Superman

Yup, agreed all around. Just being overly technical, which I do sometimes. As for Rodgers, I think he'll be back in 2024. The league had a standard at the time, it was a one year suspension. That's a pretty steep penalty, for any transgression. Now it's two years, but I don't think they'll retroactively apply the harsher penalty, and I don't think that would hold up legally. As for the bet on JT, was there any indication of the game on which this bet was placed? I might have missed it, but I don't think so. If it was the Raiders game, that's inside information exemplified. New coach in the building, stresses that the offense is gonna get back to basics and feed the RB, JT is looking good at practice all week, the OL looks like they're all in sync for the first time in a while, etc... And then you tell your friend to drop $1,000 on the over for rushing yards... It's obvious how problematic that is, and how much it undermines legitimate gambling.

Yeah, I think 'not out of the realm of possibility' is a fairly innocuous and noncommittal statement to make, and I don't think most people would take objection to it. The major pushback is to people who swear up and down that pro sports are scripted and rigged, and then call everyone who disagrees a blind sheep. Personally, I think the magnitude of the scandal makes it unlikely. I don't disagree with the idea that public information is often unreliable, but when you start talking about thousands of people and literally hundreds of billions of dollars at risk, among dozens of businesses and multiple industries... At some point, someone has to lose something, on a major scale. And then the whole thing crumbles, the curtain gets pulled back, and everything gets exposed. We've seen major scandals in business and government, this is how it goes. I don't think the NFL or any major sports league would be immune.

I agree with your interpretation, and that's the way I read it as well. But I don't know if the writer's use of words should be taken 100% literal in that case. I think more precise wording would be helpful in this case. If it said 'he bet on the over,' that would require no interpretation at all.

Just trying to establish the principle, even with an absurd example. The principle is that the truth doesn't always lie in the middle. We can usually recognize what's true and what's not, and even if we're not sure, we don't give equal credence to opposing theories if one of those theories has no basis in reality. That's the case even if we don't necessarily trust any of the sources of information. So if one person says NFL games are fairly played, and another person says the outcome is decided by a flying, golden egg laying elephant, we don't put the elephant theory on the spectrum at all, not without convincing evidence. My point is that being open minded and neutral is not the same thing as accepting an unlikely and unproven theory as a legitimate possibility. Generally speaking, a person would not accept such a theory unless they were presented with evidence, and that evidence needs to be convincing. The more far-fetched the theory, the more convincing the evidence must be. And then the evidence gets scrutinized, based on a variety of factors, to see if it actually proves anything. The idea that NFL games are purposely altered is not as unlikely and far-fetched as the elephant theory. But it does call into question a lot of baseline understanding that we have about the NFL. And while it's technically possible, it would still be an incredible scandal, involving thousands of people, affecting a multi billion dollar business that co-exists with multi-multi billion dollar industries. It seems reasonable to expect that a scandal of that magnitude would be exposed eventually. There should be some sort of compelling evidence. And then that evidence should be able to withstand some scrutiny. Instead, when people ask for evidence, eventually the response comes around to some version of 'Really, you trust the NFL? How naive!'

Okay, but if one person claims that there's a magical flying elephant that lays a golden egg each spring, and inside the egg is the script for this year's NFL season... versus the traditional viewpoint that claims there is no script... Do you just stay neutral and open minded, and say 'neither side is trustworthy, so I can't say one side is more likely than the other'? Maybe you leave room for the small possibility that each side could be true, but wouldn't you at least want to see some kind of evidence of the flying, egg laying elephant?

So if two people who aren't trustworthy are telling you their version of a story, do you just accept that either of their versions could be the truth? Or do you listen, compare what they're telling you to what you already know, analyze the likelihood of either version, and form an opinion?

Last time I saw anything on this, it sounded like he didn't have the support. They were offering him a stake at well below market value, and the other owners weren't going for it. The deal was 10% ownership of the Raiders, for $175m, which would value the Raiders at $1.75 billion. The Commanders just sold for over $6 billion, so that doesn't make sense. That's a significant discount. It sounds like the deal is being adjusted, so I guess we'll see what happens. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10100411-nfl-rumors-tom-bradys-raiders-ownership-deal-not-dead-approval-vote-not-planned

This basically gives anyone in the world the freedom to push a theory about any big entity, and then defend that theory by saying 'these entities aren't trustworthy, they're capable of anything, including this theory I'm pushing.' I don't "trust" the NBA or the NFL. But that doesn't mean I just accept any unproven theory that I hear about them.

Seems like he has a great reputation, and I don't see any prior connection between him and anyone on the staff. It seems like they conducted an open search and hired a well qualified guy, not just someone they already knew.

I see it differently. The Colts waived Rodgers in June. He cleared waivers and sat available for weeks, then signed with the Eagles in August. If the Colts wanted to keep Rodgers in 2023, they could have, with no cap charge and without a roster spot. I don't know whether the Colts hoped to bring Rodgers back at some point, but it doesn't seem like it. My opinion, they cut him and never looked back. They also waited for the league's decision before waiving Rodgers. The recent story is that Rodgers knew he was being investigated in February or March, but didn't tell anyone. The story first broke in early June, at which point the Colts released a statement saying they were aware but would not be commenting. I don't think we know whether the Colts were aware of the investigation from the beginning, but I'm sure that Rodgers failure to communicate with the team didn't help him. But it's noteworthy that the Colts did not take any action until after the NFL announced the results of the investigation, and handed down the suspension. It's only at that point that the Colts cut Rodgers. https://www.si.com/nfl/colts/news/colts-isaiah-rodgers-rashod-berry-suspended-nfl https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37802067/nfl-investigating-colts-player-possible-betting https://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/eagles-isaiah-rodgers-sign-noah-elliss So if we look at the Ogletree situation, it's possible that the team is taking the same approach. Ogletree is on the exempt list, not taking a roster spot. The Colts waited for the league to make a decision on Rodgers; they could be doing the same with Ogletree. And it's unlikely that anything happens before the legal process plays out. So I think they're just waiting, while the facts become clear. Side point: I have not had anything to say about Ogletree. The story sounds awful, and if he did what he's accused of, then I think the Colts will cut him and move on. But despite the way the initial reports sound, we do not actually know what happened. So it's hard for me to have an opinion on the way the Colts have handled it so far. IMO, it makes sense for them to wait before making a decision either way.

@chad72 Were you pumping up Pitt's DL / pass rush recently? Or am I misremembering?

How do you reach that conclusion? Using your numbers, the Colts got one pressure against every 2.55 dropbacks. The Ravens were 2.24, the Browns were 2.06. Both teams got pressure more frequently than the Colts.

I don't think there's a formula for hiring a good GM. Similar to hiring a HC, it seems like teams want to hire people from other teams that have had success. That's reasonable, doesn't take a lot to understand why that's an attractive option. But just like coordinators from good teams flame out as HCs, execs from good teams flame out as GMs all the time. So it's not necessarily an effective method. The other thing is that I don't know if we have any real understanding of the division of responsibilities in a front office. Sometimes we get little details and insights into the way things work, we know there's a director of pro scouting and a director of college scouting, so we can figure that out... we know that Dodds ran point on CJ Stroud and Brown ran point on Richardson... But who actually knows what Dodds does on a daily basis, or how those duties translate to the GM position? I don't. I think the whole operation is so collaborative and has so much overlap that it's hard to conclude that the successes or shortcomings of a team should be attributed to one specific person in the operation. More likely, a team is looking for individuals with certain traits and experience. The Commanders just hired the assistant GM from the Niners, which makes sense. But what if he excels at big ideas and ingenuity, but struggles with planning, organization, and management? And maybe Dodds is the opposite? If your organization values one profile over the other, it would probably influence your final decision, maybe more than the relative success of the teams that each guy comes from. And enough guys from varied backgrounds and situations fail as GMs that there's probably no real pattern either way. I don't have any beef with Dodds, or Brown. They seem respected and likable, but whether they'd be good GMs, I don't have any real idea. I'm kind of torn on the idea of either of them leaving. I don't like having a bunch of guys leave the building, but the possibility of having new people join the leadership crew is intriguing. However, if either Dodds or Brown does eventually leave, they most likely get replaced by someone who's already in-house, so we can't count on new blood in that situation.

It's definitely a generalization. But I think the point is that when a QB gets drafted at #1, he's likely going to a struggling team that has some issues and isn't in great position to support a rookie QB. Just in general, that makes sense, and I think we've seen that play out enough times to say there's plenty of truth to that theory. But yeah, just saying 'I'd rather not be drafted #1 because only bad organizations get the #1 pick' is a step too far. Unless we see a player actually step up and say 'I don't want to be drafted by that team,' I think it's an overblown issue. This has only happened a few times in draft history, and the last time it was a real thing was 20 years ago. To your earlier point, it's not hard to read the September comments you posted as an indication that the Williams crew might not like a certain team. Just seems like the theory that he doesn't like the Bears is unfounded, so far.

I can't name one high level Bears QB. That includes Fields. He may have shown an ability to impact games with his legs, but what he hasn't shown enough of is an ability to impact games as a passer. JMO. Obviously there are various opinions on this, it's why I think this topic is so interesting. If the Bears view this QB class the same way you do, then they should keep Fields and trade out of #1. I find it hard to believe that many people will watch this year's QBs and not like any of them enough to take at #1.

Yes.

I think the way forward is to proceed as if Richardson is the guy to build around. Get him what he needs to be successful, for the offense to flourish. And even if he struggles, gets benched, gets hurt, we still have some reliable playmakers on offense. But if he picks up where he left off, and actually gets it going, the offense could be dangerous. I don't believe in our defensive scheme, so my perspective there is kind of skewed. I don't see how we can upgrade the defensive personnel enough to make Bradley's scheme work as well as it needs to. But if the offense can score more, and be more explosive, it takes some pressure off the defense, maybe the bend-don't-break is a little more productive if the other team knows they have to put up points. So I want them to be aggressive on offense, add a dynamic WR by trade or FA, tighten up the OL and add depth, get a healthy season out of JT, and see what Steichen's system can really do.

"Hot seat" might seem kind of loaded, like he's about to get fired. I wouldn't exactly say he's on the hot seat, because I think the trajectory is favorable right now. But if the Colts sputter this season, I think things start to look different. It's the 2-3 years projection that I think is pretty much the longest anyone thinks Ballard will continue as GM if the Colts don't start some serious winning, like advancing in the playoffs. I'd say if the Colts don't win at least one playoff game over the next two seasons, Ballard is gone. And I'm probably viewed as one of the more pro Ballard posters here.

I think that's the generous end of the consensus on Ballard. I don't think anyone sees him being here beyond 2025 if the Colts aren't serious contenders in the playoffs by then.

That's all fair and good insight, but none of it is connected to the Bears. Back in September, we didn't know who would be picking at the top of the draft. People had the Cardinals at #1 back then. Coincidentally (or maybe not?), Williams' dad mentioned Kyler Murray... And right now, they seem to be pushing back against the narrative that they don't like the Bears. Separate, but related, I think the point Williams' dad was making is logical, and kind of obvious. It doesn't sound good coming from him, and honestly I'd rather not hear from the presumptive #1 pick's parents leading up to the draft, not about this kind of stuff. And just because a team has the #1 pick doesn't mean they're a bad organization. But the list of highly regarded QB prospects who went to bad teams high in the draft, only to struggle, is about a mile long. There are a bunch of QBs who got drafted by teams with defensive minded HCs, and got mismanaged. And even though there's always going to be some shade thrown on Eli and Archie Manning, they were probably right about the Chargers. Just look at the dysfunction that came out of that building in the following couple of years. IF Williams' and his 'people' came out and said he didn't want to be drafted by the Bears, I'd get it. I think the Bears mismanaged Justin Fields, Eberflus probably has a short leash, and the Bears historically don't do well with QBs. I'm not saying he shouldn't want to go there, just saying I'd understand it if that were the case.

On one hand, I do want to see a team force a player's hand in this situation. Let's see a guy actually hold out because he was drafted by a team he didn't like... The theory hasn't even been tested since Elway. But on the other hand, if I'm running a team and the first interaction I have with a prospect is based on his sense of entitlement, I kind of don't want him. I don't have a big concern with this for Williams. For a guy like Johnny Manziel going to the Browns, sure. Even Zach Wilson to the Jets. Tua was obviously unable to operate in the cold in KC. But Williams' arm is more than good enough, to all areas of the field. He also grew up in Maryland, and played HS football in DC. He just wound up at USC because Lincoln Riley was the HC. Palmer and Goff are born and bred Cali boys. Goff never had the kind of arm Williams has; Palmer had a strong arm, I'm not sure what to make of his cold weather record, but it's probably more about his teams being bad than it is his inability to perform in cold weather.

I mostly agree, but different teams view QB differently. Take the Colts last year, if we take Ballard at his word, they felt Richardson was the best QB/player in the draft, and they were confident enough that he'd be available at #4 that they didn't move up. Richardson was the third QB off the board. So if the Bears don't feel great about Williams -- and that's possible; I think his tape is undeniable, but it's possible that there's some intangibles that teams won't like -- and would rather have Maye or Daniels, for instance, then they can play this game. They could get the haul you're describing, and trade Justin Fields (some insider thinks they could get the Falcons pick at #8), and now the Bears are in position to still get their favorite QB, plus a bunch of extra picks. I didn't include this possibility in the poll, just wanted to keep it simple because there are a ton of variables that get introduced. But if you can get that kind of haul for #1, you have to discuss it. If you're guy is Caleb Williams, no matter what, then take him. But if not, maybe do the trade.

If you can do that and still get Drake Maye, then we need to talk. And I'm not a big Maye guy, much more a Williams guy, but the Bears still have #9...

Feels like this is the same rumor that's been circulating, and it keeps getting refuted. Yesterday, Cowherd said he doesn't think Caleb Williams wants to go to the Bears, then today says he got a call from Williams' people saying they're not anti Bears. So who really knows... Unless Caleb Williams makes clear to the Bears that he doesn't want them to draft him, I think the Bears should dismiss these rumors.

I saw rumors about this a couple months ago, nothing since then. Is there something new?