(09-24-2019 12:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:43 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  ah, there's the Lamar Jackson we were expecting. Yeah I think his numbers were inflated just a smidge by competition.

I've heard a lot of how him and Mahomes we're gonna be the new Brady/Manning rivalry over the last week.

well, one has shown up.

Jackson may not be Brady or Manning but even in the loss he did some pretty amazing things. Dude's fun to watch and he's young. It's not crazy to think he could get a lot better.

2 of his TD drives were off of playground 1 in a 1000 type of plays though- that aren't sustainable. Even with those 2 plays- his QB rating was a very mediocre 70.6 on Sunday. His QBR from ESPN was 63.5. He's had exactly 2 games over 70 in the QBR- 1st 2 weeks this year. And that's a whole hell of a lot more about the defenses he was going up against than about him...

Feel like folks need to slow their roll with him.

Changed your mind yet? His passing isn't world-beating but it's serviceable, and he's one of the league's leading rushers. He looked terrific last night. I think longevity of a running qb is a legit concern but right now? Dude's getting MVP talk.

(11-04-2019 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:43 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  I've heard a lot of how him and Mahomes we're gonna be the new Brady/Manning rivalry over the last week.

well, one has shown up.

Jackson may not be Brady or Manning but even in the loss he did some pretty amazing things. Dude's fun to watch and he's young. It's not crazy to think he could get a lot better.

2 of his TD drives were off of playground 1 in a 1000 type of plays though- that aren't sustainable. Even with those 2 plays- his QB rating was a very mediocre 70.6 on Sunday. His QBR from ESPN was 63.5. He's had exactly 2 games over 70 in the QBR- 1st 2 weeks this year. And that's a whole hell of a lot more about the defenses he was going up against than about him...

Feel like folks need to slow their roll with him.

Changed your mind yet? His passing isn't world-beating but it's serviceable, and he's one of the league's leading rushers. He looked terrific last night. I think longevity of a running qb is a legit concern but right now? Dude's getting MVP talk.

no chance he's MVP. Wilson and Watson are your 2 favorites.... He's thrown for more than 200 yards once in the last 4 games. Sorry that's not sustainable.

(11-04-2019 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well, one has shown up.

Jackson may not be Brady or Manning but even in the loss he did some pretty amazing things. Dude's fun to watch and he's young. It's not crazy to think he could get a lot better.

2 of his TD drives were off of playground 1 in a 1000 type of plays though- that aren't sustainable. Even with those 2 plays- his QB rating was a very mediocre 70.6 on Sunday. His QBR from ESPN was 63.5. He's had exactly 2 games over 70 in the QBR- 1st 2 weeks this year. And that's a whole hell of a lot more about the defenses he was going up against than about him...

Feel like folks need to slow their roll with him.

Changed your mind yet? His passing isn't world-beating but it's serviceable, and he's one of the league's leading rushers. He looked terrific last night. I think longevity of a running qb is a legit concern but right now? Dude's getting MVP talk.

no chance he's MVP. Wilson and Watson are your 2 favorites.... He's thrown for more than 200 yards once in the last 4 games. Sorry that's not sustainable.

But he's rushed for more than 100 yds three times this season - and one of those was when he passed for less than 200. You implied above that he wouldn't do well against better defenses but last night's performance is certainly a good counterpoint - QBR of 89.0!. His QBR for the season is 69.9 - good for 5th in the league. This isn't about whether he could/should be MVP but that he's even in the conversation half way through the season says a lot.

(11-04-2019 01:28 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Jackson may not be Brady or Manning but even in the loss he did some pretty amazing things. Dude's fun to watch and he's young. It's not crazy to think he could get a lot better.

2 of his TD drives were off of playground 1 in a 1000 type of plays though- that aren't sustainable. Even with those 2 plays- his QB rating was a very mediocre 70.6 on Sunday. His QBR from ESPN was 63.5. He's had exactly 2 games over 70 in the QBR- 1st 2 weeks this year. And that's a whole hell of a lot more about the defenses he was going up against than about him...

Feel like folks need to slow their roll with him.

Changed your mind yet? His passing isn't world-beating but it's serviceable, and he's one of the league's leading rushers. He looked terrific last night. I think longevity of a running qb is a legit concern but right now? Dude's getting MVP talk.

no chance he's MVP. Wilson and Watson are your 2 favorites.... He's thrown for more than 200 yards once in the last 4 games. Sorry that's not sustainable.

But he's rushed for more than 100 yds three times this season - and one of those was when he passed for less than 200. You implied above that he wouldn't do well against better defenses but last night's performance is certainly a good counterpoint - QBR of 89.0!. His QBR for the season is 69.9 - good for 5th in the league. This isn't about whether he could/should be MVP but that he's even in the conversation half way through the season says a lot.

Patriots defense is way overrated due to as bad of a schedule as you can possibly have.

Sorry but I don't think he's going to be a long term guy. He's no Watson.

(11-04-2019 01:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 01:28 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  2 of his TD drives were off of playground 1 in a 1000 type of plays though- that aren't sustainable. Even with those 2 plays- his QB rating was a very mediocre 70.6 on Sunday. His QBR from ESPN was 63.5. He's had exactly 2 games over 70 in the QBR- 1st 2 weeks this year. And that's a whole hell of a lot more about the defenses he was going up against than about him...

Feel like folks need to slow their roll with him.

Changed your mind yet? His passing isn't world-beating but it's serviceable, and he's one of the league's leading rushers. He looked terrific last night. I think longevity of a running qb is a legit concern but right now? Dude's getting MVP talk.

no chance he's MVP. Wilson and Watson are your 2 favorites.... He's thrown for more than 200 yards once in the last 4 games. Sorry that's not sustainable.

But he's rushed for more than 100 yds three times this season - and one of those was when he passed for less than 200. You implied above that he wouldn't do well against better defenses but last night's performance is certainly a good counterpoint - QBR of 89.0!. His QBR for the season is 69.9 - good for 5th in the league. This isn't about whether he could/should be MVP but that he's even in the conversation half way through the season says a lot.

Patriots defense is way overrated due to as bad of a schedule as you can possibly have.

Sorry but I don't think he's going to be a long term guy. He's no Watson.

I don't disagree. Frankly it's hard to see any running qb as a long term guy. I'm just throwing this out there because you seemed so down on the guy and so far he's showing that he's a highly serviceable QB who is also tons of fun to watch. Your caution to "slow the roll" is 180 degrees off so far.

I'm curious: Are you a Redskins or Ravens fan? Wondering if this is "I hate my qb and don't think we can keep this up" or simply "I don't like the Ravens".

Redskins. His thing reminds me too much of RG3.

(10-20-2019 01:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You'd have even more schadenfreude if you were an ex-Chargers fan.

Kroenke and Spanos are splitting the stadium costs. Kroenke will get a lot of money back from developing the land around the stadium. Spanos won't get any of that. And if the stadium costs turn out to be a big burden for the Chargers, consider that Kroenke offered to let the Chargers just pay rent to play in Inglewood, but Spanos chose the co-ownership option.

Somehow, there is even more Charger foolishness...

Chargers, NFL reportedly considering relocating franchise to London on permanent basis amid LA failures

I'm not even sure with everything Spanos has done to date how there could be any thought to moving the Chargers again. But it does serve to highlight just what a debacle the SD to LA move has been for the Bolts. I do think the situation will improve when the team moves into Sofi Stadium, but I think you need at least 10 years before you can make any kind of determination.

Kroenke played the LA situation exactly right, didn't he? Kroenke wanted the Chargers to move to LA along with the Rams because he knew (a) the NFL was always going to insist that the new stadium be available for a second team, and (b) the Raiders would be tough competition for LA fan interest while the Chargers would be weak competition. But even Kroenke didn't know that the Chargers would muck things up as badly as they have.

I'm skeptical that the optics will be much better for the Chargers in the Inglewood stadium. The Chargers will sell some tickets in the first year or two to curious fans who want to check out the new stadium at prices half of what Rams tickets cost, but they'll still be playing in front of crowds rooting for the visiting team.

IMO, the end game for Spanos is treading water in LA until some multi-billionaire swoops in with enough money to buy the Chargers at an inflated price (and probably move them elsewhere). The end game is not Spanos keeping the team and moving it to London.

(11-05-2019 01:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I'm skeptical that the optics will be much better for the Chargers in the Inglewood stadium. The Chargers will sell some tickets in the first year or two to curious fans who want to check out the new stadium at prices half of what Rams tickets cost, but they'll still be playing in front of crowds rooting for the visiting team.

You are understating it a bit. Their pricing plan calls for $100 PSLs and ticket prices between $50-$90 each. By comparison, the Rams' cheapest PSLs cost $1,000. And there's this:

Quote:To help finance SoFi Stadium, the Chargers, who will be co-tenants with the Los Angeles Rams, are expected to kick in $400 million from the sale of personal seat licenses. PSLs give their owners the right to buy season tickets. But the Chargers are reportedly currently $300 million short of that projection.

My buddy attended Steelers @ Chargers a few weeks ago. Ticket price was $360. Each. Easily more than half Steelers fans. Now, the Chargers are having to position themselves as a NFL bargain - that's certainly not what the owners had in mind when they were voting on the move. SoFi is likely to be a disaster for the Chargers (and the NFL).

The article you linked has another detail that shows how eager Kroenke was to get the Chargers, and not the Raiders, in LA:

Quote:Where will the team find the money to cover the shortfall and pay for its share of the stadium? A source familiar with the agreement between the Chargers and the Rams says there is a predetermined formula that will be used to calculate how much of the shortfall in PSL revenue will be made up by each team. Based on the formula, the Chargers will make up their end of the difference from their share of stadium revenue.

If the Chargers’ PSL sales fall dramatically short, the Rams will help cover part of the cost, but the Chargers will still be on the hook for the vast majority.

The only reason the Rams would agree to cover any of the Chargers' PSL shortfall is that they wanted to make sure Spanos didn't walk away from the deal, because if the Chargers had turned Kroenke down, the Raiders had the option to move to LA.

(11-05-2019 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The article you linked has another detail that shows how eager Kroenke was to get the Chargers, and not the Raiders, in LA:

Quote:Where will the team find the money to cover the shortfall and pay for its share of the stadium? A source familiar with the agreement between the Chargers and the Rams says there is a predetermined formula that will be used to calculate how much of the shortfall in PSL revenue will be made up by each team. Based on the formula, the Chargers will make up their end of the difference from their share of stadium revenue.

If the Chargers’ PSL sales fall dramatically short, the Rams will help cover part of the cost, but the Chargers will still be on the hook for the vast majority.

The only reason the Rams would agree to cover any of the Chargers' PSL shortfall is that they wanted to make sure Spanos didn't walk away from the deal, because if the Chargers had turned Kroenke down, the Raiders had the option to move to LA.

Yeah, good catch. And that bit about the Chargers' being on the hook for the shortfall and making it up via their share of stadium revenue? Kind of highlights another problem with the Chargers' Five and Dime Store approach to ticket sales.

(11-05-2019 01:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Kroenke played the LA situation exactly right, didn't he? Kroenke wanted the Chargers to move to LA along with the Rams because he knew (a) the NFL was always going to insist that the new stadium be available for a second team, and (b) the Raiders would be tough competition for LA fan interest while the Chargers would be weak competition. But even Kroenke didn't know that the Chargers would muck things up as badly as they have.

I'm skeptical that the optics will be much better for the Chargers in the Inglewood stadium. The Chargers will sell some tickets in the first year or two to curious fans who want to check out the new stadium at prices half of what Rams tickets cost, but they'll still be playing in front of crowds rooting for the visiting team.

IMO, the end game for Spanos is treading water in LA until some multi-billionaire swoops in with enough money to buy the Chargers at an inflated price (and probably move them elsewhere). The end game is not Spanos keeping the team and moving it to London.

If a person likes NFL football and just wants to get season tickets for an NFL team, the Chargers are the much cheaper option. It is not the ticket prices, it is the PSL cost. The PSL cost for the Rams on a 40 yard line seat is $75,000 per seat. The highest cost is $100,000 per seat. The lowest is $1,000 per seat, in the cheap seats. For the Chargers, the range is $100.00 per seat to $3,000 per seat for a PSL.

I think the Chargers will have no problem filling the stadium. The concern is, how many of these fans are Charger fans? If the Chargers want to win over a new group of fans, they have to win on the field. The definitely need to do a much better job of marketing the team in Southern California. They have to be a playoff team. They don't want to be the Bengals, not in Los Angeles.

I think the London rumors are garbage. I don't believe them. Now if Spanos sold the team, then it becomes a possibility. But I don't think he has any interest in selling at this point in time.

(11-05-2019 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The article you linked has another detail that shows how eager Kroenke was to get the Chargers, and not the Raiders, in LA:

Quote:Where will the team find the money to cover the shortfall and pay for its share of the stadium? A source familiar with the agreement between the Chargers and the Rams says there is a predetermined formula that will be used to calculate how much of the shortfall in PSL revenue will be made up by each team. Based on the formula, the Chargers will make up their end of the difference from their share of stadium revenue.

If the Chargers’ PSL sales fall dramatically short, the Rams will help cover part of the cost, but the Chargers will still be on the hook for the vast majority.

The only reason the Rams would agree to cover any of the Chargers' PSL shortfall is that they wanted to make sure Spanos didn't walk away from the deal, because if the Chargers had turned Kroenke down, the Raiders had the option to move to LA.

If Kroenke and Co. eventually have to take the stand under oath and release internal records in the pending St. Louis lawsuit I'm interested to see how much of your prediction comes to pass. I'm inclined to think it's true.

so if I'm the Cowboys and I'm playing at home, and team is struggling in the game, I'm breaking out on the video board a video of a black cat running across the field.... Worked vs the Giants.

McCoy sitting out today for KC due to load management....

he wasn't on the injury report at all during the week....

Going to be a big story IMO- NFL will not be happy with regards to this one iota.

(11-10-2019 12:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  McCoy sitting out today for KC due to load management....

he wasn't on the injury report at all during the week....

Going to be a big story IMO- NFL will not be happy with regards to this one iota.

Won’t be increasing the revenue split for the players if there is even an inkling of this becoming a trend.

(11-10-2019 02:39 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  McCoy sitting out today for KC due to load management....

he wasn't on the injury report at all during the week....

Going to be a big story IMO- NFL will not be happy with regards to this one iota.

Won’t be increasing the revenue split for the players if there is even an inkling of this becoming a trend.

yeah, but not only that, but there's going to be the reporting aspect of things. NFL isn't going to be happy with KC on that part of it. Gambling/fantasy, etc.

(11-10-2019 04:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 02:39 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  McCoy sitting out today for KC due to load management....

he wasn't on the injury report at all during the week....

Going to be a big story IMO- NFL will not be happy with regards to this one iota.

Won’t be increasing the revenue split for the players if there is even an inkling of this becoming a trend.

yeah, but not only that, but there's going to be the reporting aspect of things. NFL isn't going to be happy with KC on that part of it. Gambling/fantasy, etc.

The NFL will want to stick up for the gambling industry because it's the biggest reason why the NFL is so popular.

But it's bogus to think that teams shouldn't be allowed to give players rest in the regular season in order to have them at their best in the playoffs. Even in the NFL, teams have been doing that at the end of the season for decades.

(11-10-2019 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 02:39 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  McCoy sitting out today for KC due to load management....

he wasn't on the injury report at all during the week....

Going to be a big story IMO- NFL will not be happy with regards to this one iota.

Won’t be increasing the revenue split for the players if there is even an inkling of this becoming a trend.

yeah, but not only that, but there's going to be the reporting aspect of things. NFL isn't going to be happy with KC on that part of it. Gambling/fantasy, etc.

The NFL will want to stick up for the gambling industry because it's the biggest reason why the NFL is so popular.

But it's bogus to think that teams shouldn't be allowed to give players rest in the regular season in order to have them at their best in the playoffs. Even in the NFL, teams have been doing that at the end of the season for decades.

I agree they should be allowed to, but to spring it 90 minutes before kickoff- that's not going to fly.

(11-04-2019 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well, one has shown up.

Jackson may not be Brady or Manning but even in the loss he did some pretty amazing things. Dude's fun to watch and he's young. It's not crazy to think he could get a lot better.

2 of his TD drives were off of playground 1 in a 1000 type of plays though- that aren't sustainable. Even with those 2 plays- his QB rating was a very mediocre 70.6 on Sunday. His QBR from ESPN was 63.5. He's had exactly 2 games over 70 in the QBR- 1st 2 weeks this year. And that's a whole hell of a lot more about the defenses he was going up against than about him...

Feel like folks need to slow their roll with him.

Changed your mind yet? His passing isn't world-beating but it's serviceable, and he's one of the league's leading rushers. He looked terrific last night. I think longevity of a running qb is a legit concern but right now? Dude's getting MVP talk.

no chance he's MVP. Wilson and Watson are your 2 favorites.... He's thrown for more than 200 yards once in the last 4 games. Sorry that's not sustainable.

Keep thinking those positive thoughts stever! One of these weeks he's gonna stink up the joint but it wasn't this week. Another 200+ passing (could easily have been near 300 but he didn't play in the 4th). I know... TERRIBLE DEFENSE... but his numbers against this terrible defense are miles better than anyone else's so far.

Yes, it'll probably get exposed when he's in the playoffs but that it's WHEN and not IF is pretty exciting for the franchise. There's nothing wrong with getting fired up about watching this kid - he's a blast to watch. Unless you're a Redskins fan.