Mr. WEO

That's not what Chapek did. In fact, he was criticized for not doing enough, given Disney's massive clout.

I read yours. And, no, Netflix type success isn't happening. I gave you an article to read to help you see what's going on, which as I already pointed out: growth in subscribers isn't moving the needle in profits. You should have noticed this with the 29% drop in your stock price over the past year. Netflix has 232.5, Amazon has 200 million. Disney 157.8./Hulu 48.1. Streaming services hemorrhage money under their current model of cheap subscription and massively expensive content production. Subscription growth powered stock value until recently. The whole sphere is now in turmoil as investors no longer are impressed with growth but with profits---and the streamers are bleeding tons. Iger came back because Disney's streaming business is sapping the profits out of the company and your stock value cratered. In Q1 it lost 659 million (another 1.1 billion in Q1 last year). If Chopak had made Disney+ into a big money maker, no one would care or remember how he handled Covid or HB1557---and they certainly would not have gone begging to Iger. This much is clear: Waal Street is punishing your company for bleeding money on its streaming service. Nobody cares about subscribers anymore because their subscription fees can't possibly cover the cost of providing content. Amazon (#2) and HBO Max (#6) have nearly 300 million subscribers. Disneys problem is that those streams are owned by companies who don't rely on their profits to remain profitable. They are fun side hustles for massive tech companies who aren't otherwise tethered to the entertainment business. If Amazon stream or Max simply fold up shop--both companies would still dwarf Disney. Apple is by far the top valuation company in the world. Amazon is #5. Disney is #68. Subscribers aren't meaningful in this business model--which is in crisis across the board. "Creating custom content" (which they all do) is exactly what has put them in this position--there's way too much expensively produced content and not enough people watching any particular original show. They are all scaling back and canceling projects because the simple math says subscriber dollars can't pay for them. If you must hold blue chips over time, dump your Disney and move up the list.

That Netflix-type success won't happen again in streaming--the whole industry is in crisis. They created tons of expensive content yet they are maxed out on subscribers. Wall street initially heavily rewarded their growth (subscription)...until investors woke up and said no money is being made. This is a solid piece:https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/streaming-industry-netflix-max-disney-hulu-apple-tv-prime-video-peacock-paramount.html "It’s easy to see this now as self-immolation, but at the time, investors rewarded the spending as an investment in the future and a hedge against the trend of cord-cutting. Disney’s share price — which had been trading in the $100 range when the company announced its streaming strategy — flirted with $150 in the weeks after Disney+’s launch. COVID further juiced the value of companies whose primary market is serving shut-ins. Netflix added 36.6 million subscribers in 2020 — its biggest annual gain ever — and Disney+ did even better, finishing its first full year of operations with 86.8 million customers. Iger retired on the last day of 2021. All that was missing was a MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED banner. For the company’s rivals, Netflix’s woes begot a mix of Schadenfreude and relief: Maybe sanity had prevailed. But what at first looked like a Netflix correction was in fact a streaming correction. Investors started punishing Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and other Netflix wannabes. “Wall Street woke up and said, ‘Actually, profitability is the only metric,’” says a senior executive at a major streamer. “The idea that you could have the optics of success, where you could add 5 million subscribers and you gained 10 percent in value? It was over.” Iger unretired to retake the CEO job at Disney. " And six years after Iger convinced most of Hollywood to lock up their library titles on their own platforms, Disney and others have said they’re open to licensing some shows again — even to their old nemesis Netflix."

The question is limited to SB losses. They were all bad beats--1 heartbreaker, 3 embarrassments, so...bad.

this just in.....

They have outlasted any and all competition in their niche. Sure cable may have been dying na slow death, but ESPN has been all alone in national sports broadcasting for 50 years. Still are. But hey, Disney doesn't have infinite cash. They took a huge bad gamble on streaming content exclusively on their own streamers and they got clobbered. Now they are crawling back to the legacy streamers (Netflix, Max) again offering licensing deals to stream their IP. Vna Gundy is the only pro sports analytics guy worth listening to. Dumping him and keeping Mark Jackson makes zero sense. Jackson was only there to argue with Van G. They made an entertaining pair.

they had a good one years ago (their first?) on Mt Hope formerly Lunds restaurant. Then they had one on Gregory street (formerly Doc’s Pump House) which was good too. I think they overexpanded to the point where Covid wiped them out.

he's paid to break stories for you

Onanistas

he went back on IR before the weights hit the ground.

New Bar Bill was a former McGregors. Can’t be any worse that that dump

he didn’t have nearly the called runs Allen does. He wasn’t a good passer. He had a well earned rep as skittish pocket in the pocket.

Taylor did that for 3 seasons as a starter for his whole career. 5.7 is Daniel Jones level stuff—does he remind you of Vick and Newton as well? come on. TT tan around a lot because he couldn’t go through progressions and took off as soon as he saw his first option was covered.

Oh ok

How many all time dual threats are on your list?

topic is winning the SB chief. if you now want to change your argument that a bottom half Dungy D stepped up on one series in the playoffs that year then go ahead I guess.

Dungy was a big fan of sitting starters at the end of the season before the playoffs. Bellichik rarely did that. The results of the different philosophies speaks for itself. Dungy struggled to motivate star studded regular season juggernaut teams for the playoffs. He was a pushover

stepping up? The Colts took a lead into the half and never trailed. On the final series the D made Grossman look like Joe Montana—going 5/5 in under 2 minutes. He ran out of time. Regardless, the Colts were up by 12. The game was out of reach for the Bears. keep digging….

so what? They were 23rd in points allowed. That’s not good. Offense was #2 in points scored. It’s simply not true they got to SB because of that Defense. The only 2 times Dungy had a top 5 scoring D the Colts lost the Divisional playoff game—one s as me done years. When they won the DB, the mighty Dungy D was able to hold the great Rex Grossman to 17 points.

Colts D was bottom half that season. No HC has squandered more talent ever. 8 seasons, 4 one and dones.

There’s one…

I disagree

Atta boy. Nobody is agreeing with you. You are comparing the Chargers, with a Coach and QB who have gotten to one playoff game--and lost--with a Coach and QB that has reached the playoffs 4 of the 5 seasons, twice to the Divisional, one of which they lost infamously, but is considered one of the best games in league history. The Chargers have achieved nothing. Anyone who has seen any one of their games likely remembers nothing about it. Yet you insist that "there are many similarities between these two teams". By all means, be very proud of that absolutely ridiculous take. It suits you.