Captain Relax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 9 hours ago, SemperFeist said: Jim Harbaugh would have definitely traded Jefferson. Which os another reason I never wanted the Vikings to hire Harbaugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 To be fair to Harbaugh, the Chargers are terribly proportioned on the salary cap. They were paying way too much money to just a handful of players. And like I said when Telesco drafted Quentin Johnson...they kept drafting the same type of WR. It was almost necessary to get rid of at least one of them...of course, they've now gotten rid of 2 of them. They need to get Herbert better, younger weapons that can actually stretch the field. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Is Moore and Allen better than Jefferson and Addison as a duo? How would you rank the WR duos of the NFCN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Relax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Just now, SteelKing728 said: Is Moore and Allen better than Jefferson and Addison as a duo? No. I think Detroits receivers are next and GB and Chicago, now with Allen...neck and neck. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 37 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said: Is Moore and Allen better than Jefferson and Addison as a duo? How would you rank the WR duos of the NFCN? As you must have seen in my reply on Twitter...no. They are 1 of at least 3 that could be considered better than Moore and Allen. And last I checked, they don't really have a QB yet either. 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 10 minutes ago, swede700 said: As you must have seen in my reply on Twitter...no. They are 1 of at least 3 that could be considered better than Moore and Allen. And last I checked, they don't really have a QB yet either. 😉 That's saying something because I think Darnold is better than Fields right now lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Relax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 8 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said: That's saying something because I think Darnold is better than Fields right now lol It depends. If Darnold is the same guy who played for the Jets and the Panthers...then Fields is better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vike daddy Posted April 5 Author Share Posted April 5 On the same day that Jackson County, Missouri voters rejected in overwhelming fashion a proposal from the Chiefs to fund renovations to Arrowhead Stadium with taxpayer money, the Bears met with politicians regarding public money for a domed Soldier Field replacement, on the lakefront in Chicago. Via Crain’s Chicago Business, the Bears met with the state and city stadium authority to commence discussions on the public subsidies that will be used for Soldier Field 2.0. The Bears have committed $2 billion to the project, but the team hopes the stadium authority will cover the rest. The Bears had been looking at various other suburban options before settling on a domed stadium in Chicago proper. While the Bears would be sacrificing the home-field advantage that comes from wind and weather, the new facility would be able to host events all year long. Resulting in far more revenue, given that the stadium is otherwise used 10-12 days by the primary tenant. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/bears-met-with-stadium-authority-on-funding-for-domed-lakefront-stadium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 On 4/5/2024 at 1:19 PM, vike daddy said: On the same day that Jackson County, Missouri voters rejected in overwhelming fashion a proposal from the Chiefs to fund renovations to Arrowhead Stadium with taxpayer money, the Bears met with politicians regarding public money for a domed Soldier Field replacement, on the lakefront in Chicago. Via Crain’s Chicago Business, the Bears met with the state and city stadium authority to commence discussions on the public subsidies that will be used for Soldier Field 2.0. The Bears have committed $2 billion to the project, but the team hopes the stadium authority will cover the rest. The Bears had been looking at various other suburban options before settling on a domed stadium in Chicago proper. While the Bears would be sacrificing the home-field advantage that comes from wind and weather, the new facility would be able to host events all year long. Resulting in far more revenue, given that the stadium is otherwise used 10-12 days by the primary tenant. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/bears-met-with-stadium-authority-on-funding-for-domed-lakefront-stadium LOL. Do you guys regret giving up your weather advantage? I can tell you I want new stadium in Arlington and public money in Illinois is going to be a fight if voters get a say. I am not sure they are going to. I am in favor of property tax breaks in Arlington, but not 2 billion in free money to build stuff for profit. They can take out a loan and pay it off overtime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 8 minutes ago, dll2000 said: LOL. Do you guys regret giving up your weather advantage? I can tell you I want new stadium in Arlington and public money in Illinois is going to be a fight if voters get a say. I am not sure they are going to. I am in favor of property tax breaks in Arlington, but not 2 billion in free money to build stuff for profit. They can take out a loan and pay it off overtime. There will be some that say no, they don't regret it because they don't want to sit out in the cold. But, I always have. I don't think it's a pure coincidence that they've been stuck in the middle of the pack for basically the 4 decades since they moved indoors. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 Just now, swede700 said: There will be some that say no, they don't regret it because they don't want to sit out in the cold. But, I always have. I don't think it's a pure coincidence that they've been stuck in the middle of the pack for basically the 4 decades since they moved indoors. If bad weather is the key, then Packers, Bears, Browns, Jets and Bills would have more titles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 I understand Packers have a lot of titles. I am talking about last 30 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 minute ago, dll2000 said: If bad weather is the key, then Packers, Bears, Browns, Jets and Bills would have more titles. I don't think it's necessarily the key, because 4 of those 5 franchises you mention have an extremely poor history when it comes to the organization itself. But, it does give an advantage if your organization is run well. And really, when it comes to weather, only Green Bay and Buffalo are even remotely similar to the weather in Minnesota at its worst. Chicago, Cleveland and New York aren't really to that level, although they certainly have their moments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 2 hours ago, swede700 said: I don't think it's necessarily the key, because 4 of those 5 franchises you mention have an extremely poor history when it comes to the organization itself. But, it does give an advantage if your organization is run well. And really, when it comes to weather, only Green Bay and Buffalo are even remotely similar to the weather in Minnesota at its worst. Chicago, Cleveland and New York aren't really to that level, although they certainly have their moments. Is it an advantage if someone has to play in cold weather that isn't acclimated to it? Yes. Definitely. Just like Miami has an advantage in Sept. They even designed their stadium so visitors are exposed to Sun more. But there are also disadvantages. It seems to decrease career length. Players don't prefer to play in cold weather environs all things being near equal. So it can hurt FA acquisitions. Fans have less enjoyable experience in winter attending games. (I nearly always get offered Bears tickets late in year and I always decline). On balance it is better to have an indoor climate controlled stadium. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 11 minutes ago, dll2000 said: Is it an advantage if someone has to play in cold weather that isn't acclimated to it? Yes. Definitely. Just like Miami has an advantage in Sept. They even designed their stadium so visitors are exposed to Sun more. But there are also disadvantages. It seems to decrease career length. Players don't prefer to play in cold weather environs all things being near equal. So it can hurt FA acquisitions. Fans have less enjoyable experience in winter attending games. (I nearly always get offered Bears tickets late in year and I always decline). On balance it is better to have an indoor climate controlled stadium. I just think you lose something, but then again, I'm also more old-school than some others...because I miss the more physical style of hockey as well. 😂 Of course, I haven't lived in a hockey market since that existed either (I lived in Seattle way before they got a hockey team when they still had the Sonics with the Glove, Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis, and have now lived in the KC area for nearly 20 yrs) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.