WrigleyField 22

Almost happened but we got Terry Shea or whoever Lovies first OC was. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the Emery-Trestman connection is key. As much as Trestman is off beat in NFL terms... So is Emery. And the guy who hired Emery is basically an accountant. I don't see anyone's bosses getting too trigger happy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe just make Week 1 the default Ray Rice/Goodell thread? This is my vote. I mean people can't still care about actual week one stuff can they. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FTFY. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't aware of the second point. Point three I don't understand. Your upset they responded to public opinion ?(well not so much for Rice but future instances) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk When it takes public outcry rather than common sense/morals to create a tougher punishment. When you suspend players 4 games for weed and only two games for knocking out a woman and dragging her around, it shouldn't take people bitching about it to change that. Of course the previous conditions were bad, but I can't really list trying to improve that in my negatives column. I mean it's not like this is the first ever domestic abuse case with an NFL player. It seems like your just repeating issue one, which I'd agree with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk It shows they care about their image rather than the victims of domestic violence. Yea I guess I just didn't associate their image consciousness with this event. They always have been image conscious sbd it drives everything they do. And I'm not so sure they don't care about domestic violence though I'm not sure they know how to adress it. I don't believe stricter fines will curb domestic violence in a serious way so the only way to address it is to separate the player from your league (which doesn't address the actual issue) or go outside your normal business, which could be interpreted as more PR [expletive] anyways, though depends on how it's done. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. Right or wrong, I think the initial point that was made was that many people are claiming the second video changes nothing but weren't quite ready to call for Goodell to step down until they saw the video. So it must have meant something to the general public opinion because just as the leagues punishment shifted, so too did public opinion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Tons of people were calling for his dismissal with the 2 game suspension. There was so much outcry that the NFL had to apologize for only handing out a 2 game suspension and then changed the policy to 6 games for a first offense and lifetime for a second. The NFL admitted that their 2 game suspension was way too light before this newest video leaked. The NFL botched this so horribly, and then they completely ignored their newest policy and just suspended him indefinitely rather than changing it to a 6 game ban, further making them look like chumps. On top of that, this indefinite suspension came AFTER Baltimore released him, which is also the same time Ray Rice became done as an NFL player, since no other team would be stupid enough to pick him up once that video went viral. Goodell has no choice but to step down after this mess, IMO. Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention the first time around but I don't remember people wanting Goodell to get the axe so much as fix the hypocrisy in conduct related punishments. But that's basically what the initial post (by whoever made it) meant I'm pretty sure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't aware of the second point. Point three I don't understand. Your upset they responded to public opinion ?(well not so much for Rice but future instances) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk When it takes public outcry rather than common sense/morals to create a tougher punishment. When you suspend players 4 games for weed and only two games for knocking out a woman and dragging her around, it shouldn't take people bitching about it to change that. Of course the previous conditions were bad, but I can't really list trying to improve that in my negatives column. I mean it's not like this is the first ever domestic abuse case with an NFL player. It seems like your just repeating issue one, which I'd agree with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. Let's just assume for a second that they are able to prove without any doubt that they didn't see it and that they made a genuine attempt to see it. We both agree that's very unlikely, but suspend your disbelief. In that scenario, Goodell is absolved of nearly all the criticism currently waged against him. That's what I mean by the goal posts moving. No he isn't, he still went too light on the initial punishment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. So the video does matter? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't aware of the second point. Point three I don't understand. Your upset they responded to public opinion ?(well not so much for Rice but future instances) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. Honestly I didn't pay super close attention before but people generally wanted a stricter punishment. While that doesn't necessarily mean a set of rules like the NFL put into place they have the same general result- longer suspension. And now suspension times really aren't the focus- Goodell specifically has become the focus. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. Right or wrong, I think the initial point that was made was that many people are claiming the second video changes nothing but weren't quite ready to call for Goodell to step down until they saw the video. So it must have meant something to the general public opinion because just as the leagues punishment shifted, so too did public opinion. The second video does change something in regards to Goodell though. Before, he just didn't care. Now, he's a liar who doesn't care. So people's issue is that Goodell won't admit to seeing the video before? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. Right or wrong, I think the initial point that was made was that many people are claiming the second video changes nothing but weren't quite ready to call for Goodell to step down until they saw the video. So it must have meant something to the general public opinion because just as the leagues punishment shifted, so too did public opinion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the outcry against Goodell and specifically him stepping down is stronger post elevator video release. There was definitely a lot of outrage at the NFL in general and Goodell to make the punishments more sensible (related also to drug punishments). So I think in some ways the video is worse than many expected but most are under the belief Goodell had seen it and knew what was just confirmed in detail to the rest of us. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the outcry against Goodell and specifically him stepping down is stronger post elevator video release. There was definitely a lot of outrage at the NFL in general and Goodell to make the punishments more sensible (related also to drug punishments). So I think in some ways the video is worse than many expected but most are under the belief Goodell had seen it and knew what was just confirmed in detail to the rest of us. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea he played CF in Cuba but apparently not an MLB CF Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The effects of the 2010-12 drafts and a 4 DT roster, I guess? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plus he can't practice with the team still while on suspension so you're counting on him getting into game shape on his own. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that even an excuse for Mundy? Didn't they change all the schemes this offseason anyways. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/letter-hardee-s-commercial-during-cardinals-games-is-pornographic/article_2bc3c7ce-d091-5908-bbb1-ad0a72520c4f.html WWSMD Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said. It's crazy that the National Park Service is even involved. But if you're the Cubs and you're going to have to work around the landmark status, you might as well take advantage of it if you can. It would have been one thing if the Cubs had asked for landmark status just so they could take advantage of the tax credit. But that was done long before Ricketts bought the Cubs. The landmark status with the NPS is separate though from the city landmark status. They are definitely seeking it out for the tax credit. They can do the project without NPS involvement. The question is if the renovations are dependent on the tax credit from a cost perspective. I hope not. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flex, non PPR http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/04/222218a96c796e8746391d637d3a59e8.jpg In other league, QB Matt Ryan or Carson Palmer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Watkins60/Lake25/Szcur15 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure either option is better though it may make sense to split Alcantaras reps just to give him time at both. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edit can't read Even if you accept a defensive bounce back and this year is the outlier, his wOBA may be an outlier as well and he's more 320 ish. I feel like I'm bashing Valbuena when I actually do like him, I just don't see giving up Bryant the 3B due to the combo of his presence and Russell/Javy. And perhaps it's optimistic but I still see lots of Valbuena ABs available with lots of guys being able to offer positional versatility (including Bryant covering some LF). Only real thing that's lacking is a reliable CF backup who would allow Alcantara to move around even more. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk