gehringer_2

It'a also not like Stafford never had a decent offensive cast around him in any of his good Det years either. In 2011 he had a HOF receiver, TE with more than 80 catches, they could run it a little (1500 yds as team) and maybe most notable for the Lions, that year the O-line more or less held together - between the 5 starters there was only one one missed start all season I think anyone would stipulate that Stafford has more arm talent than Goff, in fact more than most QBs playing, but there is more to playing QB that just that, though granted it's the most important for "wow" factor.

but no trading cards? Bah!

The last reel was mostly the light show, and light shows were a very in thing then - there was no IMAX, CGI, there were no wall sized HDTVs. That all seems quaint now, but you probably had literally never seen any of that kind of visual before if you were watching the movie in 1968. And of course, Clark and Kubrick had very different ideas about that the 'story' was, so Clark released his novella and Kubrick made his movie and any resemblance between them thematically is purely coincidental....

A football program always exists somewhere on a contiuum between two theoretical poles: one where teams draft and trade for the best general overall talent they can find and then design around the strengths of the players they have; and at the other extreme coaches who have a particular system they want to play who draft and trade for the players they think fit that system. It can be harder to get the talent you want in the second case, but *if* your system is good enough -esp if it's new and the rest of the league hasn't figured it out, it can certainly work. McVay got his QB and he did win. I suppose you could say Bill Walsh had particular system and it certainly won. Of course Patricia drafted to some kind of defensive theory and it was an abysmal failure, so it can go either way! But it would seem a natural corollary that there will be guys who end up leaving one place to have more success in another. Of course the flip side of coin is that if Goff does continue to be successful this year and through next, the Lions may not want to pay what will be needed to keep him!

'Contextualizing' should at least rate a change in lustre, or maybe even lumenescence

Nice to see you stop by!

fastball spin probably sealed the deal...

Of course we know 1st hand how bad some of the teams Stafford had to front were.

you're trading yards after 1st contact for big play potential. So it's going to depend on M's O-line push. If they can't move TCU's D-line, then the one or two yards after contact will be mucho missed trying to keep the chains moving; if they are making holes, Edwards will do as much or more damage - again, if he has both hands by then. M is pushing their luck when they have to give 25 carries to a one handed back. You wonder how TCU will try to defend, will they bring everyone up and risk the big play like OSU did or will they play straight up and hope they can still force a few punts?

With Mullins for short yardage and a healthy Edwards they won't miss Corum too much. But does Edwards have both hands back by then?

punt.

yeah - that was not a good response. You have feel for anyone in that job - you go up there never knowing what kind of land mines are out there, but she could have just said - "yes that is interesting and we are going to look into it". 20/20 hindsight of course

the thing is you have to have a theory to make sense of the data or it's just all chance correlation. If a guy plays well, then plays poorly under a new condition 'x' (McVay?) and then plays better later when condition 'x' is absent, you can't build a very persuasive case that his skills somehow degraded and then miraculously came back. I would say that with a QB you need to watch his film knowing what the play was and what his options were, did he make the right play or not. We don't have much access to that info. Then you can rate some things directly, like does he throw the ball accurately, touch, zip etc. So I would say his coaches are in a good position to rate a QB, and that position is way better than a fan can get from looking at game outcome stats, where 21 other guys on the field plus coaches all had input to what happened. If an OC says he has a QB that an do everything he needs to make his offense go, that is what you have to care about - a lot more than QBR. That said, Goff's skillset clearly wasn't a match for what McVay wanted to run. Does that matter if the Lions aren't interested in McVay's offense? Sure you'd love to have a QB that can do everything and anything on the field, but are you going to wait another 50yr for that one in a million guys to fall in your lap or find a guy you can actually get who is skilled enough to do what you think you need to do to win? You can do a lot of losing trying to find the perfect QB. Bottom line is that Eli Manning has more SB rings than Aaron Rogers or Dan Marino.

makes sense. With instant replay improving it's getting to where home field advantage isn't what it used to be. Overall home winning % used to tend around 55-60% but has almost disappeared (as low as 51%) in some years more recently. https://boardroom.tv/nfl-home-field-advantage-betting-value/#:~:text=Since 2010%2C home teams during,home win percentage was 55.6%.

Not impossible. Roger Staubach played his first NFL game at 27. Made it to the HOF. Just unlikely.

should be fun to see a guy turning the DP with one hand holding onto his walker.

In a smal to mid-sized city you can find that combination in a college town. Otherwise something bigger. If you go bigger then the question is urban or sub-urban.

The college of orthopedic surgeons has to be behind this......

you would pick a comp that hasn't won a title...

the month to month numbers are practically at target. The year to year can't come all the way down until last year's rent increases get to 12 months old. I'm a little PO'd at talk about the Fed wanting to squeeze until they see see wage increases drop though. For thirty years hourlies have been falling futher behind. If the cost of getting a little better income parity in the US is a % or so on the CPI for another year or two that's something I'm all in for.

I guess just because Brady doesn't get old doesn't mean other QB's don't.

IDK, Goff is still pretty much exactly what people said he was when he got here - a guy who throws well and makes good decisions given a good O-line giving him time and receivers that get open. I sort of think it's less that Goff was been any different either when they were losing or winning. It's the team around him and the perceptions of he and the team are what has changed. So if you are a GM, I guess the question is: How much can the incremental improvement that a QB with mobility and maybe more daring get you in terms of wins given that you have that good OLine and receivers that get open - as compared to using that draft capital somewhere else?

yeah - you really wanted to see his eFG% at a higher level before the end of this season - now that's pushed back. I've gotten progressively more pessimistic about Cade. Aside from not being able to get or stay on the court and despite being able to be the dominant player on a bad team, at least occasionally, I'm not sure I see the dominant player of a good team. Hope he proves otherwise.

funny thing, when we were growing up most, maybe all, the right handed kids I played pickup with shot RH. I guess somehow that had become the tribal wisdom in the neighborhood and it just got passed along as we taught each other how to play. Worked well for me because though I'm right handed I'm pretty much left legged. 🤷‍♂️

Sort of similar. I'd always think about getting a flu shot but just never got down to a place and time so it didn't happen. Then they started doing a shot clinic each fall literally 50 feet down the hall from my lab. Now it's a habit even if the clinic down the hall is put somewhere else in a given year..