BB doesn't mind more Thursday night games

RayClay said:

Mazur was worse? ha ha. I don't think so. the organization was in chaos at the time, which made it basically uncoachable, but rush wasn't even dealing with reality most of the time.

Click to expand...

At least Clive was crazy enough to be remembered. The only game I went to live was when **** MacPherson was head coach and Zolak was the starting QB. They were 2-13 going into the game against Miami. Game time temp: 16. We lost in OT. Horrid.

I saw it on yahoo where of course the "reporter" called Belichick arrogant. This is what I wrote. replace periods with question marks as needed. (I was more into hitting "enter" on the comment than editing.)
Is it possible that "esteemed" autuers like the "author" will find anything Belichick does "arrogant" and work in a spy-gate reference whenever possible. Is it possible Bill knows this and will use their predictability for reverse psychology. (You know, that argument tactic that works only on really small children and the really stupid.)

OhExaulted1 said:

Anybody, answers? Why can't we have all 53 players active on game-day and we have to narrow it down to 46? Rule of 51? But we get to keep 53? Miguel help. This doesn't make much sense and I'm not reading through the 1200 page or whatever it is CBA agreement.

Click to expand...

Stupid reasoning, but don't shoot the messenger. It is like that because a committee compromised with people who wanted to do it the way it was always done.

It was 46 since the change to two platoons (offense and defense) because, I think, it was 23 back when players played both ways. It was 23 in a weird way to try and limit salaries back when college football was profitable and pro football was a money loser but you could advertise your dairy packaging business. (Hey the 1920s were weird.)