SeaBass

DEFENSE

"Special" teams.

9ers deferred

Lance doesn't have to start or be given that many snaps to have an impact on the game. Of course, if the 49ers do use him that sparingly there is an equal chance he has zero impact. I'm in the camp that believes the Packers should win but there are ways that the 49ers can too and it wouldn't really even mean there'd be a huge deviation from how SF already plays the game.

Tampa hasn't exactly been playing inspiring football over the last month or so. Does that mean anything? Maybe not. But I don't think it means that if Philly beats them that all of a sudden the Packers should be extra afraid of Philly. I'd rather play against a team with Jalen Hurts at QB than Tom Brady. That's the easy call for me.

I'm down to using a wallet that attaches to the back of my phone. Only things I bring with me are my driver's license and 2 credit cards. That's all that fits and it's all I need.

Their offensive line is garbage. If they can keep Burrow upright they have a chance. Against a very good pass rush I don't know. Also, their head coach is kind of a dunce so he may try to "establish the run" instead of using the passing game. But yeah, they could certainly go off given the right matchups. I was thinking more next season when writing this but it also wouldn't shock me if they make a run in the playoffs over the next few weeks. They can fix their O-line in the draft/FA.

Combined with the steal by Holliday that led to it, it just might be.

Regarding the Bengals, I feel like the Burrow/Chase tandem is about ready to go supernova. Which in itself should be extremely frightening for the league because both guys already had really good statistical seasons this year. I feel like Ja'Marr Chase is going to take the throne of best WR in the NFL as soon as next year. So getting the Titans doesn't feel all that bad to me.

I know they’re establishing a rotation for the 17th game, but I still don’t like how the Packers conveniently drew the Chiefs @ Arrowhead for the first extra game (someone in the league office had an extra TV matchup mind). And now it just happens to be the defending #1 seed? It could have been Cincinnati. Don't look now but the Packers are also a #1 seed... Maybe it actually makes sense?

It's fun that Wisconsin sports fans can enjoy a period in time where, for the most part, the owners/team presidents of our clubs seem to have a good handle on things. It sure wasn't always this way. It lets us really enjoy the schadenfreude watching our rivals struggle.

I don't expect Jordan Love (or whoever the next guy is) to throw only one pick every 3-4 games, but I think Lafleur shares the "turnover averse" philosophy that Rodgers has instilled into the offense. I think that's something that will really be pushed hard onto Love if he's the guy that takes the reins from Rodgers going forward. Most of the top QBs this season have thrown 12 to 17 INTs, if the next QB throws 12 that's a 300% increase from Rodgers' number this season. Heck, Rodgers has thrown for 15 total INTs the last 4 seasons combined. It's going to be a frame of mind adjustment even if they're throwing INTs on par with other top QBs.

Packers fans need to come to grips with the fact that the next starting QB after AR is gone is going to throw interceptions at a rate much greater than 4 or 5 per season, regardless if that's Jordan Love or someone else. Above all else we have been very spoiled in that category.

Quote me whatever seemingly alarming cap numbers you want I believe there is a zero percent chance the Packers fail to franchise tag Adams if that's how things play out.

It's against the rules for a defensive player to try to fake an offensive lineman into a false start by crossing into the neutral zone. Whether the OL is actually fooled into movement or not doesn't matter, a false start is a false start. An OL taking advantage of the rule is the same as QBs using a hard count or quick snapping the ball to catch the defense with 12 men while substituting. There is a difference between an OL reacting immediately to the DL coming in and the OL false starting a second later in an obvious non-reaction. Yes, it would be another subjective call, but it is a pet peeve of mine. Especially when the OL that false starts isn't even the one where the defender was coming in. But when the O lineman moves pre snap it's still a false start. I guess it comes down to semantics but a penalty is going to be thrown either way and the rule states that the defensive player can't be in the neutral zone as a false start occurs. If I'm remembering correctly that rule used to not exist, the false start was always the O lineman's responsibility which led to defenders trying to force false starts. So I guess you have to ask yourself if you prefer to watch jumping D lineman trying to induce a player that can't move presnap into moving or watch an O lineman jumping when a defender tries timing a snap and fails. They're never going to make it a judgement call for an official nor would I want them to because they're already awful at judgement calls. I understand not liking it personally but in my opinion the rule exists for a very good reason. When you're going to require a player to keep absolutely still pre snap it doesn't feel fair to allow a defender to jump at him to try to make him flinch. Defenders can still move around and try to mess with an O lineman's head, they just can't cross into the neutral zone while doing so.

It's against the rules for a defensive player to try to fake an offensive lineman into a false start by crossing into the neutral zone. Whether the OL is actually fooled into movement or not doesn't matter, a false start is a false start. An OL taking advantage of the rule is the same as QBs using a hard count or quick snapping the ball to catch the defense with 12 men while substituting.

I saw this clip on SportsCenter shortly after he was fired where Adam Schefter commented he had heard from sources around the league that the team likely had sufficient evidence to have fired Meyer for cause. Said it will be up to the lawyers to figure things out going forward regarding his contract.

I agree with you, the pizza in Italy is too simple and didn't impress me much either. It was ok, I don't want to say it was bad, just not what I was hoping for. As a whole, the food in Italy didn't impress me, pasta included. I fully recognize that it's because I'm used to Americanized Italian food but sadly the fact remains. Where did you eat in Italy? I found Italian food incredibly rich and delicious...with dirt cheap local wines to boot. Daily, I'd venture to the Markets and grab cheese, fresh bread, produce...go grab a couple bottles of wine. LOL. I think I gained 15 pounds? I'm not a big wine guy, there was wine in abundance with all our meals and I drank it like everyone else but it's kind of wasted on me. I was with a church tour group so our guide would bring us to different restaurants most nights. They were family run places and they fed us well. I don't want to hate on them, the food was fine but I guess I had high expectations. I also don't like seafood in any form. We would typically get many courses with a dinner, so sometimes if there was something I really liked it was just a small portion and then the next course would be served. In these situations we really didn't order for ourselves, they'd just seat us and then start bringing us food. When we were left to find our own food for like lunches when out sightseeing we didn't have much luck with places we chose. We tried to find places with authentic food or sometimes it was just quick street food which was comparable to fast food quality. I don't want make it seem like everywhere we went was a letdown because it wasn't, but my general feeling was I expected a different experience. One day I literally went and had Chinese food because I wanted something different lol.

Sling's business model when it comes to local stations is different and has been from the beginning. They're more focused on the cable networks, local network availability varies depending on the region you're in, basically only available in major metropolitan areas and only FOX and/or NBC. If it were something that Sling used to offer and then cut back that would be a different story.

I agree with you, the pizza in Italy is too simple and didn't impress me much either. It was ok, I don't want to say it was bad, just not what I was hoping for. As a whole, the food in Italy didn't impress me, pasta included. I fully recognize that it's because I'm used to Americanized Italian food but sadly the fact remains.

DirectTV Stream is the only option and you get the privilege of paying $85 plus tax every month for it. Honestly, choosing between that and cable might be a horse apiece at that price.

I think there's a big difference between Bally's Sports channel being removed and people being denied access to their local ABC affiliate. Big, huge, gargantuan difference. ESPN, while not quite as influential as it once was, is still a pretty big deal as well.

I don't think YouTube TV is looking to get "rid" of those channels. These are normal negotiation tactics that pop up from time to time and I'm sure will be resolved by the deadline or shortly after. Great thing about streaming is the ability to jump from YouTube TV to Hulu or something else. Folks will stick with YouTube TV for a short time but if it gets to be longer they'll just move to a service that has what they want. YouTube TV has to know that a certain percentage of customers, once they move, will never bother to move back once their programming issue is resolved.

The Bears still suck.

Tae is good at this football thing.