dc.

The fact that Pollard is consistently on your list of guys you wanted around longer undermines so much of that message.

As an additional thought, and as has been pointed out, the offense isn't exactly the issue this year.

Except of course the people who don't say that and still see fault in restarting at the QB position. Still no argument for what this team magically looks like without a qb.

The yardage thing is actually not that surprising... when you are trailing, especially late in games, you have to play for big plays and big yardage and you frequently get to do it against defenses that are willing to give a bit of ground but not the big play. It's what the Lions have always had such nice offensive numbers - in total - if not in per play or actual drive outcome. It's also like the fact that losing passers typically have big numbers because they throw so darn much; 50-60 attempts will get you a lot of yards. But if you look at the stats, QBs tend to have worse records when they throw 50-60 times... It's also kind of like baseball stats that say a pitcher "has a better era after the 6th inning..." ... Well, duh. If you aren't pitching well, you don't make it past the 6th. If you are, you get to keep pitching and suddenly those later innings look nicer all around. But it's not some magic about late innings. Meanwhile, Papa... "pick machine"? That's mean. As if Joe's our problem.

But the assumption there is still that we some how replace his production to an acceptable level... It's not as easy as, "well,______ could do it." The guys that could do it - for sure - are getting paid. Everyone else is a gamble.

Quick clarification: none of this is to say we shouldn't attempt to clean up Joes numbers... But I don't see much reason he'll bite, unless we're promising a longer deal again...

To get a "good young qb" I'm assuming we need to spend a first rounder. If you spend your first rounder on a qb, you can't spend it on a defensive position. Which do you need more? The cut Joe mantra sounds fine, until you realize of course that it means replacing his production AND still having to replace the production of all the other faulty parts on this team. And I still haven't heard a solid solution to finding Joes production out there somewhere else - especially for a team so historically bad with quarterbacks and recently bad in the draft.

Yeah, the pacing is brilliant. Occasionally Breaking Bad would run off course for a few episodes, but always held on... Reminds me of The Wire. They simply did whatever they wanted. BB obviously had more jumps forward and back in time, as The Wire played it more straight. But an arc could last a season or just ten minutes... Usually longer, but just as slow a burn as they wanted regardless of what "production" said it should be

Loved it as well. Walt is a great character, no doubt. Saw two of Better Call Saul but have to catch the rest. He was my favorite character.

How's much does the 19-19 stat mean and how surprising is it really? We're talking 2 seasons and six games... One winning season. One not. Now a debacle. "Since the Super Bowl" sounds so critically long ago. After this year it will be "2 bad, 1 good." Not what we want by any means, but let's get beyond it. Anyone remember that run game in 2013? Or that D all these years?

There's more wrong with that poster than I care to discuss.

Because it's beyond gross.

I think it was his best friend's mom (it was) and I think crime aside, it's gross.

I agree on all accounts. Re: O'Malley, I agree that I have less issue with his rule of MD than most (long term, his success will be judged better given the quality of life achievements in the midst of a recession). But like Hillary he can be smug and like any politician, incredibly fake.

I don't disagree but I think the media doesn't love covering him. The reality is in money, donors and crowds, Bernie is killing everyone... Even Trump. But you don't hear it. I also think his struggles with minorities, which may be overrated, could also be a major struggle for him and the media seems to be betting on that...

I didn't really care for Webb. Chafee - while I like his written positions - is just a buffoon on stage. He actually said, that he voted to repeal Glass-Steagal because "he had just gotten to the Senate and it was 90-5" I agree on Hillary. I still don't care for her. I don't want another Bush or Clinton. I don't like her opportunism or elitism. I would still worry as the DNC if she can hold up in a general election without sounding harsh and condescending. I am interested - O'Malley didn't do great but definitely didn't flop. I have heard rumors the media will eventually pick him up a bit because they want more of a 'race' against Hillary.

I'm not as hard on CJ as T, but I think a key point is that stats can and do lie. The number of tackles can be totally misleading, even number of sacks. CJ rushed a lot more than Ray ever did. Urlacher used to put up big sack numbers, especially compared to Ray... No one cared because that's as much about the D calls as it is about talent.

Didn't see all of the game, but early on I kept watching the Browns have some decent success on screens and dump offs and couldn't help but think that Suggs, among others, was so good at helping cut that crap down. Instead, on a few plays, I was watching some point LB corps, even when the screen was obvious, sit back and wait for their blockers to engage them...

Sometimes, I see this thread to and think of that bumper sticker; imagine whirled peas.

Definitely interesting. And I agree that ignoring languages is just silly given the need we have... I am curious though how much BWIs announcements have to do with it being an international hub... Feel like StL probably isn't? Also, I'll have to go find it but saw a cool graphic showing states labeled by when their populations met the demographics that matched the nation. So many in NE and Midwest matched our national demographics from the 1950ss... MD meets the expectation for 2050 or so, I think

Bienvenido a Florida, amigo.

Nothing about an injury can be confirmed two weeks in advance.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?mwrsm=Facebook&referer=http://m.facebook.com/ Usually don't care for Kristoff, but he is pretty close on this one and explains it well

I am certain gang/drug related crime is a large part of our violence problem. I'm just not sure it is hiding a decrease in other violent crimes. My biggest hope is that stronger gun laws will choke the flow of guns into the black market, which start as legally owned. It won't solve every crime. But 10,000s per year is simply too many. People may still stab, smite and otherwise attack, but the death rates are possibly much lower. Even in Boston, horrific as it was, the death toll was lower than in Oregon this week.

Actually, I think we agree on a lot more here than it appears. The only place I disagree is about bombs, but that's besides the real point. I don't really want limits on the number of weapons you can own. I do think that reasonable measures will naturally reduce some ownership though, which I don't think is a bad thing. I also didn't mean that a public registry would be literally public, as in I don't want to search it, etc. I meant public as in maintained by the govt. It's not my personal business, but it is our society's business. I did realize on point of disagreement - o don't believe the claim that gun violence is down if you remove gang related violence. I actually think all violence is down from 30-40 years ago, including gun violence. But it's still too much and its not all just gangs and these mass shootings are on the rise and not gang attributable.