Wayne Cubed

Some of the Dick Jauron off-seasons were brutal.

I don't know the exact know the ins and outs of what they can and can't do.

Not sure if this played a part or not but coaches aren't allowed to contact the players until the first OTA's regarding football. Some coaches don't make contact at all for fear of breaking the rules, here's what Hue Jackson says:

Flights have been purchased. And tickets to the tailgate.

To that point, the reason it worked for him in the past, with the Jets, was because he brought players with him. Bart Scott. Jim Leonard. It seems from the interviews on MMQB, he understands by not bringing in guys that have played for him before, some players won't buy into it. Like you say, silver lining, he seems to have learned that.

Simple doesn't always mean effective. There are arguments both ways on which defense works best. Wade Phillips defenses aren't always great. Jim Schwartz defenses aren't always great. In 2010 Wade Phillips Cowboys defense was bad... really bad, which is why he was fired mid-season. His 2008 defense wasn't great either. Both complex and simple defenses require specific players. When you lose those players, they can and do fall apart.

They wear a helmet and pads... If that isn't a sign that human bodies aren't intended to play football, idk what is.

Exactly. If Mike Rodak is tweeting every single play and whats going on at practice, maybe that stops some fans from going. Maybe they don't see the point, if they can easily get an update from twitter.

Sure they should, they are selling a product.

I agree with this, I honestly don't care. The local media will be up in arms about it for a couple days and then they'll move on. The Bears implemented the same policy last year and their local guys were pissed and wrote some articles.... and then moved on. They aren't harping on about it anymore. I think most teams want to move towards this. If I had to guess, I think the Bills are possibly sick of the misinformation thats tweeted by some reporters. Just look at last years QB competition, Carrucci could not stop talking about how good Matt Cassel looked and that he was poised to be the starter. He was wrong. You had Rodak reporting reps taken daily and completion %, INTs and TDs by each QB.

The Bears did this same thing last year.

The Bears implemented this policy last year.

I think it has to be in response to last years training camp and reporters keeping track of completion %, TDs, etc. while the QB competition was going on. I think Rodak had basically a daily breakdown for each QB.

I was thinking the same thing.

It was her, and she did turn it down. She basically said there was no reason to overturn the lower courts ruling.

Personally, I don't think they will ever hear the case but Brady is hoping that Ginsberg will grant him a stay because she notoriously sides with Labor over Management. But as I said, she should just be deciding on the merit of the case: if 4 judges think a stay would be granted; if Brady actually has a chance to overturn; if by not granting a stay it will cause irreparable harm to him.

Yea, I suppose that's Bradys light of hope, that it's Ginsberg ruling on it, she could grant him the stay and the SCOTUS could decided to not here the case. Technically though, she's not ruling on how she see's the case, she should be ruling on the merits of it. I guess we will see because that's where I see it going.

Just by applying for the en banc Brady is not guaranteed a stay in the suspension. The 2nd Circuit has to approve his petition for an en banc, which is highly unlikely. If they deny it, then he can apply for a stay while he petitions the SCOTUS. He would have to apply for a stay from the Justice who oversees the 2nd circuit, which is Justice Ginsberg. But he has to show a probability that 4 of the judges would grant the stay AND he has to show that he has a possibility of overturning what the 2nd Circuit has ruled AND irreparable harm if he wasn't granted a stay. That's just to be granted a stay. And Ginsberg would decide that.

I do find that annoying, that Mystique is a lead character is just odd. She should have been prominent in Days of Future past because she was in the comics but the carry over to Apocalypse is a bit odd. And like you, I think they are keeping her around because of Jennifer Lawrence. She's not an original and they keep going between her being good and bad.

Based on what happens after the credits, it's an easy tie-in. Or just something they can expand on in Wolverine. But Singer was Exec Producing First Class, I could tell it had his hands on it even with Vaughn directing. There will be one scene you'll definitely enjoy.

Generally speaking, I like what Bryan Singer has done with X-men. I thought Days of Futures Past was good/great. It was nice to have him directing in the franchise and setting things right again. And he also helped with First Class. But for some reason, this just did not seem like a Singer film. Tons of CGI and some of it wasn't very good. And they had a lot of characters, because they are new actors, stories to introduce AS WELL as introduce Apocalypse. So it just felt like a transition film. Now, for an X-men geek like me, there is probably the best scene out of any of the movies in it. I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone but it was fantastic to see. And the ending after the credits, I seriously hope they are building towards what you get to see. It would make sense if they hint some more of it in the new Wolverine movie and slowly build toward it.

Got to see X-Men before its release. I was a bit disappointed in it. It felt like a transition movie, to the new cast. There were some really nice moments, but overall it was just meh. It does set up a really amazing story line with the scene after the credits.

But aren't teams like Green Bay and New England in win-now mode? They don't mortgage the future for picks but they certainly aren't going to tear down the team and do a rebuild. They aren desperate. Not when they have a "franchise" QB. But they know and expect to win every year.

Do you really think, of the 1,800 players who are part of the NFLPA, the vast majority care enough about Goodells control over punishment? There were 19 suspensions last year. There have been 59 since the newest CBA was ratified. That includes ones that were later reduced to none. In a league where the average player last 3 years would it be wise for the NFLPA , when the next CBA is determined, to argue about Goodells control when it only effects less than 1% of players? Would you risk a strike and missed paychecks, if you are one of those players that possibly won't last long? I think they could argue about the process a bit and maybe get that hashed out more but I don't think the owners, the majority of owners, think Goodell is doing a bad job.