• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Gopher last won the day on February 14

Gopher had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

612 Excellent

About Gopher

  • Rank
    Huddler Hall Of Fame

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    My kids, MN sports, golf.

Previous Fields

  • Fan of the

Recent Profile Visitors

19,603 profile views
  1. Factoring in where the picks fall, it's more like trading a 2nd, late 3rd, and late 4th for Brown. I don't think this is a deal where we have to debate who got the better deal. There are deals where both sides win sometimes. Could BAL have gotten more? Maybe. But, the longer they wait, the less they would have potentially gotten. Moving now (before the draft) allows them to capitalize now, rather than potentially next year. Meanwhile, it's a no-brainer for KC. Not being able to protect Mahomes is 100% why they lost the SB, and something that they had (and maybe still have) to address.
  2. Agree on Wentz. Goff will have good games just because they'll be behind more often than not. Think of him as Stafford-lite. The problem with Mayfield is that they literally had a couple of games where they didn't need to throw, and ran for like 300 yards. If you can pick and choose when to use him, and know when to potentially avoid those games, he's decent. I'm guessing Akers and Dobbins were both much higher the second half of the season, and they will be projected much higher this year. Not exactly sleepers. White? Meh... his best days are behind him, I think. Maybe a decent flex or spot start in deeper leagues, but I wouldn't want to rely on him regularly. Sutton should be back to being a low-end WR1 (or super WR2) when healthy. Thomas is going to depend on what Brees does, I think. Hilton is past his prime, but at least he now has somebody who CAN throw the deep ball (Rivers' arm was shot). I like Kirk to step up when Larry leaves (although I think Isabella could be a sneaky sleeper in ARI as well). Smith should be fantasy-relevant, for sure, without Rudolph. And totally agree on Doyle. Not sure about Howard (he hasn't been great when he is healthy), Gronk wasn't reliable last year, too many mouths to feed, etc. Just too many reasons why I think he won't be consistent. Good list overall, although I don't think sleepers is the right term for most of them. Bounce back may be more accurate.
  3. Wentz to Colts for 3rd and...

    Exactly. It's honestly hard to imagine how that would have turned out well.
  4. Wentz to Colts for 3rd and...

    They're not incredible, but they're good enough. Certainly as good as what he was working with in Philly 3-4 years ago. But, yeah, I think it's all about the support he'll get, both in terms of coaching and offensive line protection.
  5. Wentz to Colts for 3rd and...

    I don't know the details on the salary, but I know that Wentz is, at the very least, an upgrade over what they had at QB before this deal. Best case, Wentz has an awakening and gets back to what he was before (or at least close). If he does that, they're in immediate contention in the AFC, with a superior defense and rushing attack to KC. Leadership-wise, Rivers might have been superior to Wentz. Talent-wise, though, the Colts accomplished what they did last year despite Rivers, not because of him. Barring a major disaster, they can only improve with a QB who has WAY more left in the tank (and a better arm) than Rivers had.
  6. Wentz to Colts for 3rd and...

    Good deal for both sides. And, I like Wentz's chances of succeeding a lot better in IND than in CHI (although it would have been nice, as a MIN fan, to watch him continue to struggle in CHI).
  7. Superbowl viewership was down sharply

    Yeah, like I said, it's certainly not all fans. There are lots here (SoCal) that follow pretty closely. And, I would say that I've run into far more die-hard Laker/Dodger fans than Rams fans, for example. For obvious reasons, I suppose. I have also noticed a higher number of transplants. Or, just people that cheer for a team other than what's local. If the guy next door follows the NFL, there's maybe a 30% chance he's a Rams/Chargers/Raiders fan, but an even higher chance he has ties elsewhere. SF, DAL, PIT, GB, NY, MIA, etc. Whereas, if I go to Minnesota, it's mostly Vikings fans, a smaller percentage of Packers (that grows as you head East), and an even smaller percentage of everything else. As for why fans may be more fair weather in some cases, I have my theories, and it's a mix of a few things. Weather, a million things to do, the "Hollywood" effect (celeb's and people with lots of money), teams coming and going (Rams/Raiders/Chargers, etc.), and more. And, it may be just my perception. Even if it's not, the difference is small. Noticeable enough, but still relatively small.
  8. Superbowl viewership was down sharply

    I actually agree with the sentiment that there are a lot of fairweather fans in Southern CA (not all fans, obviously, but a higher percentage than most places I've lived). What I found funny was that his LA comment really had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm not from LA, and actually avoid that place like the plague. His orginal argument (if that's what you want to call it) was that the NFL product basically sucks. Which has nothing to do with why viewership would have dropped between last year and this year (unless one is saying that it didn't suck last year, but somehow morphed into a shltty product this year?). Then, when I called him on it, his response was to infer that he's somehow more of a diehard fan (again, not 100% sure that's what he was trying to say, but that's the closest I can come to a conclusion based on the inconsistency in his posts). Because his city has 4 sports. Well, so does Minnesota, where I'm from (a market only 60% the size of Philly, roughly). Bottom line, one minute, the NFL sucks. The next minute, bad football is better than no football, etc. I'm not really sure what his point is, other than he clearly makes statements that have no basis, and then pivots/deflects when someone calls out his nonsense.
  9. Superbowl viewership was down sharply

    Pick a direction, and stick with it. You're all over the place.
  10. Superbowl viewership was down sharply

    I didn't keep track. I watched most, enjoyed most of the ones I watched, etc. Sure, there are occasionally games that are brutally bad. But, it's a huge stretch to say that "most games are unwatchable" or that the NFL would have "hardly any fans" if not for FF. Neither of those things are remotely true. As for the product, what's better, in terms of sports? The NBA isn't close. Baseball isn't close. Hockey might be the closest, and that's limited to a small percentage of sports fans who give a rip about hockey.
  11. Superbowl viewership was down sharply

    Huh? I don't think anything you just said could be further from the truth.
  12. Superbowl viewership was down sharply

    I only mention the pandemic because I have heard people say that, once they stopped watching sports (because they were all cancelled/postponed, etc.), they realized that they didn't really miss it as much as they thought they would. I could relate to that, to some extent. A part of me really missed it, but another part of me realized how much time I spent on sports viewing (not to mention the FF side of it), and how much time I had available for other things when there were no sports on. I think some people just left (sports viewing) and never came back. I do think, however, that the political part plays an even bigger role. I know people personally who still love sports, but for one reason or another, are simply boycotting watching the NFL, NBA, etc.
  13. Superbowl viewership was down sharply

    Yeah, I wasn't thinking about it in the sense of viewership dropping DURING the game. That makes total sense. Sometimes it's hard for me to view things from the "average" fans perspective, as opposed to someone like me (a football fanatic). I could see where a lot of people would lose interest in that first half, I suppose.
  14. Superbowl viewership was down sharply

    I don't know. I actually thought the matchup was pretty intriguing, and would argue that under "normal" circumstances, we would have had "normal" ratings as well. Between politics and the pandemic, a lot of people who would normally watch decided not to, for one reason or another. I've heard many people from both ends of the political spectrum say they're "done with sports" or "done with the "NFL." One side thinks sports have gotten too political, while the other feels they haven't done enough. Meanwhile, I think you have some people who have just cut the cord, to some extent, whether it be the cord to live TV or sports specifically. Some realized that they didn't miss sports all that much (when nothing was going on last spring/summer), and have found other ways to spend their time. Others maybe simply cut it for the cost savings of not having a cable bill, etc. And still others have discovered so many other ways to find TV/streaming content that live TV isn't really a must-have these days. Personally, I've done a little of all of the above. Cut DirecTV/cable, not watching nearly as much golf and basketball as I used to (and literally zero MLB or NBA), and have found other things to do. Playing more golf than ever in my life (including a lot with my 8YO son), more outdoor activities (hiking, etc.), board games and other things with my kids (when I have them), and I'm binge-watching TV shows like nobody's business when I don't have them. The one constant for me is the NFL. Still watch (although I no longer have the NFL ticket), still play FF (but a lot less leagues than 5 years ago), and really don't care about the "political" side of it. I don't watch it because they're heroes or role models (I don't really care all that much what they do off the field)... I watch because I enjoy watching those who are the best at their craft, and frankly, the NFL still blows away the other major sports in terms of making it a must-watch product.
  15. RIP Marty Schottenheimer

    Stay classy, Washington Post