BrisbanePanther

Fair enough--I couldn't edit the title in time to make it clear that it was the video's title, not mine...hence the post immediately after. Rookie poster mistake--lesson learned.

Agree with this point and made the same at the time. This franchise can almost fall out of bed and acquire game breaking D-Linemen--it's actually probably the one good thing that it has been consistent at. Finding a receiver though? Cam went to a Super Bowl with cast-offs Cotchery and Ginn as his main receivers with Olsen. I just remember when DJ was drafted, Smitty said, "they've been trying to replace me...until today". Says all we need to know, and CMC might actually be the 2nd best receiver in franchise history after Smitty. Speaking of Olsen, the franchise list of names for TE's is also short with just Walls and Olsen. Shockey was a shadow of himself and everyone else has basically been a bunch of JAGs. Pass catchers has just not been a strong suit for this franchise from the beginning.

Yes, it was always better to trade Burns because of the exact issues faced now: 1: No true #1 for Bryce and 2: Having to pay Burns #1 money without being convinced that he's actually a #1. I also recall most here thinking that Burns was a more valuable piece than DJ. It is revisionist history now.

I was thinking Bikini Atoll.

Oh, and I should have noted that this was actually the video's title (not mine).

Made ya look. Seriously though, I didn't see this in any of the other threads (not sure why?) so I'm posting it here for balance. Oh, FWIW, I had to find this on the TEXANS' board. https://youtu.be/lQiPmwsh1k0?si=8luDbBYPrVC2SQLW

I'm 100% supportive of Bryce but I would like to see him take way more downfield shots regardless of if he sees it there or not. Defenses just need to know that he's willing and able to, and I'd be ok with him audibling out of a playcall to do so at times--even if it's against Frank's wishes Coach Kilmer-style. I think he's been trying to play mistake-free football rather than realizing that the whole reason he's on this team with a whole new staff is because they stunk anyway, so it's not like he can make the franchise much worse. He's surely seen and heard the talk and surely knows that people are comparing him with Stroud (as they've been their whole lives) so I'm sure he's feeling the pressure and will press a bit at least at times. I just hope he's pressing the accelerator rather than the brake pedal. If he has a line like 21-46 (with a lot of those misses as downfield go-get-it plays), 305 yds with 2 tds and 3 picks in a loss, I'm not sure many would complain. If 2-3 of those completions where he looked off a defender or put the ball where only his guy could get it on the sideline, the criticisms might even be a hair quieter this week.

Ickey did remind me a lot of Zangief's Double Lariat move from Street Fighter. Spinning and hitting nothing...and nothing hitting him either. Dancing with the Stars might have been his calling.

He may not dominate, but if his performance against PIT is an even draw with Bryce against MIN, this place might just go supernova.

Yep, more specifically, the city with all footy code teams in their respective grand finals...now they just have to win them all!

Yep, and though it's a different sport, it's a weird take for a fan of the team based in the city that is home to the shortest man to ever play the tall man's game professionally.

While I agree that Bryce will be linked with Stroud and Richardson at least for a while, my whole thing is this urge that people have had to give up on him already after eight quarters of play. Bear in mind that Darnold was 3-0 at one point and people everywhere was singing his praises. Oh, and there were more than a few people (this board included) who were convinced that Lawrence was a bust and Mac Jones was a better pick. How'd that work out? Bryce by all accounts is a bit of a throwback QB in a lot of ways...if he has a throwback type of rookie season but turns into a Brees/Aikman/P Manning career, we'll forget all about how he did the first two games.

In all serious--good call. It was becoming insufferable.

Yep. Pretty sure he made the corner when they brought Dalton in.

Not off the bandwagon after two games. I'd need a couple seasons to confirm if he's a bust or not. That being said, the team definitely should have played full-strength for all three preseason games though--Bryce included. The amount of front pressure on the line is insane...and I distinctly remember this board being amped up about Campen staying.

FWIW, both games tonight have a grand total of...30 points ATM.

If public funding is involved, I think it could be reasonable for the city to re-route some public funding to Tepper for the things that he claims that the stadium generates. Example--all tax collected from spending at certain establishments within a small radius (say 2-5 miles) of the stadium on game days/event days that's above and beyond the trendline goes to repaying stadium debt (so, all restaurants, hotels, bars, retail, etc). It's basically a moving TIF tied directly to stadium performance. And if the stadium is rebuilt as-is with no roof (cheaper, but also a limit on events), maybe the deal is for 30 years and if it's with a roof (more expensive, but unlimited events), then it's 50 years. They could host 8 Final Fours, get into the College Football Championship rotation, and more int'l soccer matches and probably make all they need. The city is better off too since it would still capture everything beyond the radius.

FWIW, there was always an intent to fix the city's infrastructure, making the right connections, building the right transit, roads, etc. CDOT people always knew the city would grow to its current size by now and always had plans to cater to it. It's part of the reason why policies like McCrory banning cul-de-sacs, for example, came about--you can't have everyone ultimately dumping onto Providence and other arterials and expect them to work. You also can't keep expanding freeways only and expect them the solve the problem alone, but you still have to do the right ones like 77S, which needed widening ages ago. Btw, I can't believe Independence is still not done. I also think CATS can't be serious with an $8b light rail project...for that amount of money it should be a subway or real Euro/Asian-style metro.

Worked for them in the regular season true enough. Pretty sure they lost their home playoff game the same year though.

Also agree that if the fans and Raleigh are so passionate they can just make the drive to Charlotte...just like all the other passionate fans in the Triangle. Two hours is no excuse, I mean that's basically the distance from Milwaukee to Green Bay. That's not half the population of the city of Green Bay in Lambeau every game...including Monday night games and Thursday night games. And Milwaukee is nowhere near as wealthy as Raleigh and their populations are almost the same. Just make the drive or even generate enough market for Amtrak to run.

Actually, but from personal experience, seeing Charlotte on TV did cause me to look more into it and eventually move there for a while. Maybe I'm highly unique and the only person who's done so, but I doubt it. Was there enough like me to justify to cost of whatever it was that got Charlotte on TV? Not sure. But we do know that have entertainment and cultural offering plays a role in being attractive for corporate relocations--particularly HQs who tend to bring their higher-paid staff. Ironically, know what else an economist will say is uneconomic? Schools, hospitals, and libraries. Those "investments" are wholly uneconomic in the classic sense--so much so that they rely on trying to attribute quantitative monetary value to their qualitative non-monetary social benefits, which is also squishy. And it also means weirdness that most are uncomfortable with like trying to put a price tag on a life when determining the number of hospital beds or surgeon suites to help people recover quicker (which goes back to the lost productivity value of them not working) or the expected income potential of a student if the student/teacher ratio is lowered through a new school or school expansion--assuming that the student stays in the region for the 30-year term that most economic studies work within. That's why I go back to the simple rightness/wrongness of public dollars supporting billion-dollar industries (oh, but then again, if we follow that tether, massive road expansions also subsidize billion dollar industries if they aren't tolled so maybe we accept subsidizing one vs the other based on the perceived benefit to us individually). That may be the core issue here, but relying on economics to support the position can turn into the equivalent of "live by the three, die by the three" when taking a stance.

And ironically, every single one of those teams moved to or will move to privately-financed arena/stadiums. The new A's stadium in Oakland would have been privately-financed as well. Las Vegas actually has multiple private arenas.

Sorry, but economists should be right there with politicians for trustworthiness. I know that they're good for saying that sports teams have the same economic value as a department store... But they also say that too much employment is a bad thing. They also say that the economy requires a certain number of people to be unemployed to be a 'good economy'. In fact the current threatened recession is 100% by design of economists who were "trying to take the heat out of the economy", only it's now getting away from them when thought they could control the levers that would force people out of work. Modern economists are mostly dopes who work in an abstract laboratory that treats people's lives as numbers to be sacrificed to satisfy their "invisible hand" deity. Source: I spent years working with economists working on major projects, and they can make any proposal look "good" for the economy or "bad" for the economy by a simple change in Excel. TL;DR: A position based on the right/wrong of public dollars supporting billionaires is one thing, but I recommend not using economists to support that position.

Whatever it is, I suspect there will be some tea leaves to read regarding timing of a new stadium, which would fetch huge dollars by itself. Also have to keep in mind that there'll be other stadiums coming too which could take some potential sponsors, including new ones in Buffalo, Nashville, and DC (which will almost certainly have their pick of sponsors in a mega-deal to compete with Bezos). In fact, I think a new DC stadium could break the $500m sponsorship mark. That being said, my contenders would be: American Airlines Field due to the Charlotte hub, but I'm not sure airlines are throwing money like this at sponsorships anymore. I also think it could be a random one like: Samsung Stadium--but then again this feels like the name for a new (or heavily renovated) stadium. The tech upgrades, customer experience, and product placement takes care of itself. All the video boards, ribbon boards, monitors, wifi, everything--all Samsung and probably special features for Samsung phone owners (like me! ).