you widen the target to all the owners you run the risk of hitting nobody.

I don't get what all the mini-Kyles are after with halfway contrarian pseudo devil's advocate posts about the problem with the collective reaction to this issue. Let Kyle pay the Kyle tax, Homer pays the Homer tax.

good one

wait what? Soler signed a 9/30 contract as an IFA, so people are assuming he becomes a free agent with less than 6 ML years service because reasons. Is the trick that he used up his three option years in 2012/13/14 and therefore had to stick in the majors at the outset of 2015 and therefore would by default reach 6 years of service time by the end of 2020? No, Soler gets 4 options. People are assuming that because his 9 year contract ends in 2020 that that's the end of the control, similar to Cespedes. But it's known that Soler can opt into arbitration when eligible. As it is, he'll reach FA after 2020 because he was called up, so we may never know, but I still don't understand why you'd assume he gets FA at (for example) 5 years 120 days, just because his original contract was signed for 9 years. David Price signed a 6 year major league deal when he was drated with the same arbitration provision. He didn't randomly become a free agent after 2012, he remained Rays property. Ok. I wasn't aware what the specific option situation was, but have no idea why people would assume he's a free agent when this contract is up (except for the point that people always screw up the difference between a contract ending before service time being reached).

That was disgusting. But I think that was more Baltimore specific, especially the tone deaf tweets they sent out at the time.

It's not about whether or not Goodel saw it. It's whether or not any NFL employee saw it plus the fact that they absolutely had the opportunity to see it and already liked about their inability to see it. There are no goalposts here.

I mean, obviously. What are you trying to say? Pointing out why someone might make the statement that there was NO outrage. They're creating a clear separation between the types of outcry because calling for rule changes is quite different than a change in leadership. People weren't calling for a rule change, the rule change was the NFL's response to what happened, and it was scoffed at by many. the only reason somebody might make the statement that there was no outrage pre-video was that they weren't paying attention.