My father-in-law has pointed out that anything is easy…if you know how to do it.

Getting two solid-to-good OL (and a qb) is easy. That’s 3 guys.

Ya just have to get the right three.

The trick is knowing which three guys are the right ones.

Meanwhile, on Dallas Sports Radio 1310, former Super Bowl champion quarterback Troy Aikman simply said, “For the balls to be deflated, that doesn’t happen unless the quarterback wants that to happen, I can assure you of that.”

That statement rings forcefully true to me.

I hadn’t given this much thought. But Aikman is right. It’s inconceivable that Brady didn’t know.

PA Ram wrote:

So if his contract is up in a week why the hell not just let him interview?

If I’m Chud, I look at the Colts and think–“Well screw you.”

It’s sort of pointless.

It tells him that they really want him to stay. That’s all it does, but it does it powerfully.

I do really like Richard Sherman. I can’t help it. He’s got game, and while he talks trash, for the most part it’s pretty smart trash.

He’s my favorite non-Ram, I think. Though, come to think of it, I don’t think there is another player on that particular list.

How do you go about investigating a claim like that?

Too late to investigate the balls. So…you just ask them if they cheated or not?

wv wrote:

If they bring Wells back i will
seriously question their intelligence.

w
v

If they bring Wells back, they should cut Jones. Because if Jones can’t perform better than Wells….

The only reason I remain uncertain on Wells (and I’d like him gone) is that the Rams may think he’s likely to be healthier next year, and worth keeping. Clearly if the decision is based on his performance, there’s got to be a better option. Wagoner mentioned Hudson, and he’s 26. That’s the kind of guy I’d like. Someone who can be the C for 8 – 10 years.

bnw wrote:

Has not mattered for 20 years so no it doesn’t matter now.

For the last 20 years, there has been no decision to make.

There is now.

I don’t know what this is worth.

But I think the most glorious outcome right now for the NFL is Kroenke’s stadium. Of all the outcomes I look at right now, Kroenke’s is the sexiest.

Does that matter?

Well…it might.

InvaderRam wrote:

also the tv revenue. is that one year or indefinite?

I am sure that would end up going to court and eventually being negotiated. Nobody knows what the league would do if Stan went rogue, not even the league. Grubman said nobody is thinking about that right now, and I believe him. Why would you spend energy on that when it’s a remote possibility at this point?

I don’t think Kroenke is going to go rogue, either. I’ve said all along I don’t think it’s in his nature, judging by his history; moreover, Grubman confirmed that the league knew in advance of the LA project Kroenke announced.

Really, now that the NFL has spoken, it appears to me that the whole process is being measured carefully, and nothing is certain yet…except that there WILL be a team in Los Angeles soon, probably 2016.

There are now three viable stadium plans for Los Angeles. (I am calling Kroenke’s plan viable a bit prematurely. It has not yet been sanctioned politically/environmentally, but I think it’s pretty safe to assume it will be). The holdup on the other two stadiums is that the investors involved in those projects want to be in ownership of the tenant. If I have my facts straight, one of the projects wants to own the team, and the other would be willing to own a mere 35% of the team. So far no team has made itself available.

That could change.

I have no idea what Davis is thinking in Oakland, but it is clear that Spanos wants LA. With Kroenke making a strong move, Spanos has now got to come up with a plan a little more proactive than simply throwing a hissy fit and rallying a few owners to vote No on the Rams. He may be able to delay things a bit, but I don’t think that he can hold up the Rams indefinitely without a viable alternative plan for re-colonizing Los Angeles. Would he sell 35% of the Chargers? Or negotiate something like that…25% or something? He now has pressure to make a deal; so do the stadium consortiums. They have to get something done soon, or their plans go up in flames. The clock is now ticking on everybody with an interest in Los Angeles.

And should Spanos be willing to sell part of the Chargers, he could jump ahead of Kroenke in the timeline because the other two stadiums in question are already approved and could start building tomorrow, afaik.

I did not know, btw, that 1/4 of the Chargers’ season tickets are from LA. If that is true, Spanos’ case for rights to LA is a bit stronger than I previously thought it was.

wv wrote:

I think i would rather learn the secret
to making good cornbread.

w
v

I can give you my grandmother’s recipe if you want.

Zooey wrote:

That 11-5 record – (11-6 if one counts the playoffs) – was sitting at 8-1 when they first started their backup QB. So from that point on, the Cards went 3-4… (3-5 if you count the loss to the 7-9 Panthers in the playoffs).

Oh, and, btw.

If one counts the post-Carson Palmer record at 3-5… and I do… just take note of the fact that 3-5 x 2 = 6-10. Exactly Fisher’s record without Sam Bradford.

So Bernie had a deadline and couldn’t think of anything fresh to write about.

Agamemnon wrote:

@ 39 seconds in. The Broncos might be for sale in 2015. That could add an interesting twist to the drama.

That will be a complete game changer if it turns out to be true.

nittany ram wrote:

PA Ram wrote:
I’m not so sure that San Diego and Oakland get priority because they’re already in the state of California. I mean legally, I’m not sure what difference it makes.

“The Rams voluntarily left the Los Angeles and Orange County markets, and some owners may question whether they deserve to return — especially if it means that the stadium situations of the two California teams remain unresolved,” an unnamed team official told Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal.

San Diego may need a better argument than that.

Well, the Chargers don’t want the Rams in LA because they have aspirations in that market including a possible relocation there. Interesting that they use a ‘Rams left LA voluntarily’ argument against the Rams when that same argument would apply to them. Didn’t they also leave LA voluntarily?

The argument is meaningless anyway.

Yes, they left voluntarily, too. It won’t take more than 5 minutes for someone to point that out to Spanos. And, as everyone has noted, it’s a meaningless argument in any event.

What isn’t meaningless is that the Chargers will try to stop Kroenke.

What is also true:

“A move by the Rams would generate significant political and legal controversy for an NFL Commissioner [Roger Goodell] who is already bedraggled and besieged on various fronts,” the unnamed Chargers official said.

And. There is the possibility of two teams in LA, so even if Spanos wants LA himself, his preference for that is still not a deciding factor. I’m sure Spanos can make this thing messy, but ultimately to what end? Even if he stops Kroenke, he is no closer to moving to LA.

Dak wrote:

I thought it was an obvious catch, but I guess the rules say otherwise. I think it was the right call, but still unfortunate.

Yeah, apparently it’s the right call, so it’s a bad rule.

The ground can’t cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion.

I’m fine with Dallas losing (and they may have lost anyway; there was time), but Bryant had control of that ball.