The Frankish Reich

Ahh, the self-sacrificing leaders of our “non-profit entities.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.erieri.com/blog/post/top-10-highest-paid-ceos-at-nonprofits-2021%3Famp Best compensated non-profit CEO in 2018 pulled in about $18 million in compensation. Maybe the Packers aren’t on that level, but I would guess that their top brass aren’t exactly earning what we think of as non-profit do-gooder pay.

This is actually a really good question. We know you can't transfer/sell the "stock," but the Packers are profitable, so they'd be expected to return some value to shareholders. I mean, I'm sure they don't, but I wonder what the theory is behind not doing so. Amazing that they get all those kudos for being "owned by the people of Green Bay" when they are pretty much using that public ownership/nonprofit status as a way to line the pockets of what I assume are just a small group of insiders.

Well, true. Is it better to pay to own an NFT of Aaron Rodgers getting a vaccine (actually, that one would be rare and valuable) than a "certificate" of "stock" ownership to put on the mantle below your TV? I mean, people pay to have stars "registered" in their name, or to buy one square foot of land in some exotic location, etc., etc. But still: please stop calling it "stock" - even with the quotes around it.

I'm pretty sure the NFL owners banned the concept of public ownership of a team. Heaven forbid a community could have a real stake in "its" team. As for this "stock" offering (the quotes are necessary), this is from the offering website itself: Common stock does not constitute an investment in “stock” in the common sense of the term. Purchasers should not purchase common stock with the purpose of making a profit. I don't know how they are even allowed to use the word "stock" since it in no way resembles stock as we know it. And the "stock" is not transferable (except to your heirs, etc.), and I couldn't figure out what voting rights, if any, it carries with it. It is simply symbolic. Maybe you'd be better off buying a piece of turf from an old/re-sodded field if you want a symbol of Packerlove.

Yeah, I’m retrospect that was probably the worst single mistake the Jets have made, pointlessly winning a game that iced the #1 overall for Jax.

So you’re saying it wasn’t all Adam Gase’s fault after all?

From the I formation .... with a fullback leading the way (although Gilliam didn't really need to block anyone; more like the old term "running interference"). What are these new inventions like "I formations"? Old school can be new school too.

Well, that's true ... weird that they had no plan to pick up a blitzer from the right side, but I can't definitively put that on Breida.

Yep. I hate to say it, but it's looking like one down year is all the Pats will have. That doesn't mean they should beat us - we have the talent edge for sure - but it does mean my Bills/Pats role reversal dreams will probably not come true.

de·bauch·er·y /dəˈbôCHərē/ Learn to pronounce noun excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. Hey, whatever it takes. I just hope there's no video of Urban Meyer's latest sensual indulgences. [I think it was meant to be "debacle"] Nope, I'm pretty sure he was supposed to pick up the blitzer before going into his route.

Bills coaching staff reads TSW! Or maybe they watch the film and see the same things we do. - get Breida involved! As in 2 TDs involved!! (We'll excuse the garbage time fumble) - use a FB/heavy set every now and then! (that was my particular piece of advice). I saw Gilliam out there more than in any prior game, even in an old-fashioned I formation that actually worked. - get Diggs the damn ball! As in "get the ball near him and he will make good things happen" as we saw today. - mix it up, play Allen under center and pass from that formation every now and then! And the play action helped the line against the pass rush, particularly as the game went on.

That would definitely seem to follow from your analysis - way too predictable. By the way, a lot of what you just did is exactly what the much disparaged analytics guy-in-the-khaki-pants types do. I certainly hope they've recognized these trends too. If not, I hope they read TSW. And that the coaches listen.

I think this is probably right, but to really confirm it we'd have to have a RB who can actually get outside.

Still the best post title ever. I'm no Rams fan (they are acting like the Yankees of old, acquiring every name player available, which is the surest way to incur my hatred), but I gotta feel bad for Woods. He's still the one former Bill of recent memory that I really regret letting get away. Not the biggest, not the fastest, but he just has a will to succeed that overcomes everything. I hope this knee injury is another example of that.

Well, there's always this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193457/total-league-revenue-of-the-nfl-since-2005/ It's a business, not a public service. I have to assume the owners love the bottom line results or they wouldn't keep re-upping him.

Leader of the free sheeple? Please do not allow this ^ vaccinated lamb's photo to ruin our little Borax Bath Party. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/11/13/anti-vaxxers-recommend-bathing-in-borax-other-detox-to-undo-covid-19-vaccines/?sh=5b11b01b38e3

Exactly. I started the damn thread and even I'm sick of it. Vaccine mandates? I'm for them (hey, that's the title of the thread!) but I will gladly concede that there is room for debate. Mandate for whom? When? What types of exemptions? All of that is ... debatable. Watching this morph into "vaccines are garbage" or "vaccines are part of a vast big pharma conspiracy" or, as we have it in the latest version, actually RUIN YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM is just depressing. If one wants to lose all faith in the intelligence of ordinary Americans, well, this may be the place to start.

Sorry, I meant Brown was abused at RT, and that doesn't bode well for him moving to LT. In general, I'm an optimist re: O line issues. NFL coaching staffs generally figure out a way to patch them together during the course of the season. We probably all remember the disastrous Pats O line in, what was it, 2016 or 17? They got it fixed. Even our historically bad O line at the start of 2018 was poor but ... better by the end of that season. Sometimes a good reshuffling is the start.

Yikes. After a promising first couple games, Brown was pretty much abused at RT. I don't want to see him protecting Allen's blindside anytime soon. I do agree about Dawkins. There's been a cascade effect stemming from his subpar health/play. But I don't think there's any real alternative there. He has to play through it and we have to hope that by January he's closer to the 2020 version of Dion Dawkins; otherwise, we'll be in rough shape approaching the playoffs. Agreed. Between a healthy Dawkins and Morse, a healthy Feliciano was certainly able to hold his own. But that's just not been the case this year. I'm all for experimenting when you're talking about swapping out one journeyman type for another journeyman type - sometimes (Justin Zimmer for about one calendar year?) you get lucky.

How many destinations must one have to be labeled a "journeyman?" Because but for his mere two NFL stops, that's kind of how I see Feliciano. I imagine he may graduate from apprentice to journeyman next season.

File under: Embarrassing Admissions.

This is what is meant by "regression." No, Josh Allen did not get "worse" than he was last year. No, Josh Allen did not unlearn the important things he learned in 2019 and 2020. Unless we're talking about a veteran mediocrity who suddenly has a great season in his mid-30s (Rich Gannon?), we never know when a guy is having a career season until after the fact. You could say the same thing about Patrick Mahomes' sophomore NFL season, his first as a starter. We still have a very, very good QB, and he'll still do great things. He may have seasons that equal or even exceed his 2020 season. But absolutely everything fell into place just right last year, and no one should realistically expect that to happen year after year after year.

Thanks for the update! And no, I didn't seriously mean DiMarco himself, but maybe a younger DiMarco type ....

I thought you were citing a sketchy paper. You weren't. It's a real study by reputable scientists in Sweden. But ... IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM. Read the abstract. It confirms waning effectiveness of the non-mRNA vaccine, possibly going to zero after 121 days, whereas the mRNA remains effective, although at a reduced level. Therefore, it concludes that there is a strong case for boosters. Really, some of you anti-vaxxers will twist facts any which way to prove a stupid, made-up point about highly effective vaccines somehow "ruining" your immune system. Here's the conclusion of the Swedish study. Show me where it says "COVID-19 vaccines actually ruin your immune system over time" You should be embarrassed to have posted something so completely untethered to reality. Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.

Usually whenever someone says this, I am right there to respond "oh, yes they can - that's why the current guys won the job." But in this case I feel like it's the early 2018 line that almost got Allen (and McCarron before him) killed. I don't think it can be worse.