Mr. Scot

From the Outkick article... Meanwhile, Toonkel brought up another interesting point: “The big question is how the Times can integrate The Athletic without squeezing its bottom line too much. The Athletic has said it doesn’t expect to be profitable until 2023, thanks to its hefty staff.” The Times later confirmed the deal and admitted it plans to take a financial hit for the next three years, at least. The actual context of the quote prominently featured in the OP was that they were worried about the company going out of business. The Times acquisition is expected to help keep them going.

From the Times article... Ms. Levien said The Athletic would eat into The Times’s profitability over the next three years, before adding to the bottom line, as it adds new subscribers and more advertising revenue. The New York Times will offer The Athletic as an independent subscription — and will ultimately make it a part of a New York Times package.

Under Times ownership, The Athletic will be operated separately from The Times’s newsroom and its sports section, the company said. Alex Mather and Adam Hansmann, who started The Athletic in 2016, will stay on after the acquisition. “The future growth of The Athletic and of the combined New York Times and The Athletic — and the broader bundle and portfolio of products — depends on things that we have literally spent the last half decade, maybe longer, learning how to do,” Ms. Levien said in an interview, citing The Times’s experience with marketing and advertising, among other things. When asked about potential layoffs at The Athletic, she said, “at this point, that’s not our plan.” “If we were to have tried to build something, it would have been The Athletic,” Mr. Perpich said. “And so when we saw it, we just said, ‘We should acquire it as opposed to trying to replicate what they’re doing." Meredith Kopit Levien, the chief executive of the Times Company, called The Athletic “a great complement to The Times.” Source: The New York Times

Maybe so, but I'd be a little worried about what might be lingering from the "good times" she had before me

That's pretty much never been true. You've made something like a dozen predictions over the past year or so, and every single one of them has been wrong. You want to look smart, but you keep proving otherwise. And quick tip: A response referencing my post count isn't going to help you look any better. More than one person has already commented on it being creepy.

I...just...what?!

On the other side of the ball, regarding next season...

You laugh, but...

Granted, but I don't see him being anyone to be afraid of.

Pretty sure Fangio runs a 3-4. I know he did when he was here as DC under Capers. We've got some elements that could work in that scheme. I know some think Brian Burns would be better suited to that.

Disagree. Opposing teams figured out how to attack Snow's schemes about four or five weeks into the season. We've concentrated a lot of our personnel acquisition on the defensive side, which is probably the only reason we still look even halfway effective there at all.

Being able to play multiple positions is a great thing to have in a backup. Starters really only need to be good at one spot.

I know politicians distribute talking points. It makes you wonder if Matt Rhule does it too

They still have to work together though. But again it circles back to the question, if you have to go to this kind of extreme to save your head coach from himself, why you keeping him?

Here's that word again... Wonder who he got that idea from

Not head coaching news, but an old friend of ours...

I have a hard time seeing that working. Not just because it would be a hugely awkward situation for anybody to come in to a job where the coach was essentially forced to hire them even though he didn't really want to, but also because I've gotta believe a guy like Fangio would have better options available.

We knew he was going to be a success at last tackle...despite the fact that we made a concerted to start anybody else other than him at that spot until we were forced to. Also, the whole "short arms" thing, we didn't really mean that

Of all the coaches I could potentially see Matt Rhule letting go of, Phil Snow is probably last on the list

I wish In reality, I'm just kind of sitting back and being amazed by all the bullsh-t. Even more amazed that our esteemed owner can't see it for what it is.

No, I answered the question. As the saying goes, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

I already believed that'd be the case if Rhule stays. What this would seem to make clear though is that the "full of sh-t" gene isn't limited to Rhule.

See @travisura, this is another example. Rather than actually answering any of the things I've said, he remarks about my post count. Again, I'm sure he thinks that makes some kind of point, but it's only in his head.

Regardless of structure, the dynamic between coach and GM is pretty much the same everywhere. The coach sets the system and determines what kind of players he needs to run that system. The GM tries to go out and find players that best fit that profile.