As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[NFL] Thread: Denver Gets That Tall Pocket Passer They've Been Missing

19495969799

Posts

  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    Chicago is headed by a 188 year old virgin mummy that won't allow cheerleaders and makes the coaches go to church with her. Watson isn't coming to Chicago.

    Considering how the NFL treats cheerleaders, that sounds like a good thing?

    I'm thrilled the Bears aren't abusing cheerleaders. I'm less thrilled that they need to run a theocracy to do it. But that theocracy will also prevent Watson from landing here. Sometimes you get the right answer even when your math is a mess.

    zepherinmarajiElvenshaeH3KnucklesAuralynxButtersDoctor Detroit
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Weird speculation popped up because sports turd gotta sports turd.

    Anyway, the speculation click bait is that ESPN may also try to sign Joe Buck to go with Aikman.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    International 'hosts' have been announced.
    The Arizona Cardinals will play in the NFL’s first game in Mexico since 2019, while the Packers will be joined by the Jacksonville Jaguars and New Orleans Saints in playing games in the United Kingdom. The Bucs will debut in Germany.

    [...]

    In 2021, as part of the NFL’s regular-season increase to 17 games, it was determined that, starting in 2022, up to four of the teams from the conference whose teams were eligible for a ninth regular-season home game would instead be designated to play a neutral-site international game each year.

    Excite.

    zepherinElvenshae
  • MagellMagell Sphinx! Parts UnknownRegistered User regular
    I dunno for sure, but it's enough to keep him out of the Hall. And if he does get in, give him the asterisk.

    Ray Lewis is in the HoF and murdered a person

    H3KnuckleszepherinmarajiDoctor Detroit
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Magell wrote: »
    I dunno for sure, but it's enough to keep him out of the Hall. And if he does get in, give him the asterisk.

    Ray Lewis is in the HoF and murdered a person

    Marvin Harrison probably did as well

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
    MagellH3KnuckleszepherinRedTideBlackDragon480
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited February 28
    Also Hue Jackson admitted to committing tax fraud on Twitter although his chances of getting in the hall were pretty dubious to start with

    Captain Inertia on
    zepherin
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Tampa Bay to bring back the creamsicle look in 2023.
    As an alternate.[/url]

  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    Magell wrote: »
    I dunno for sure, but it's enough to keep him out of the Hall. And if he does get in, give him the asterisk.

    Ray Lewis is in the HoF and murdered a person

    That's not a stat the voters usually put a lot of weight into.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Magell wrote: »
    I dunno for sure, but it's enough to keep him out of the Hall. And if he does get in, give him the asterisk.

    Ray Lewis is in the HoF and murdered a person

    That's not a stat the voters usually put a lot of weight into.

    At least once you start saying unhinged shit about your relationship with God and his PLAN

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    ElvenshaeMagell
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    International 'hosts' have been announced.
    The Arizona Cardinals will play in the NFL’s first game in Mexico since 2019, while the Packers will be joined by the Jacksonville Jaguars and New Orleans Saints in playing games in the United Kingdom. The Bucs will debut in Germany.

    [...]

    In 2021, as part of the NFL’s regular-season increase to 17 games, it was determined that, starting in 2022, up to four of the teams from the conference whose teams were eligible for a ninth regular-season home game would instead be designated to play a neutral-site international game each year.

    Excite.

    I'm honestly surprised to see the Packers on there. It always felt that the NFL had certain teams they considered "prestige", and didn't send those international, at least in recent times.

    Part of that is Jacksonville accounting for a disproportionate number of them, and I suspect part of it is making sure Jacksonville aren't paired against a dominant team, because you at least want the idea that the game could be close.

    Just checked the list (I was bored, and needed a distraction from the doomscrolling regards Ukraine and the Australian floods), and here's what I found. The following is a list of the teams that played in bothe the international series and the playoffs that year, Numbers are playoff wins, asterisk indicates there was a WC bye.

    2007 Giants (4 SB)
    2008 Chargers (1)
    2009 Pats (0)
    2012 Pats (*1)
    2013 49ers (2)
    2014 Lions (0), Cowboys (1)
    2015 Chiefs (1)
    2016 Giants (0)
    2017 Jaguars (2), Saints (1), Rams (0), Vikings (*1)
    2018 Seahawks (0), Chargers (1), Eagles (1)
    2019 Texans (1)

    Of the 60 teams that played, only the listed 17 teams made it to the playoffs (28% of international teams vs baseline 37.5%). Only two teams were sufficiently good enough to get byes (3% vs baseline 12.5%). To me, that's the biggest indicator, very few dominant teams went international.

    Not only has only one Superbowl winner won (1.5% vs baseline 3%), the Giants were the only team to win a Championship game (normally 6%). And only 5 teams even made it there (8% vs baseline 12.5%).

    While the math is a little fuzzier (and I don't know the baseline), zero games had both participants make the playoffs.

    So basically, your chances at the playoffs, let alone a deep run, are reduced a fair bit if you're playing internationally. Not that the Packers need it to stumble in the playoffs.

    Two notes,
    1) The 2007 Giants barely beat the 1-15 Dolphins (final score 13-10) on their way to an improbable Superbowl, so while it's still a datapoint, it's much more an outlier than proof my point is wrong.
    2) Only the 2008 Chargers were able to make the playoffs despite losing internationally. :)

  • SeñorAmorSeñorAmor !!! Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »

    I'm honestly surprised to see the Packers on there. It always felt that the NFL had certain teams they considered "prestige", and didn't send those international, at least in recent times.

    I don't think it's a "prestige" thing with the Packers so much as they're such a small market team that taking away a home game would be devastating to the local economy.

    Home games bring in a lot of money for both the team and the surrounding communities. Having them lose a home game hurts them far more than it would a team from a bigger market.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    SeñorAmor wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »

    I'm honestly surprised to see the Packers on there. It always felt that the NFL had certain teams they considered "prestige", and didn't send those international, at least in recent times.

    I don't think it's a "prestige" thing with the Packers so much as they're such a small market team that taking away a home game would be devastating to the local economy.

    Home games bring in a lot of money for both the team and the surrounding communities. Having them lose a home game hurts them far more than it would a team from a bigger market.

    Sure, but weren't all Jacksonville games "home games" for the Jaguars? Could easily have included that in 2016. Or any other teams that had significant "home games" in London.

    I mean, only the Packers haven't had an international game, but my point was more those that a lot of the "franchise" teams haven't played many, or in a long time, or both.

    The quality of teams sent to London tend to be particularly mediocre.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    International 'hosts' have been announced.
    The Arizona Cardinals will play in the NFL’s first game in Mexico since 2019, while the Packers will be joined by the Jacksonville Jaguars and New Orleans Saints in playing games in the United Kingdom. The Bucs will debut in Germany.

    [...]

    In 2021, as part of the NFL’s regular-season increase to 17 games, it was determined that, starting in 2022, up to four of the teams from the conference whose teams were eligible for a ninth regular-season home game would instead be designated to play a neutral-site international game each year.

    Excite.

    I'm honestly surprised to see the Packers on there. It always felt that the NFL had certain teams they considered "prestige", and didn't send those international, at least in recent times.

    Part of that is Jacksonville accounting for a disproportionate number of them, and I suspect part of it is making sure Jacksonville aren't paired against a dominant team, because you at least want the idea that the game could be close.

    Just checked the list (I was bored, and needed a distraction from the doomscrolling regards Ukraine and the Australian floods), and here's what I found. The following is a list of the teams that played in bothe the international series and the playoffs that year, Numbers are playoff wins, asterisk indicates there was a WC bye.

    2007 Giants (4 SB)
    2008 Chargers (1)
    2009 Pats (0)
    2012 Pats (*1)
    2013 49ers (2)
    2014 Lions (0), Cowboys (1)
    2015 Chiefs (1)
    2016 Giants (0)
    2017 Jaguars (2), Saints (1), Rams (0), Vikings (*1)
    2018 Seahawks (0), Chargers (1), Eagles (1)
    2019 Texans (1)

    Of the 60 teams that played, only the listed 17 teams made it to the playoffs (28% of international teams vs baseline 37.5%). Only two teams were sufficiently good enough to get byes (3% vs baseline 12.5%). To me, that's the biggest indicator, very few dominant teams went international.

    Not only has only one Superbowl winner won (1.5% vs baseline 3%), the Giants were the only team to win a Championship game (normally 6%). And only 5 teams even made it there (8% vs baseline 12.5%).

    While the math is a little fuzzier (and I don't know the baseline), zero games had both participants make the playoffs.

    So basically, your chances at the playoffs, let alone a deep run, are reduced a fair bit if you're playing internationally. Not that the Packers need it to stumble in the playoffs.

    Two notes,
    1) The 2007 Giants barely beat the 1-15 Dolphins (final score 13-10) on their way to an improbable Superbowl, so while it's still a datapoint, it's much more an outlier than proof my point is wrong.
    2) Only the 2008 Chargers were able to make the playoffs despite losing internationally. :)

    I believe you are misrepresenting the data. You probably could come to the same conclusion, that teams do poorly in the post-season merely by appearing in the Thanksgiving Day games. If you just used samples from when they added the third game the numbers would be skewed just because two of the teams are always Dallas and Detroit.

    Your sample is about skewed from the jump since Jacksonville is always in the mix. You would also need to adjust for the fact that between 2007-12 it was only a single game. That eighteen teams have played more than one and seven of those more than two. Denver who last appeared in 2010 has since appeared in two Super Bowls winning one.

    Green Bay having never appeared in an International game until now (being 'forced' to because of the now 17-game schedule) and Jacksonville all but moving to London suggests that there was some level of either volunteering or at the least being able to refuse an appearance.

    At the very least we would need each team's final season record to determine if they missed the playoffs by being bad or losing a tie breaker.

    The sample size is too small and too uneven to make any conclusions about the overall quality of the teams involved.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    International 'hosts' have been announced.
    The Arizona Cardinals will play in the NFL’s first game in Mexico since 2019, while the Packers will be joined by the Jacksonville Jaguars and New Orleans Saints in playing games in the United Kingdom. The Bucs will debut in Germany.

    [...]

    In 2021, as part of the NFL’s regular-season increase to 17 games, it was determined that, starting in 2022, up to four of the teams from the conference whose teams were eligible for a ninth regular-season home game would instead be designated to play a neutral-site international game each year.

    Excite.

    I'm honestly surprised to see the Packers on there. It always felt that the NFL had certain teams they considered "prestige", and didn't send those international, at least in recent times.

    Part of that is Jacksonville accounting for a disproportionate number of them, and I suspect part of it is making sure Jacksonville aren't paired against a dominant team, because you at least want the idea that the game could be close.

    Just checked the list (I was bored, and needed a distraction from the doomscrolling regards Ukraine and the Australian floods), and here's what I found. The following is a list of the teams that played in bothe the international series and the playoffs that year, Numbers are playoff wins, asterisk indicates there was a WC bye.

    2007 Giants (4 SB)
    2008 Chargers (1)
    2009 Pats (0)
    2012 Pats (*1)
    2013 49ers (2)
    2014 Lions (0), Cowboys (1)
    2015 Chiefs (1)
    2016 Giants (0)
    2017 Jaguars (2), Saints (1), Rams (0), Vikings (*1)
    2018 Seahawks (0), Chargers (1), Eagles (1)
    2019 Texans (1)

    Of the 60 teams that played, only the listed 17 teams made it to the playoffs (28% of international teams vs baseline 37.5%). Only two teams were sufficiently good enough to get byes (3% vs baseline 12.5%). To me, that's the biggest indicator, very few dominant teams went international.

    Not only has only one Superbowl winner won (1.5% vs baseline 3%), the Giants were the only team to win a Championship game (normally 6%). And only 5 teams even made it there (8% vs baseline 12.5%).

    While the math is a little fuzzier (and I don't know the baseline), zero games had both participants make the playoffs.

    So basically, your chances at the playoffs, let alone a deep run, are reduced a fair bit if you're playing internationally. Not that the Packers need it to stumble in the playoffs.

    Two notes,
    1) The 2007 Giants barely beat the 1-15 Dolphins (final score 13-10) on their way to an improbable Superbowl, so while it's still a datapoint, it's much more an outlier than proof my point is wrong.
    2) Only the 2008 Chargers were able to make the playoffs despite losing internationally. :)

    I believe you are misrepresenting the data. You probably could come to the same conclusion, that teams do poorly in the post-season merely by appearing in the Thanksgiving Day games. If you just used samples from when they added the third game the numbers would be skewed just because two of the teams are always Dallas and Detroit.

    Your sample is about skewed from the jump since Jacksonville is always in the mix. You would also need to adjust for the fact that between 2007-12 it was only a single game. That eighteen teams have played more than one and seven of those more than two. Denver who last appeared in 2010 has since appeared in two Super Bowls winning one.

    Green Bay having never appeared in an International game until now (being 'forced' to because of the now 17-game schedule) and Jacksonville all but moving to London suggests that there was some level of either volunteering or at the least being able to refuse an appearance.

    At the very least we would need each team's final season record to determine if they missed the playoffs by being bad or losing a tie breaker.

    The sample size is too small and too uneven to make any conclusions about the overall quality of the teams involved.

    Yeah, my later point (playoff success) was more to make a joke about the Packers being a dominant team that consistently flames out in the playoffs.

    I was actually surprised there was as many playoff teams as there was.

    My primary point though is that they tend to send teams that are likely to be out of contention when the schedule is drawn up. That Jacksonville, Oakland, Tampa Bay, the SL/LA Rams and Miami were the predominant "home teams" told you most of what you need to know. Mid season firings aren't rare, but they're not common either. The Jaguars had 2 of their 8 seasons they played in London where they fired a coach mid-season. Raiders 2 of 3 (both immediately following), Dolphins 1 of 3 (again, immediately following). That's 5 of 20 seasons.

    Only the Jags and the Rams (twice) had a winning season playing as a home team. Dolphins played two games (2014 and 2021) as the "away team" where they went 8-8 and 9-8.

    Chiefs and Chargers are the only teams to have winning seasons as the home team (and Saints went 8-8 in their year as "hosts"). "home team" had .500 seasons in only 6 of the 30 games (20%). Even if you drop the Jaguars as a perpetual joke, that record only improves (marginally) to 5 of 22 (~23%).

    Your point regarding Thanksgiving is valid, but it also involves a "tradition" factor with Detroit. And there have been calls for it to change because it's so underwhelming year after year. The schedule for London is much more at the discretion of the NFL, and they tend to shovel mediocrity over the pond.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Your conclusion that 'bad' teams play International games appears, at least at first glance, to be accurate. But I don't agree at all that the league shoves bad teams into the games. Without actually researching it, I would conclude that appearing in International games was until recently a matter of choice. So bad teams choose to go to get aomething out of it they value for whatever reason.

    My expectation is that the league would absolutely select teams that were both expected to be good and that are largely popular. Lots of games featuring Dallas and New England, for example. That they don't is what makes me think it is -or was- an elective.

    MorganV
  • tzeentchlingtzeentchling Doctor of Rocks OaklandRegistered User regular
    Green Bay without Aaron Rodgers may well be Jacksonville-level quality, though.

    A Dabble Of TheloniuszepherinMagell
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Green Bay without Aaron Rodgers may well be Jacksonville-level quality, though.

    That's some real monkey paw shit if Rodgers retires/forces himself out/Covid's out (while it might not be as big a deal within the States, international travel with regards immunization might be a bigger issue).

    "Woo! We finally get to see the Packers! Wait, he's not there? Awww."

    zepherin
  • SixSix Free nights and weekends Registered User regular
  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    Looking at the international series, it looks really Random.
    For scheduling the NFL uses a custom AI set up which takes into account a lot of shit, but mostly it is making sure that teams don’t have too many Road games in a row, and maximized revenue on nationally broadcast games. For an international game where travel is brutal, they probably wanna make sure that the teams they put their they can sandwich home games around. I have read that no team is ever truly happy with their schedule. Which leads me to believe that it is mostly just software, with perhaps some minor hand edits.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Looking at the international series, it looks really Random.
    For scheduling the NFL uses a custom AI set up which takes into account a lot of shit, but mostly it is making sure that teams don’t have too many Road games in a row, and maximized revenue on nationally broadcast games. For an international game where travel is brutal, they probably wanna make sure that the teams they put their they can sandwich home games around. I have read that no team is ever truly happy with their schedule. Which leads me to believe that it is mostly just software, with perhaps some minor hand edits.

    I thought all International games were the week before a bye?

    They could mitigate it further by having the week before they played be a double header Thursday. So Packers host Vikings, Bengals host Cowboys, then Packers play Bengals 10 days in London later, then get 14 days after to recover.

    Means a team has a couple days to recover from their previous game before flying international and then acclimating to the new circumstances.

    But that'd interfere with revenue, and while the NFL "care about player safety", there's a limit to that caring, and it starts and ends with money.

    zepherin
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Looking at the international series, it looks really Random.
    For scheduling the NFL uses a custom AI set up which takes into account a lot of shit, but mostly it is making sure that teams don’t have too many Road games in a row, and maximized revenue on nationally broadcast games. For an international game where travel is brutal, they probably wanna make sure that the teams they put their they can sandwich home games around. I have read that no team is ever truly happy with their schedule. Which leads me to believe that it is mostly just software, with perhaps some minor hand edits.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    zepherin
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    I seem to remember hearing/reading that if a team had an international game, they had to be given the option of having their bye week after the game, and iirc they cannot have a Thursday night game the following week (which is the barest of minimums)

  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    Calvin Ridley banned for the 2022 season due to betting on games while away for mental health issues.

    On one hand, I get it, throw a massively harsh punishment down to make sure everyone knows how serious they take this. On the other hand, he wasn't playing in those games, and the fact that more serious player issues like assault only get a slap on the wrist.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
    MulletudemarajiShadowen
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Players gambling on the sports they play might cause people to question the legitimacy of sport.

    This scolding brought to you by Draft Kings. Play now! Spend too much! Lose often!

    ElvenshaeDoctor DetroitmarajiMorganVHappylilElfCaptain InertiaShadowenH3Knuckles
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    The nature of sports gambling is such that even if he had insider knowledge that gave him an edge, the only people he would theoretically be hurting are billion dollar companies
    I doubt he was throwing around enough weight to be moving lines and stuff to be affecting normal bettors
    As always, rog's priorities are all fucked up

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    The NFL acknowledges that he had or used no inside information. He simply bet on football.

  • pyromaniac221pyromaniac221 this just might be an interestin YTRegistered User regular
    The NFL is always going to take a hard line on players gambling on the games because it affects the appearance of competitive integrity even if the particular bets placed are not ones over which the player has any power to manipulate. The average news consumer won't investigate the nature of the bets, they just see the headline and think the players are shaving numbers.

    psn tooaware, friend code SW-4760-0062-3248 it me
    Pailryderlazegamer
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    When ESPN stops doing their Bad Beat Of The Night or whatever, then maybe I'll care about the supposed integrity of gambling and sports.

    jmcdonaldMulletudeDoctor Detroit
  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    The nature of sports gambling is such that even if he had insider knowledge that gave him an edge, the only people he would theoretically be hurting are billion dollar companies
    I doubt he was throwing around enough weight to be moving lines and stuff to be affecting normal bettors
    As always, rog's priorities are all fucked up

    I think I read he bet $1,500.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • MulletudeMulletude Registered User regular
    It's cool, you can still hit your spouse and children guys

    XBL-Dug Danger WiiU-DugDanger Steam-http://steamcommunity.com/id/DugDanger/
    ElvenshaeTicaldfjamchrono_travellerShadowenGnizmoSorce
  • pyromaniac221pyromaniac221 this just might be an interestin YTRegistered User regular
    edited March 8


    Our long national nightmare is finally over

    pyromaniac221 on
    psn tooaware, friend code SW-4760-0062-3248 it me
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    So which NFL team is best suited for this sign-and-trade?

  • tzeentchlingtzeentchling Doctor of Rocks OaklandRegistered User regular
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    The nature of sports gambling is such that even if he had insider knowledge that gave him an edge, the only people he would theoretically be hurting are billion dollar companies
    I doubt he was throwing around enough weight to be moving lines and stuff to be affecting normal bettors
    As always, rog's priorities are all fucked up

    One could argue that his priorities are actually in line, given that his job is to protect said billion dollar companies and their owners.

  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    So which NFL team is best suited for this sign-and-trade?

    I think that's less of a thing in the NFL due to the way dead cap works. GB would probably get stuck with 'dead cap' for some portion of Rodger's guaranteed money, which would be enough to make it not worth it. Rodgers should be a Packer for at least 2-3 years on this deal before he becomes a tradeable asset. It's why you usually only see really dysfunctional/disgruntled players get traded soon after signing a deal.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Smurph wrote: »
    So which NFL team is best suited for this sign-and-trade?

    I think that's less of a thing in the NFL due to the way dead cap works. GB would probably get stuck with 'dead cap' for some portion of Rodger's guaranteed money, which would be enough to make it not worth it. Rodgers should be a Packer for at least 2-3 years on this deal before he becomes a tradeable asset. It's why you usually only see really dysfunctional/disgruntled players get traded soon after signing a deal.

    So, you're saying he's going to Washington?

    MorganV
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    edited March 8
    He gets a whopping $153M guaranteed and his cap number goes down.

    The only thing more fucky than NFL accounting is Hollywood accounting.

    According to Spotrac, Rodgers got a huge bonus in 2018, but the last three years, it's been low $20M.
    https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/aaron-rodgers-3745/cash-earnings/

    He's now almost doubling that in guarantees over the next four years, almost certainly more after bonuses and incentives, and yet his hit to the salary cap goes DOWN?

    MorganV on
    Doctor Detroit
  • quovadis13quovadis13 Registered User regular
    edited March 8
    Oh shit!


    Blockbuster: The #Seahawks and #Broncos have agreed in principle on a trade sending nine-time Pro Bowl QB Russell Wilson to Denver for a massive haul, including multiple first-round draft picks, plus additional picks and players, per sources

    quovadis13 on
    TicaldfjamShadowenPailryderH3Knuckles
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    I guess that's why Miller was so interested in going back.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Good for both teams, now if only Pete Carrol can be sent on his way and the seahawks can start on chasing the mariners no play off streak.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
    Ticaldfjam
  • pyromaniac221pyromaniac221 this just might be an interestin YTRegistered User regular
    It’s going to be amazing when Denver misses the playoffs anyway

    psn tooaware, friend code SW-4760-0062-3248 it me
    Trajan45PreacherHappylilElfElvenshaeShadowenPailryderSorce
Sign In or Register to comment.