buddha

its a god awful design. they lost their landmark status after they did that. deservedly so. not that they deserved landmark status before then...

wont happen.

the bears dont need chicago. the city could have easily worked with the bears to find land for a new stadium, instead the city - and rhe bears - did the stupid thing and "re-did" soldier field in a ridiculously awful looking rebuild that addressed none of the issues and just pushed the problems down the road. again, the bears are the only franchise in the nfl that doesnt even own their own stadium. they lease it from the state and the state controls all the amenities and the bears have to beg for everything. in a normal political and business environment the bears and the city/state would work together to find a solution. but this is chicago and illinois and a stupid business so nothing got done and now the bears are moving. its a great piece of land for the bears to develop in arlington heights into a nice and profitable area. the bears have not (yet) asked for state assistance and they have said they are not going to. but they will ask for state infrastructure improvements which the state should give them to help develop the area.

no one who knows the bears would really care if they moved out of soldier field. soldier field is a dump. its incredibly hard to access. its the smallest stadium in the league. the bears DONT EVEN OWN THE STADIUM. the state and city refused to work with the bears the macimize their revenue and openly insulted the bears when they made noise about leaving. the bears should have moved out of soldier field a LONG time ago. but the people who own the bears are terrible business owners and the people who run the state of illinois and the city of chicago are terrible people and politicians. the bears moving to the burbs in the best thing the bears have done as a franchise in a long, long time. its about time and its more than warranted.

i'm fine if they keep goff and extend him, i'm fine if they dont. i trust the current regime to do what's best for the franchise. besides, i dont think richardson is going to make it to #6, but i could be wrong. i didnt think willis would make it out of round one last year.

"the lions are in a market for a qb" was the title of the section of the quoted article.

from the athletic today: The Lions are in the market for a quarterback... First things first, I don’t view this as a smokescreen. The Lions do, in fact, need a quarterback. A backup, at the very least. Nate Sudfeld is an unrestricted free agent, and the Lions should absolutely look to upgrade. They’ve been able to get away with lesser talents backing up Goff, but that shouldn’t be the case in 2023. The 49ers built a roster capable of winning a Super Bowl, only to take a beating in the NFC Championship Game with their fourth-string quarterback. Holmes said he didn’t want to be in a position to scramble for backup help like he did after the preseason last year. It’s time to address it.... Now, we could leave it there. Or we could discuss the future. There has to be a nuanced way to talk about the quarterback position without it serving as a shot at Goff. I really hope we can do that here. Goff played at a Pro Bowl level in 2022 and deserves a ton of credit for how he rose above a bad situation. He’s certainly capable of leading this team to the playoffs if he repeats the season he just had. Let’s make that clear. But anyone suggesting the Lions won’t think about drafting a quarterback simply because they have Goff in place is naive to how this process works. It would probably be more concerning if Holmes and his crew weren’t looking at quarterbacks. They get paid to explore every avenue, long-term and short, immediate need or not. Doesn’t mean they will, but it shouldn’t be ruled out until they’ve done their due diligence and feel comfortable moving forward with another position. With Detroit reportedly meeting with Anthony Richardson, it appears that’s what the Lions are doing. They have the rest of this month and next to determine where to go. If they decide to select one in the first round, perhaps as high as No. 6, they’d likely feel pretty good about their support system in place. You can make the case that Holmes has built the most QB-friendly situation of any team drafting in the top 10. An offensive line with three Pro Bowlers, Amon-Ra St. Brown and Jameson Williams at wide receiver and a capable run game. With Goff under contract, a young QB would not feel pressured to start right away. The Lions would rather not be drafting this high again anytime soon, so there’s a case to be made for taking a QB early if a guy Holmes loves is there at No. 6.

whoever is there is going to have to find a way to make disney+ profitable. good luck with that in the short term.

i could live with that, but white is not a dt, he's an end. i'd rather see a bigger dt there. id take mazi smith before white.

he just got there! i thought desantis gets to name the new ceo, lol.

what do you think of jabari?

even if they took a qb in round 1 they'll probably sign another veteran qb backup.

the issue with drafting a qb then was that the lions did not have the "infrastructure" surrounding the qb to make it a success while still on the "entry level" qb deal that makes it attractive to have that qb there. now they arguably do. at least, that was the theory going around at the time.

you never know. a team could fall in love with any player and take them over anderson. a corner, a tackle, anorher type of defensive end, definitely a qb. as much as i think its unlikely, its certainly not impossible that anderson is there at 6.

and then he wont take richardson. thats fine. but the fact that you have goff shouldnt preclude you from looking at qb at #6 (or #18). theyve been down there to see him play multiple times. theyve talked to him at the combine already. they are interested in him. at #6? maybe not. but all the reports are that they are interested, goff or no goff.

they do have a lot of draft capital. i forgot about that. of course, they are talking about bringing harden back...

i trust brad holmes' decision on that matter. if he takes richardson (or another qb), we'll know what he thinks about it. but i dont think his reasoning is - or should be - "we have jared goff so we cant take a great qb prospect." he is thinking about the long term future of the franchise as well as the near term success.

drafting and developing a young qb would be great because you'd potentially be developing a great player at the most important position in football, and be able to do it wothout paying a ton of money for the player at that position. for every team but the saints apparently, you eventually have to pay the piper. ask the chiefs. but the chiefs are still really good because they drafted patrick mahomes, sat him for a year, and then took off. if richardson is that type of athlete, then its not unreasonable to draft him, sit him, develop him while he's cheap, and set your franchise up for a decade. risky for sure, but you have this manna from heaven as a gift from stafford, its perfectly plausible to use it to set up the future of your franchise rather than take a cb who you think might be plug and play.

young millionaire men making mistakes is a tale as old as time.

i'd rather be us than houston...for what's that worth. btw, the defensive ratings with two of bagley/wiseman/duren/stewart on the floor together are abysmal. i dont see the games so i cant really comment if that passes the eye test.

true.

the lions will have to pay sewell and st brown soon. then hutch. the lions have drafted good players who will become expensive in a couple years, their cap sheet wont be that great in a few years, especially if youre paying a 30 year old qb 40 million per season. again, not advocating they take a qb, but the idea that goff will be cheaper than a rookie qb isnt true, not to mention that if they draft a qb i assume they think he will be a dynamic qb that goff is not. that said, i doubt they take a qb this year, but the future cap implications and the upgrade in talent would be two of the major reasons why they do it of they decide to do so.

trade goff for two first from the jets. ok, that's the land of make believe. stop yourself right there.

no, you would have the qb this year wait behind goff for a low amount, then have him for less than market value for four more years. goff is under contract for $30 million this year and next, then would be off the books when your qb is making $10 million, $15m and then $20. goff during that time will cost $40, $40, and $40. at a minimum. im not advocating they draft a qb, but it would be cheaper than signing goff long term and cheaper than goff now.

why would you need to decide by year 3 if you want to extend him? if you do, it will be to pick up the 5th year option, for $20m? goff is under contract for one more year. how much will he cost to extend him? in two years, a first year qb will cost $10m on a rookie contract? how much will goff cost? $40m?