NFL 2011 Week 7

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

My biggest frustration is that for much of the 80's and early 90's I was ok with not winning.. that was the heyday of the NFC East as the "Power" in the NFL. But for a good chunk of Andy Reid's tenure the NFC East was awful and the Eagles had multiple opportunities to get something done.. but Management failures.. personel failures (Shawn Barber is still chasing Jurevicous)..and coaching failures all lead to 5 NFC Championships and only one Super Bowl appearance and zero wins. The Carolina NFC Championship game hurt.. the TB NFC Championship game REALLY hurt (mostly because the Raiders were a creampuff AFC opponent).. and the NE Super Bowl was devastating... Everything was setup that year.. we got TO.. we had a Westbrook in his prime.. hell even Pinky played well that year.

Cheer up, dude. At least you're not a Vikings fan.

AFAIK, Fran's pretty ok with that and is doing pretty well.

Clay Matthews fined $5K for wearing yellow shoes and AJ Hawk fined $10K for flipping the bird. Maybe they just should have started a bench clearing scrum after the game instead and not got penalized.

Rat Boy wrote:

Clay Matthews fined $5K for wearing yellow shoes and AJ Hawk fined $10K for flipping the bird. Maybe they just should have started a bench clearing scrum after the game instead and not got penalized.

Chris Kluwe's tweet regarding that:

"A.J. Hawk fined 10k for flashing a middle finger as an inside joke. Harbaugh and Schwartz fined nothing for fighting. #doublestandardmuch"

He has a point. Two coaches almost come to blows and nothing, and a finger get ten grand? Pretty damn silly.

Do I just hate the Raiders for thinking that the Chiefs have a very real chance of beating them this week?

Coming off a bye and seemingly look like they are getting some of their offense working (Cassel to Bowe) vs the injury parade the Raiders are having resulting in Carson Palmer starting this week?

the line started at -3 Raiders this week and it just kept trending till it settled to -5 even with all the news. Did none of those people watch Carson Palmer last year?

edit:

ESPN's Adam Schefter is reporting Oakland is bringing in kickers Friday because it fears kicker Sebastian Janikowski could miss a few weeks with a hamstring injury.

With the Raiders entering their bye week, Janikowski could possibly be in danger of just missing the Chiefs’ game on Sunday. But that wouldn’t be ideal.

edit2: the line is -6 now o_0

Janikowski hurt? Crap. He's been money in fantasy the past few years and all these 50+ fgs add up.

I'm pretty sure Janikowski could still hit a 30 yarder with a missing hamstring.

and now Palmer is doubtful.... so were back to Boller and no Shaunessy or Jankowski? eek. I need to hide my wallet.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/71...

Solution:

IMAGE(http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/writers/jeffri_chadiha/08/30/raiders.george/p1_george_getty.jpg)

Somewhere, Jason Whitlock is squealing with delight.

Browns
Titans
Dolphins
Bucs

Wildcard: Cowboys at home over 49ers

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Two coaches almost come to blows and nothing, and a finger get ten grand? Pretty damn silly.

I'm pretty sure AJ Hawk won't be scrambling for cash. The fine is a total joke...he just signed a 34 million dollar contract with 8 mil guaranteed. If I were him I'd probably flip the bird at every game for the rest of the season, especially those at which Roger Goodell happened to be in attendance.

Nothing to see here.

Landshrk83 wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Two coaches almost come to blows and nothing, and a finger get ten grand? Pretty damn silly.

I'm pretty sure AJ Hawk won't be scrambling for cash. The fine is a total joke...he just signed a 34 million dollar contract with 8 mil guaranteed. If I were him I'd probably flip the bird at every game for the rest of the season, especially those at which Roger Goodell happened to be in attendance.

Most rich people don't scoff at $10,000. I mean, that's one less bet on the roulette table.

My Texans kool-aid doesn't taste nearly as good at 3-3 as it did at 3-1. : /

That said, BIG game against the Titans this weekend. I'm excited.

garion333 wrote:
Landshrk83 wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Two coaches almost come to blows and nothing, and a finger get ten grand? Pretty damn silly.

I'm pretty sure AJ Hawk won't be scrambling for cash. The fine is a total joke...he just signed a 34 million dollar contract with 8 mil guaranteed. If I were him I'd probably flip the bird at every game for the rest of the season, especially those at which Roger Goodell happened to be in attendance.

Most rich people don't scoff at $10,000. I mean, that's one less bet on the roulette table.

Or monocle chain.

Browns
Texans
Broncos
Bucs
Cowboys

Yeah, a full-time team in London just isn't practical for a variety of reasons, so I'm not worred about it. The annoying thing from my point of view is there's been talk that one NFL team will effectively become "London's team" by playing one home game there every year; that team is, of course, the Bucs. I would be in Tampa right now preparing to watch them face the Bears, but, instead, they're overseas.

It makes sense from a business perspective that the Bucs are that team due to the Glazers' ownership of Man U; they've already got links there and you'll be more likely to sell merchandise if you can develop a solid fanbase for that one team. It just sucks that this is one less game I have a chance to see each year. Bah.

Rat Boy wrote:

Wait, now the British government wants an NFL team? Could London get an NFL team before Los Angeles?

It will never happen.. remember NFL Europe? Plus, the NFLPA will never let it happen. Imagine the jet lag players would have to endure week to week... or the added complication of a player being traded mid-season from say, Houston to London.

I figure within a few years the Jaguars will be in LA.

Browns
Texans
Broncos
Bears
Packers

I think it would make more sense to expand the NFL franchise into Canada and Mexico first.

Paleocon wrote:

I think it would make more sense to expand the NFL franchise into Canada and Mexico first.

Buffalo plays one home game every season in Toronto.. or at least they have been recently. I wouldn't be surprised to see them use that as leverage whenever a new stadium comes into the discussion. Ralph Wilson is one of the older stadiums in the league now, thought it has been recently renovated.

Still, its clear the NFL wants to get back into LA. I think any new cities will be the result of relocating franchises rather than expansion. 32 teams seems to be the sweet spot, if not bordering on too many.

hoosierjoe wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think it would make more sense to expand the NFL franchise into Canada and Mexico first.

Buffalo plays one home game every season in Toronto.. or at least they have been recently. I wouldn't be surprised to see them use that as leverage whenever a new stadium comes into the discussion. Ralph Wilson is one of the older stadiums in the league now, thought it has been recently renovated.

Still, its clear the NFL wants to get back into LA. I think any new cities will be the result of relocating franchises rather than expansion. 32 teams seems to be the sweet spot, if not bordering on too many.

I seem to remember reading a cheezy SF short story back in the 1980's that made a passing mention of the "Los Angeles Redskins" and "Anaheim Vikings".

Paleocon wrote:
hoosierjoe wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think it would make more sense to expand the NFL franchise into Canada and Mexico first.

Buffalo plays one home game every season in Toronto.. or at least they have been recently. I wouldn't be surprised to see them use that as leverage whenever a new stadium comes into the discussion. Ralph Wilson is one of the older stadiums in the league now, thought it has been recently renovated.

Still, its clear the NFL wants to get back into LA. I think any new cities will be the result of relocating franchises rather than expansion. 32 teams seems to be the sweet spot, if not bordering on too many.

I seem to remember reading a cheezy SF short story back in the 1980's that made a passing mention of the "Los Angeles Redskins" and "Anaheim Vikings".

It should be a rule that if you relocate, you have to change the team name. Living in Indianapolis, I hate that Colts fans try to claim history that truly belongs to Ravens fans. Remember all those great performances Unitas put on down at the Hoosier Dome?!?

Not not mention, some of the names don't even make sense after a move... Los Angeles Lakers?

Also if you relocate, you lose the right to wear throwbacks to the previous city. Titans wearing Oilers gear is major BS. You want to leave, you cut the cord.

Seahawks at Browns: Browns. Passing D is still too good.

Texans at Titans: Titans. Division game, at home, after a bye week. I don't know why I keep believing in the Titans, but the beatup Texans are hard to figure.

Broncos at Dolphins: Broncos as it's a home game for Tebow.

Bears at Buccaneers: I hate this game. Hate it. Bucs.

Wildcard: Lions over Falcons. Cause I'm a believer, baby.

Isn't the Redskins franchise usually one of the top 3 sports teams in estimated worth? I don't see them moving ever.

Why is Jason Campbell butt-hurt that his team would dare trade for another quarterback when he went out for the rest of the season?

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Why is Jason Campbell butt-hurt that his team would dare trade for another quarterback when he went out for the rest of the season?

He thinks he'll be back in 6 weeks.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Isn't the Redskins franchise usually one of the top 3 sports teams in estimated worth? I don't see them moving ever.

It is. It was a cheezy story.

He's so f-ing whiny. And he's not saying anything different from a few months ago.

If they traded him for a good linebacker they would be better off.