Quote from: Vermont Green on Today at 03:03:15 PM

Quote from: Vermont Green on November 18, 2025, 04:54:12 PM

Brown's two man +/- summary:

 79   J. Brown - N. Queta
 38   J. Brown - P. Pritchard
 35   J. Brown - D. White
 19   J. Brown - J. Walsh
 16   J. Brown - B. Scheierman
   3   J. Brown - S. Hauser
   0   J. Brown - H. Gonzalez
-13   J. Brown - C. Boucher
-14   J. Brown - X. Tillman
-26   J. Brown - J. Minott
-30   J. Brown - L. Garza
-35   J. Brown - A. Simons

I am not surprised that Brown with Garza or Tillman are bad, but the surprising one is Brown with Simons.  Brown's worst pairing.  -35 in 175 minutes. The second worst on the team (Pritchard + Garza is -41).  Simons is +36 without Brown on the court (149 minutes).  I don't understand that one.

Brown + Simons -12 in this game.  In just 11 minutes.  Simons was +0 for the game so that means he was +12 for the 15 minutes he was on the floor without Brown. Brown was +14 in the 21 minutes he was on the floor without Simons.

Anyone have a theory on this?  Is it just a sample size thing or something more fundamental to it?

probably an issue with the 2 prime scorers on the roster not knowing how to complement each other yet.  Personally I'm trying to figure out how Simons is a + at all.

Quote from: Vermont Green on November 18, 2025, 04:54:12 PM

Brown's two man +/- summary:

 79   J. Brown - N. Queta
 38   J. Brown - P. Pritchard
 35   J. Brown - D. White
 19   J. Brown - J. Walsh
 16   J. Brown - B. Scheierman
   3   J. Brown - S. Hauser
   0   J. Brown - H. Gonzalez
-13   J. Brown - C. Boucher
-14   J. Brown - X. Tillman
-26   J. Brown - J. Minott
-30   J. Brown - L. Garza
-35   J. Brown - A. Simons

I am not surprised that Brown with Garza or Tillman are bad, but the surprising one is Brown with Simons.  Brown's worst pairing.  -35 in 175 minutes. The second worst on the team (Pritchard + Garza is -41).  Simons is +36 without Brown on the court (149 minutes).  I don't understand that one.

Brown + Simons -12 in this game.  In just 11 minutes.  Simons was +0 for the game so that means he was +12 for the 15 minutes he was on the floor without Brown. Brown was +14 in the 21 minutes he was on the floor without Simons.

Anyone have a theory on this?  Is it just a sample size thing or something more fundamental to it?

Any fire to the Joe Burrow playing Sunday smoke?

When Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow returned to practice last week, he said ?Thanksgiving-ish? was his target for a return to game action.

The Bengals play on Thanksgiving, but Burrow may not wait until the turkey is in the oven to play for the first time since Week 2?s toe injury. Burrow was a full participant in Wednesday?s practice and head coach Zac Taylor left the door open to Burrow getting the start against the Patriots this Sunday during a Thursday morning radio appearance.

Taylor said on WLW that he is going to ?take in all the information? before making a call about starting Burrow or Joe Flacco against the AFC East leaders.

?Well, I?m not there yet,? Taylor said. ?We will use the time we have and come up with the best decision.?

Flacco did not practice Wednesday, which left plenty of 11-on-11 work for Burrow. Flacco is expected to throw on Thursday, but another full session for Burrow wouldn?t do anything to quiet thoughts that he will be running the offense in a few days./quote]

Quote from: Vermont Green on Today at 01:39:34 PM

Pats have had the easiest schedule, that is for sure.  But teams like IND and DEN, even BUF have had easier than average schedules.  There is no team, at least in the AFC, that appears to be a lock for a long run in the playoffs.  I don't know that BUFF, KC, and BAL, for example have done anything to establish themselves as a top team.  Neither have IND, DEN, LAC, or PIT.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt that Pats.  But there are plenty of reasons to doubt all the top teams.

There aren't a whole lot of good teams.

They just need to keep doing what they're doing and they can hang with anyone.

Quote from: keevsnick on Today at 02:08:36 PM

A Simons to Detroit trade isn't going to involve Harris, the point of trading Simons would be for the C's to shed money and get under the tax and Harris does not help with that.

I don't necessarily agree with this premise.  I think the point of trading Simons will be to get a player or players who might help the team in 2026-27.  That could be in the form of a TPE that gets rolled over next season but it could also be that they bring back a player that is better or a better fit.

I don't think it is likely BOS would target Harris.  But if Simons for Harris is part of a larger deal, I see that as an upgrade for BOS.  Harris could be part of the equation for 2026-27.  It does not appear that there is any chance that Simons will be.

A deal to just dump Simons is going to cost draft picks, probably a couple of seconds.  I am not convinced that BOS would do that just to get under the tax.