Pollard apologized to Brady after he tore Brady's ACL and they still created a rule based off that incident to protect quarterbacks from precisely that kind of hit. Pocket passers seem to get more roughing calls than mobile quarterbacks. Your point on Roethlisberger is a good one, Ben doesn't really run but he holds the ball forever and moves around the pocket and consequently gets a lot of contact and hits. He's the size of a tight end and frequently has defenders hanging on him, hitting his legs, etc. and doesn't seem to get the kind of calls that Brady and Brees get. Rodgers scrambles a lot and is an MVP and a superbowl champ and he gets more calls than Ben or Cam. The most important aspect of officiating in any sport is consistency and for whatever reason the NFL officials aren't very consistent with their calls on QB hits. If the NFL is going to pass special rules to protect QBs then they need to consistently enforce them.
Agreed, unfortunately the NFL, much like WWE or any other entertainment network, is in the entertainment business, so they protect their money makers like Brady and Rodgers the most. Guys like Cam and other rookies fall to the way side until they bring in enough ad revenue.
Except Cam's been in the league now since 2011 and is an MVP, and is raking in ad revenue.
Pollard apologized to Brady after he tore Brady's ACL and they still created a rule based off that incident to protect quarterbacks from precisely that kind of hit. Pocket passers seem to get more roughing calls than mobile quarterbacks. Your point on Roethlisberger is a good one, Ben doesn't really run but he holds the ball forever and moves around the pocket and consequently gets a lot of contact and hits. He's the size of a tight end and frequently has defenders hanging on him, hitting his legs, etc. and doesn't seem to get the kind of calls that Brady and Brees get. Rodgers scrambles a lot and is an MVP and a superbowl champ and he gets more calls than Ben or Cam. The most important aspect of officiating in any sport is consistency and for whatever reason the NFL officials aren't very consistent with their calls on QB hits. If the NFL is going to pass special rules to protect QBs then they need to consistently enforce them.
Agreed, unfortunately the NFL, much like WWE or any other entertainment network, is in the entertainment business, so they protect their money makers like Brady and Rodgers the most. Guys like Cam and other rookies fall to the way side until they bring in enough ad revenue.
Except Cam's been in the league now since 2011 and is an MVP, and is raking in ad revenue.
Sorry, but to the NFL that's nothing. Rodgers has been playing since 2005, Roethlisberger since 2004, and Brady since 2000. Cam is still a rookie to them.
Happy day! Norv Turner is GONE. Rumor has it that the guy taking over was calling the plays behind the scenes for the first 4-5 games and then Norv took over for essentially the last 2 games. None of that fixes the non-existent O-line, but it is a start. Would just like to add this quote from a guy on Vikings FB page:
Dave Shaw I'd like to hear him say: "We have great big dangerous football players crossing over into the pocket and doing terrible things to our quarterback, terrible things. Well folks, we're going to build a wall. We're going to build a great big beautiful wall.... And the packers are going to pay for it."
NorseSig wrote: Happy day! Norv Turner is GONE. Rumor has it that the guy taking over was calling the plays behind the scenes for the first 4-5 games and then Norv took over for essentially the last 2 games. None of that fixes the non-existent O-line, but it is a start. Would just like to add this quote from a guy on Vikings FB page:
Dave Shaw I'd like to hear him say: "We have great big dangerous football players crossing over into the pocket and doing terrible things to our quarterback, terrible things. Well folks, we're going to build a wall. We're going to build a great big beautiful wall.... And the packers are going to pay for it."
Well... Pat Shumer and Sam Bradford does have a decent working relationship.
Shumer was there for Bradford's ROY at Rams and the high-flying Eagles.
Congrats to the Cubs! Got to watch the last inning while on break at work.
This weeks picks.
Tonight Atlanta at Tampa Bay.
The top overall Offense vs a mediocre Def. These teams are 1-2 in their division. Both have issues with turnovers and can get to the QB. Atl has the more mobile QB though.
Falcons win this one.
NFC East.
Washington is off.
Dallas at Cleveland
Really...... no analysis here. Dallas should win in a walk.
Philadelphia at New York Giants
Philly has had the Giants number for a while. Eli has nightmares about the Eagles pass rush and Fletcher Cox. That should help mitigate the Giants passing game. The Eagles have to find theirs though. With Huff being cut due to his legal issues (Probably more from the drug charge than the gun though.), Someone else needs to step up in the receiving corps.
Still, Philly should be able to win this one.... expect a low score though.
It's hardly shameful when it's accurate. Un-called blatant pass interference by the offense gave the Saints points they shouldn't have had. "Tackle the cornerback to get the other receiver open" is not a legal play.
Peregrine wrote: Besides this game, anyone else getting a bit tired of how much comes down to "was a flag thrown or not"?
There's so much more than just that... For instance, I want clear cut rulings on "what is a catch"... because clearly "the receiver makes a football move" is entirely too nebulous. I'm tired of offensive bias in the open field (ie, receivers get away with quite a bit more than defenders). I'm tired of watching play after play of not borderline holding penalties, I'm talking about blatant and easy to see from orbit calls that aren't being flagged. This is especially bad to me because of the sheer number of times I've seen this happening not a few feet away from the ref, AND replays show that the "penalty" is directly in the official's line of sight.
Or phantom calls where the refs throw the flag and it negates a play, but then there's no footage of it, or when it is shown, there's no evidence anything was done wrong. My Panthers have been TORTURED by that since their inception.
Peregrine wrote: Besides this game, anyone else getting a bit tired of how much comes down to "was a flag thrown or not"?
There's so much more than just that... For instance, I want clear cut rulings on "what is a catch"... because clearly "the receiver makes a football move" is entirely too nebulous. I'm tired of offensive bias in the open field (ie, receivers get away with quite a bit more than defenders). I'm tired of watching play after play of not borderline holding penalties, I'm talking about blatant and easy to see from orbit calls that aren't being flagged. This is especially bad to me because of the sheer number of times I've seen this happening not a few feet away from the ref, AND replays show that the "penalty" is directly in the official's line of sight.
I agree, and it happens far too often. The timing on several of the calls (or lack there of) is suspect as well, as often their calls help decide the games at critical moments.
I agree on the officiating issues. Too many non calls on obvious penalties lately.
On the Josh Huff issue in Philly... If you think it was about the GUN, you didn't read all the charges.
He was caught with Marijuana in the car and his system (DUI = Driving under the Influence) Since he was arrested, he was likely tested for it. Once that became known back at the front office, they had a decision to make.
Neither New Jersey, nor Pennsylvania have legalized, and the NFL still holds it as a Banned Substance.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Phew....Panthers won, but they just had to let the Rams make it interesting. They'd be deadly if they had people that could catch.
Ugh..... Giants contact the Sturgis while his leg is still up, no call. Giants slap Wentz's helmet while he is in the pocket, no call.
Come close to touching Brady, anywhere on the field, flags everywhere.
These are not "lets look at this in close up slow mo" kind of fouls.
These are some of the FEW clearly defined rules in the NFL.
Both those, if called, would have given Philly 1st and goal in each case.
Even Joe Buck, and Troy Aikman commented on both those no calls.
Peregrine wrote: Besides this game, anyone else getting a bit tired of how much comes down to "was a flag thrown or not"?
There's so much more than just that... For instance, I want clear cut rulings on "what is a catch"... because clearly "the receiver makes a football move" is entirely too nebulous. I'm tired of offensive bias in the open field (ie, receivers get away with quite a bit more than defenders). I'm tired of watching play after play of not borderline holding penalties, I'm talking about blatant and easy to see from orbit calls that aren't being flagged. This is especially bad to me because of the sheer number of times I've seen this happening not a few feet away from the ref, AND replays show that the "penalty" is directly in the official's line of sight.
Yep. Refs stole a 43-yard catch that would've put us at the goal line and a great INT because "two hands were on the ball , but it moved a little when he hit the ground".
KingmanHighborn wrote: Phew....Panthers won, but they just had to let the Rams make it interesting. They'd be deadly if they had people that could catch.
It is sounding like the Vikings are FINALLY going to can Walsh. I hope after the end of this horrible season my Vikings draft an actual O-line that isn't a bunch of cardboard cut outs.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Just to add to the horrible officiating this season: "My" Seahawks got lucky as feth in that Sherman "non-roughing-the-kicker" call
Yeah, what a complete debacle that was. How can they so thoroughly screw up so many different things in such a short time? It's just fortunate the final margin of victory was more than 3 points so it didn't decide the outcome of the game.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Just to add to the horrible officiating this season: "My" Seahawks got lucky as feth in that Sherman "non-roughing-the-kicker" call
Yeah, what a complete debacle that was. How can they so thoroughly screw up so many different things in such a short time? It's just fortunate the final margin of victory was more than 3 points so it didn't decide the outcome of the game.
Watching a lot of post-game stuff now (and kind of screwing around instead of doing school work).... and Sherman's own interview, he stated that he tipped the ball, and per the rules, that makes a kicker "fair game" (paraphrasing)
IF Sherman is correct on the rules, and IF Sherman did in fact hit the ball first, and IF the ref saw that tip... then that particular no-call may have been good... but that's a lot of "IFs" right there.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Just to add to the horrible officiating this season: "My" Seahawks got lucky as feth in that Sherman "non-roughing-the-kicker" call
Yeah, what a complete debacle that was. How can they so thoroughly screw up so many different things in such a short time? It's just fortunate the final margin of victory was more than 3 points so it didn't decide the outcome of the game.
Watching a lot of post-game stuff now (and kind of screwing around instead of doing school work).... and Sherman's own interview, he stated that he tipped the ball, and per the rules, that makes a kicker "fair game" (paraphrasing)
IF Sherman is correct on the rules, and IF Sherman did in fact hit the ball first, and IF the ref saw that tip... then that particular no-call may have been good... but that's a lot of "IFs" right there.
Watch the video. Sherman almost tips it, but the kicker hits the ball as Sherman goes by. It doesn't go far due to the kicker having to "pull" the kick to avoid kicking Sherman. Sherman rolled into the kicker instead of landing on his face.
Lol, I have watched the video, a number of times.... Hence why I finished my previous post with that whole string of "IFs"
Most of the camera angles I've seen are inconclusive as to whether he did, or did not make contact with the ball (in most of the televised views especially, the angle used, the kicker's body blocks the view right at the moment of impact)
So, after the disappointing week that was Sunday and today, what do people think of the Broncos vs. Saints match up? I'm cautiously optimistic. I'd love a win, but Talib being out til after the Bye week and Wolfe being out for a month terrifies me.
Watch the video. Sherman almost tips it, but the kicker hits the ball as Sherman goes by. It doesn't go far due to the kicker having to "pull" the kick to avoid kicking Sherman. Sherman rolled into the kicker instead of landing on his face.
picture evidence:
Spoiler:
The rules are pretty clear on this as well... because he touched the ball, the kicker becomes fair game. That said, it WAS the fault of the refs for not blowing the play dead sooner.
I think he certainly touched the ball, so the play went off as it should, right?
I can't remember a time when the refs were such a focus of conversation though.
There are a LOT of bad teams this year, and the overall 'level of play' seems a lot lower too.
That seems like it should be more of the focus of conversation, and is probably one of the major reasons why ratings are down, combined with NFL Overexposure/Oversaturation too.
The official rules state otherwise.
"A member of the receiving team may not run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless contact is:
(a) Incidental to and after he had touched ball in flight.
(b) Caused by kicker’s own motions.
(c) Occurs during a quick kick, or a kick made after a run behind the line, or after kicker recovers a loose ball on the ground. Ball is loose when kicker muffs snap or snap hits ground.
(d) Defender is blocked into kicker.
The penalty for running into the kicker is 5 yards. For roughing the kicker: 15 yards, an automatic first down and disqualification if flagrant. "
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage
The ball is clearly on the ground, not in "flight".
The kicker was hit on his plant leg, meaning his "motions" were not a factor.
Nothing in point c applies.
No-one blocked Sherman.
Alternative point: the ball was touched before the kick was made, the player possessing the ball was down by contact, play is over. Part b) would then apply, since the kicker continued on after the play was over and kicked the ball and Sherman rather than accepting that the attempt had failed.
Peregrine wrote: Alternative point: the ball was touched before the kick was made, the player possessing the ball was down by contact, play is over. Part b) would then apply, since the kicker continued on after the play was over and kicked the ball and Sherman rather than accepting that the attempt had failed.
Would be one way of looking at it....
FWIW, nfl.com is reporting that the AP is reporting that the league has fined Sherman for the kick... Fething hell they need to sort the officiating.
Lol... if the office was right RAW, but the field refs were RAI... then there's something wrong. Quite simply put, I think that if the league felt that there was a penalty there, and it was "obvious" then they just fined the wrong person, because the person who got fined made a "good football play" because he played to the whistle.
Play was dead when Sherman jumped offsides. The Refs didn't blow the whistle fast enough.
Having been a placekicker, I can tell you once you start the kicking process, which in the pic above he had, stopping is practically impossible.
Also, Sherman could have continued past the kicker instead of rolling into his plant leg.
helgrenze wrote: Play was dead when Sherman jumped offsides. The Refs didn't blow the whistle fast enough.
The second is true, the first is not. The play is not dead until it's blown dead, if the kick is successful the offense can decline the offsides penalty and keep the result of the play. So until the play is officially dead the defense has to play like normal.
Also, Sherman could have continued past the kicker instead of rolling into his plant leg.
Debatable, unless you mean giving up on trying to block the kick. And given the fact that the kicker was grabbing the wrong knee and came right back into the game like nothing happened it sure doesn't seem like Sherman rolled into him significantly.
i'm not really surprised by Sherman's fine...
$9,000 will probably only put a small dent in his wallet...
i am surprised that the kicker's wife pretty much got a free pass for saying that Sherman should be castrated :(
i don't think he was trying to hurt the kicker, but i may just be biased, since i like watching the dude play...
it certainly makes for something to talk about in a slow news week like this one...
hahahahahahaha
I was curious about that as well, and since I'm at work and have nothing to do, I went back and checked.
From what I could find, he started on Week 2 and picked the Saints over the Giants, the Eagles over the Bears, and a coin flip on the Skins-Dallas game. I would call that 1-1-1.
I couldn't find any predictions from Week 3.
Week 4 was kind of murky. He seemed to favor the Browns (lol, by the way) over the Skins, the 49ers over the Cowboys, and the Vikings over the Giants. Philly was on the bye that week. Out of those three games, I guess you could call it 1-2.
In Week 5 he picked Baltimore over the Skins, Cowboys over the Bengals, Philly over Detroit, and Green Bay over the Giants. He went 2-2 that week on picks.
For Week 6, he picked Eagles over the Skins, Ravens over the Giants, Green Bay over Dallas, and he threw in the Thursday night game, Chargers over the Broncos. 1-3 that week.
Week 7 was Rams over Giants, Detroit over the Skins, Eagles over the Vikings, and Chicago over Green Bay going 2-2 that week.
Going into Week 8, he picked Bengals over Washington and Philly over Dallas. Since the first game was a tie, I'd call that 0-1-1 but I guess the case could be made that the Bengals-Skins pick is wrong because no one actually won the game.
In Week 9 he went with Atlanta over Tampa Bay, Dallas over Cleveland, Philly over New York. 2-1 that week.
With my Ravens having played Thursday, I decided to watch some teams I don't normally watch. I picked the Saints v Broncos game and Dallas v Steelers game. I'm glad I did, because they were both pretty damn good games. And the Steelers lost, which is always a good time.
Tonight: BOREFEST 2 Saints vs Panthers.
UGH. Saints have a passing game and that's about it. They can't stop anyone. Panthers are more well rounded and have the much better Defense. Brees is in for a bad night if the Panthers D gets things going.
Carolina wins this, though it could be a scorefest.
Ravens at Cowboys
Top Run Offense vs top Run Defense. Both teams are going to have to air it out. Balti has the ballhawks to make it challenging for Dak and company.
Baltimore wins a close one.
Bears at NYG
The Bears Offense has been meh but their Defense is going to make Eli's day rough. The Giants need some help from their run game to make this one work.
Bears by 3 or less.
Eagles at Seahawks
Stat wise, these teams are about even. This one will come down to intangibles. Seattle may not have Bennett so that will make a difference. Of course with the game in Seattle, the noise will be a factor as well. Philadelphia's Special Teams should also be a factor.
Close one here as well, but Eagles should win this.
Green Bay at Washington.
Aaron Rodgers needs a breakout game, so does the Packers Coach. Again, both teams are nearly even statwise. Washington has the advantage in the passing game but the Packers Defense should stifle the 'Skins run game.
Going with the Packers on this one. It's a "Must Win" for them.
Ravens at Cowboys
Top Run Offense vs top Run Defense. Both teams are going to have to air it out. Balti has the ballhawks to make it challenging for Dak and company.
Baltimore wins a close one.
Bears at NYG
The Bears Offense has been meh but their Defense is going to make Eli's day rough. The Giants need some help from their run game to make this one work.
Bears by 3 or less.
Eagles at Seahawks
Stat wise, these teams are about even. This one will come down to intangibles. Seattle may not have Bennett so that will make a difference. Of course with the game in Seattle, the noise will be a factor as well. Philadelphia's Special Teams should also be a factor.
Close one here as well, but Eagles should win this.
You're picking against Vegas on all of these games. I'd love to see the Cowboys lose against the Ravens, but there's no way that's happening and they're being favored by 7.5, their highest spread all season. I could see Chicago beating New York, but I still think the Giants will win that one and so does Vegas because they're favored at 7.5 points. I think the Eagles are going to have a rough day in Seattle as they've been pretty bad on the road lately (four straight loses on the road) and Seattle has been better at home (they score an average of 10 more at home). The Eagles are 6.5 point underdogs and everyone knows that the Seahawks are a tough team at home.
Green Bay at Washington.
Aaron Rodgers needs a breakout game, so does the Packers Coach. Again, both teams are nearly even statwise. Washington has the advantage in the passing game but the Packers Defense should stifle the 'Skins run game.
Going with the Packers on this one. It's a "Must Win" for them.
It's definitely a must win for Green Bay, but they're a 2.5 point underdog so I expect it to be a pretty close game. Green Bay has a ton of injuries and that will definitely play in the Skins favor. I know their rushing defense is pretty good, but they got gouged last week by the Titans so you better believe the Skins are going to try and pound the ball. If it is successful, it will open the door for the play-action like it did last week against the Vikings.
One of the big negatives for Washington in this game is the fact that it's prime time. They have a history of stinking it up on nationally televised prime-time games!
Still, Smart money bets against any spread over 7 points.
Philadelphia in particular hasn't lost by more than 7 points this season.
Seattle's biggest wins (7 points or more) came against San Fran, the Jets, and New England.
Every Giants game has been decided by 7 or less. Their ability to pull off last minute wins has limits.
Dallas's biggest wins have been against Cleveland, Green Bay, San Fran, Chicago, and Cincinnati, all teams with losing records, 3 of them combining for a total of 3 wins. Against stronger teams they have been winning by 5 or less.
So, what do you trust more? Some overrated bookie or the Stats you can look up yourself.
Watched the two big games on sunday. Dallas vs Pitt and NE vs SEA.
Dallas Pitt was probably one of the best games ive ever watched live. Such great play on both sides after an ugly first half was just splendid to watch. MVP is Elliot - that guy is gonna be a star. Best play easily had to be the fake spike TD by Roth to Brown...I've been calling on teams to run this play for years - Finally. Perfect execution of the play - the Oline stood up slowly and sold the fake so dang hard.
The NE vs SEA game was a different story. I am a NE fan and this game just disgusted me. I have never seen worse defense from NE in my entire life. The announcers kept talking about how good SEA looked and I'm screaming in my head "When the WR is open by 15 yards every catch, it's not good offense it's poor defense" - I am almost certain that the defense was playing poorly on purpose to protest the Collins trade. Seriously I've seen tighter coverage on prevent defense when up 21 points late in the game. Furthermore the refs did such a terrible job officiating. There were several blow calls for and against us.
I'll call them each out.
Edelman had a big 30 yard catch he obviously pushed off on. In contrast he had a great catch where Sherman hit him and stopped his progress instantly - no whistle and they let him strip the ball from him while in a bear hug between 2 players.
Then the final play of the game - gronk clearly interfered with in the end zone. (there is no debate about this) Defenders have the right to the ball to but they do not have the right to place both of their hands on your arms with the ball in the air. It's textbook interference. Whats really sad is every ESPN sportscaster calling it a great no call. Yep - against the pats no calls are always good in this league. Again - I saw bad no calls on both sides and can admit that SEA deserved to win the game. With how bad the pats D played we were lucky we didn't lose by 3 TD's.
The Pats D is back to how it was 4 or 5 years ago.
They bill it as 'Bend Don't Break' but they give up way too many long pass plays and the Saftey play is...not good.
So, while the offense is really good, the defense is highly suspect and will most likely yet again derail what would and should be a serious Super Bowl run.
Xenomancers wrote: Then the final play of the game - gronk clearly interfered with in the end zone. (there is no debate about this) Defenders have the right to the ball to but they do not have the right to place both of their hands on your arms with the ball in the air. It's textbook interference.
Correct, it's textbook interference. It should have been flagged as offensive pass interference, penalty declined, Seattle takes over on downs. The offensive player initiated contact with the defender (intentionally or not) and knocked him down. It was a good no-call if you're one of the people who says "let them play", but even if it had been called it wasn't going to help the Patriots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
helgrenze wrote: Seattle's biggest wins (7 points or more) came against San Fran, the Jets, and New England.
Of course it should be noted that Seattle has been playing with an injured quarterback, and he looks like he's healthy again now. They've also been missing their starting running back, who is probably returning this week. Looking at just the final score doesn't tell the full story, Seattle's offense is likely to be quite a bit better than they have been.
Xenomancers wrote: Then the final play of the game - gronk clearly interfered with in the end zone. (there is no debate about this) Defenders have the right to the ball to but they do not have the right to place both of their hands on your arms with the ball in the air. It's textbook interference.
Correct, it's textbook interference. It should have been flagged as offensive pass interference, penalty declined, Seattle takes over on downs. The offensive player initiated contact with the defender (intentionally or not) and knocked him down. It was a good no-call if you're one of the people who says "let them play", but even if it had been called it wasn't going to help the Patriots.
Not sure if serious.
Actually, pretty sure serious, as well as incorrect.
helgrenze wrote: Seattle's biggest wins (7 points or more) came against San Fran, the Jets, and New England.
Of course it should be noted that Seattle has been playing with an injured quarterback, and he looks like he's healthy again now. They've also been missing their starting running back, who is probably returning this week. Looking at just the final score doesn't tell the full story, Seattle's offense is likely to be quite a bit better than they have been.
The New England game was an outlier. NYJ is a last place team with 2 weak wins, and one against the Ravens, San Fran is a last place team with one win and most of their losses have been by double digits.
Its not just looking at the final score. Its looking at the quality of some of the games. Seattle has played 5 teams with losing records, some the worst in the league. They also lost to two of them.
Philly has played 3 teams with losing records, two of the worst. All their loses have been to teams with winning records, so have two of their wins.
Now it is true that Philly has been not good on the road, but they lost to Detroit by 1, Washington by 7, Dallas by 6, and NYG by 5
It is also true that Seattle is excellent at home, but they beat Miami by 2, blew out SF, Atlanta by 2, and Buffalo by 6 in those games.
Seattle will also be missing two key players, DE Bennett, LB Pierre-Louis on Defense while Philadelphia will have most of their starters on Offense. They also get back their top CB, missing only S Brooks.
helgrenze wrote: So, what do you trust more? Some overrated bookie or the Stats you can look up yourself.
Well, considering the fact that those overrated bookies have access to the stats we do and are really good at what they do, I'm going with the bookies.
helgrenze wrote: So, what do you trust more? Some overrated bookie or the Stats you can look up yourself.
Well, considering the fact that those overrated bookies have access to the stats we do and are really good at what they do, I'm going with the bookies.
But hey, any given Sunday and all that.
Vegas Odds Makers' job is to convince you to give your money to a gambling interest. They work for the Casinos and OTB parlors.
The "odds" and "point spreads" are always in favor of the Casinos.
helgrenze wrote: Vegas Odds Makers' job is to convince you to give your money to a gambling interest. They work for the Casinos and OTB parlors.
The "odds" and "point spreads" are always in favor of the Casinos.
As a former resident of Las Vegas, I'm well aware of how casinos work. Fortunately for us, there are far more options when it comes to finding who is favored and what spreads are.
Always bet against the spread.
Okay, but we aren't gambling here, just making straight up picks and I was using the numbers to highlight potential bad picks.
Look, I get it... you're an Eagles homer so you're going to pick them every time and that's cool. But at the end of the day, the Seahawks, Giants, and Dallas are all heavily favored to win their games this week and for good reason. Washington is also favored, but I'm tempted to pick Green Bay because they're Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers is a future Hall of Famer, and the Skins suck in prime-time games.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Glad my Panthers beat the Saints but looks like we paid dearly for the victory.
Yeah.
The initial hit didn't look that bad, but he also got hit by his own player from behind on the same play.
Yup, plus injuries to Leonard Johnson, Mario Addison and Ryan Kalil hurt badly. (Not mention Benjamin, and Newton both getting dinged up and our back up center is hurt too, which is why he had to use a 3rd string guard as center. And it seriously hampered us in the 2nd half.) Game really could be a pyric victory, when alls said and done. Just hope Oakland is overlooking us next week.
Yeah, about that... Dallas, New York, and Seattle all covered the spread. You're 10-15-2 on picks going into this week, and after three games today (plus Thursday's game) you're now 11-18-2. Hopefully for you, the Skins will blow it (and let's face it, they probably will) so you'll get another game this week!
Would anyone mind if the Bears just closed up shop early this season and went home? Actually, would anyone notice? They've had enough this year. Trade 'em all, keep Howard.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: By the way, here's a replay of every time Agholor had a football thrown at him:
I especially loved the bit they showed where Russel Wilson had more receiving yards (and a TD!) than the Eagles wide receivers combined, pretty late in the game.
BigWaaagh wrote: Would anyone mind if the Bears just closed up shop early this season and went home? Actually, would anyone notice? They've had enough this year. Trade 'em all, keep Howard.
Trading them all is what got you into this mess! You have the fewest people on your roster that were drafted by your team in the NFL for the 3rd straight year, according to the ESPNes. You bought all of your guys on the open market. I am not an engine repair man, but I think you need a new draft coordinator and then pay the fethers so they don't leave and you can avoid buying the broken men discarded by other teams.
Just my 2 cents. As I said, I'm not a garden gnome so I could be wrong!
Yeah yeah.... I forgot to factor in the narratives.
The big NFL story being that Dallas is now Historically Good. woohoo.
Yeah the Eagles blew it, but given the Seahawks penchant for causing injuries, and taking out two of the Eagles better weapons.
But whatever. Good, bad, or indifferent they are my team.
It should be noted that their 5-5 is good enough to be a top team in nearly any other division, and even the best team in at least one.
Besides, I don't see anyone else posting picks or their reasoning for them.
So, on to other topics, Which potential draft pick will Cleveland choose to ruin next? Or will they trade the #1 for Romo?
helgrenze wrote: Yeah the Eagles blew it, but given the Seahawks penchant for causing injuries, and taking out two of the Eagles better weapons.
Injuries are not an excuse here. The Seahawks lost their starting running back and one of his backups, and had to give the backup quarterback a couple snaps at running back while running out the clock. They also lost their best-in-the-league safety, and one of their starting cornerbacks. And that's after having their best defensive lineman missing the game because of an earlier injury. The simple truth here is that the Eagles played against a better team and lost a pretty one-sided game.
But whatever. Good, bad, or indifferent they are my team.
Well yeah, we already knew that. But you might as well call your picks "why my Eagles are going to win each week" and not pretend that you're being objective about it.
helgrenze wrote: Yeah the Eagles blew it, but given the Seahawks penchant for causing injuries, and taking out two of the Eagles better weapons. But whatever. Good, bad, or indifferent they are my team.
Not an excuse. Nearly every team has injured or missing players, but good teams overcome injuries; good teams like the Seahawks, Patriots, etc.
It should be noted that their 5-5 is good enough to be a top team in nearly any other division, and even the best team in at least one.
It should be noted that the Eagles are in the NFC East, not in "any other division." It doesn't matter that this mediocre Eagles team would be "better" in a trash division because they'd still be a mediocre team in a trash division instead of a mediocre team in a good division.
Besides, I don't see anyone else posting picks or their reasoning for them.
What does that have to do with anything? You've said you post your picks to give people something to talk about and we're talking about them.
From the "Its about damn time" File:
The Eagles have signed another Receiver, Paul Turner, from their own practice squad and will likely sit Agholor for a while. They kind of have to do it this way as the cap hit from cutting Agholor would be @$5mil.
Agholor admitted that he was "in his own head". That may be why he has been suffering from Stone Hands Syndrome.
For his part, Turner had an outstanding preseason, leading the league in catches and has been a fan fave. He could be getting his chance to play on Monday.
BigWaaagh wrote: Would anyone mind if the Bears just closed up shop early this season and went home? Actually, would anyone notice? They've had enough this year. Trade 'em all, keep Howard.
Trading them all is what got you into this mess! You have the fewest people on your roster that were drafted by your team in the NFL for the 3rd straight year, according to the ESPNes. You bought all of your guys on the open market. I am not an engine repair man, but I think you need a new draft coordinator and then pay the fethers so they don't leave and you can avoid buying the broken men discarded by other teams.
Just my 2 cents. As I said, I'm not a garden gnome so I could be wrong!
It's the ownership that needs to get booted and then the coaches and then the team. Order thereof, with the season being the clusterfeth that it is, being irrelevant. The McCaskey's have fethed up this team and organization to the point that it needs a Phoenix re-do. Phoenix, as in burn to ashes and rise again, not city in desert. Get rid of 'em all, keep Howard.
Detroit over Minn. Vikings are missing some key players and their offense has been lacking of late.
Dallas over Washington. Cowboys game to lose here. Plus they are playing at home.
Pittsburgh over Indy. With Luck out for Concussion protocols, they are starting Scott Tolzien and are listing their punter as the third stringer.
NYG over Cleveland. Hate to say it but.... Interestingly, the Browns are Statistically the better team, but they are still the Browns.
Philly over Green Bay. Home game for Eagles on Monday Night. Packers have been lackluster lately and the trend looks to continue. Philly will have some new faces especially on Offense. It could be a close one.
Yeah, new QB for Bears! 6 TD throws...3 dropped...in end zone...2 in the same drive at the end of the 4th Quarter that could have won the game...I weep.
Sasori wrote: I think the Cowboys have a real shot of going to the Superbowl. After the Seahawks loss, we are that much closer to guaranteeing that home game....
We really want to beat Minn, and have the NYG lose to the Steelers, to be comfortable.
With the way the Vikes are playing you will probably beat them. Their offense is nonexistent and the defense just can't keep the pace anymore. If the Vikes get an actual offensive line next year (and keep healthy instead of injuring every freaking key player) they might have a SB chance. This year we will be lucky to make playoffs. We held on to some excess baggage too long and it hurt us as well this year.
NorseSig wrote: If the Vikes get an actual offensive line next year (and keep healthy instead of injuring every freaking key player) they might have a SB chance.
Seems to me that anymore, offensive line is like pitching in the MLB: Everyone needs it, but very few actually have it good enough.
Case in point: Seattle yesterday. I mean, if we had won, we probably didn't deserve it the way the offense was playing all day. And aside from the two early TDs given up, the defense held up their end of the bargain.
So staying true to the narrative, Dallas wins again. A loss by either Washington or Tampa Bay on Sunday means the Cowboys clinch a playoff spot.
So expect losses in both those games. Washington to Arizona, and Tampa Bay to the Chargers.
Philly is essentially out of contention, so they should get a win vs Cincinnati.
That leaves the NYG game. The Giants cannot threaten the Cowboys #1 seed, so they get the win over Pittsburgh.
Though honestly, there should have been at least a Facemask penalty on that two point conversion at the end of last nights game.
I'm glad Dallas won, but that kind of play will not cut in the play-offs. I'm giving the boys some slack, since that was the 4th game in like 12 days, but they need to step up their game against the NYG next week.
If the Giants lose to the Steelers, We will be very secure in our playoff spot. Heres to hoping!
Sasori wrote: I'm glad Dallas won, but that kind of play will not cut in the play-offs. I'm giving the boys some slack, since that was the 4th game in like 12 days, but they need to step up their game against the NYG next week.
If the Giants lose to the Steelers, We will be very secure in our playoff spot. Heres to hoping!
Giants have little chance of affecting the Cowboys playoff chances. Dallas clinches with either loss stated above. With 5 games left, NYG would need to win out while Dallas loses 3. Doesn't seem likely.
Giants can still get home field advantage though, I think. Or I heard Chris Collinsworth wrong last night, or didn't hear the correct context he was speaking in.
nels1031 wrote: Giants can still get home field advantage though, I think. Or I heard Chris Collinsworth wrong last night, or didn't hear the correct context he was speaking in.
Possible. Collinsworth has such a hate boner for the Dallas Cowboys, if there is a way they could lose the division or home field advantage, he'll have researched it.
Ya, I noticed that last night. They got a penalty or two on one drive and he was talking "collapse" or "falling apart". They're 10-1 (now 11-1) and were leading for most of the game. It for sure wasn't the Cowboys best game, but such criticism seemed misplaced. I guess he was trying to create a dramatic narrative or some such, but it felt overboard and I'm a fan of neither team.
He's normally one of my favorite commentators, too.
nels1031 wrote: Giants can still get home field advantage though, I think. Or I heard Chris Collinsworth wrong last night, or didn't hear the correct context he was speaking in.
Best the Giants can hope for is #5 seed, which is round one visitor. They are basically a lock there if they don't tank the rest of the season.
Most of the seedings are pretty much set for the NFC. #6 is kind of up in the air, moreso if Washington loses too many games to finish. That tie is going to make a lot of difference. #4 looks to be whoever comes out of the South, right now the Falcons, though the Bucs and Saints are still in the mix there.
The AFC is more wide open. The West and South will likely wind up being decided in the last week. The Steelers, Bills, and Broncos are going to be in fight for either the Division and/or Wild Card spots.
The Browns and 49ers are out, Bears, Jags, Jets, and Bengals are likely done as well after this week.
Xenomancers wrote: Then the final play of the game - gronk clearly interfered with in the end zone. (there is no debate about this) Defenders have the right to the ball to but they do not have the right to place both of their hands on your arms with the ball in the air. It's textbook interference.
Correct, it's textbook interference. It should have been flagged as offensive pass interference, penalty declined, Seattle takes over on downs. The offensive player initiated contact with the defender (intentionally or not) and knocked him down. It was a good no-call if you're one of the people who says "let them play", but even if it had been called it wasn't going to help the Patriots.
Not sure if serious.
Actually, pretty sure serious, as well as incorrect.
Typically calls don't go the patriots way. Not since the Tuck anyways. I'm used to it. It's actually a pretty terrible call to go to gronk on the final play. A few years ago against the panthers a defender literally bear-hugged gronk out of the endzone on the final play of the game. They rulled the ball uncatchable when it landed in the middle of the endzone. Refs never make PA calls against gronk - unless he ltierally gets tackled before the ball gets to him (which happens a great deal) Anyways - looks like Gronk's career is over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: The rest of the Giants season looks fairly tough, actually.
They've got some work to do still!
Giants have a mean defense. I think they stand a chance.
Typically calls don't go the patriots way. Not since the Tuck anyways. I'm used to it. It's actually a pretty terrible call to go to gronk on the final play. A few years ago against the panthers a defender literally bear-hugged gronk out of the endzone on the final play of the game. They rulled the ball uncatchable when it landed in the middle of the endzone. Refs never make PA calls against gronk - unless he ltierally gets tackled before the ball gets to him (which happens a great deal) Anyways - looks like Gronk's career is over.
Skip to about 2:00 in and explain to me how "typically calls dont go the patriots way." The League has players so afraid of getting a penalty due to touching The League's star snowflake that he turns into one of the best lead blockers in the game!
I mean, I guess I know what you're on about, but couldn't you find an actual call that went the Patriots' way when complaining about calls that go their way?
I mean, I guess I know what you're on about, but couldn't you find an actual call that went the Patriots' way when complaining about calls that go their way?
What I'm saying, without saying is, the Jets players were so afraid of getting a call against them on what would have been a legit play, that they essentially gave the Patriots extra yards.
Yes, I know, but that's more of an overall League thing - over-protecting their Superstars because they believe that without them, ratings will go down.
They think their Superstar QB's are what people want to see - or at least deliver a game people want to see?
Alpharius wrote: ...good thing they aren't going to do anything silly like extend Fisher for 2 years, right?!?
Al Michaels and that other guy were talking about it at the end of the Seattle game tonight, and apparently it was done before the season even began this year, it was only announced just now...
Funny thing, Philadelphia looked pretty good after the first 3 weeks. Then they had their bye. Next comes some really bad games for them.
So, What happened?
According to one theory I have heard floated, Tony Romo's back surgery. Apparently, "Sources" claim that this is Romo's last season. And Jerry wants him to get a ring. Which cannot happen if he retires during the season. So he 'gratiously' takes a backseat to be a back-up so he can be on the team during the run. The one team that, at that point, stood in the way was Philadelphia.
Alpharius wrote: ...and the Rams only had one first down and 25 yards total yards in the first half!
Ya'll are witnessing the worst ran football operation in quite some time...
No sir - I believe the Jacksonville Jaguars have that one on lock-down. 6 years straight of 10 or more losses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: Damn, I did not expect the Ravens to smoke Miami like they are in the process of doing. 24-0 in 3rd quarter!
Yeah I had Miami to win this one. Looks like the dolphins run game has lost some effectiveness. Or is that just Baltimore being really good on defense?
Typically calls don't go the patriots way. Not since the Tuck anyways. I'm used to it. It's actually a pretty terrible call to go to gronk on the final play. A few years ago against the panthers a defender literally bear-hugged gronk out of the endzone on the final play of the game. They rulled the ball uncatchable when it landed in the middle of the endzone. Refs never make PA calls against gronk - unless he ltierally gets tackled before the ball gets to him (which happens a great deal) Anyways - looks like Gronk's career is over.
Skip to about 2:00 in and explain to me how "typically calls dont go the patriots way." The League has players so afraid of getting a penalty due to touching The League's star snowflake that he turns into one of the best lead blockers in the game!
Humm - a QB blocking and players afraid to touch him? That's strange - free licks on the QB if you ask me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vng4fR8O17I Anyways heres a link to the specific play I was talking about. AKA - flagrant disregard for the rules of football. People don't like it when the pats get a call on the last play - I understand it. Teams know they can get away with fouling pats on the last play. Wish I had time to make a montage but I don't - I am at work.
helgrenze wrote: Funny thing, Philadelphia looked pretty good after the first 3 weeks. Then they had their bye. Next comes some really bad games for them.
So, What happened?
According to one theory I have heard floated, Tony Romo's back surgery. Apparently, "Sources" claim that this is Romo's last season. And Jerry wants him to get a ring. Which cannot happen if he retires during the season. So he 'gratiously' takes a backseat to be a back-up so he can be on the team during the run. The one team that, at that point, stood in the way was Philadelphia.
Of course that is just a theory.
Here's a better theory: the Eagles have a rookie quarterback and are a mid-level team at best. Just look at who they beat in those three weeks: the Browns (lol), the Bears (lol), and the inconsistent Steelers. Then they had playoff-worthy teams on the schedule and started losing. IOW, about what you expect from a 5-7 team: beat the joke teams, get an occasional win against better teams, but lose most of the tough games. There's no need to resort to bizarre conspiracy theories about the NFL sabotaging your team to get Romo a ring.
What happened is what I said going into Week 7 after the Eagles lost to the Redskins:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I know it's easy to look for an outside source to blame for the loss, but the reality is that the Eagles were a fake 3-0 team going into their bye.
There are no nefarious, behind-the-scenes forces at work here... the Eagles just aren't that good.
jreilly89 wrote: Why? Joe McKnight was murdered due to a road rage incident. A lot of former NFL players have bad stuff happen to them post-NFL.
"Why?" Really? Nothing wrong with a 42 year old dying...what was I thinking.
I'm saying why is it messed up? Plenty of NFL players meet rough ends, I don't see how its surprising, or at any rate worse than Joe McKnight. That was messed up.
jreilly89 wrote: Why? Joe McKnight was murdered due to a road rage incident. A lot of former NFL players have bad stuff happen to them post-NFL.
The thing here is, there is none of that apparent... We don't know if it was suicide by pill, or whether he had a heart attack while alone.
That they found him by himself with "no evidence of foul play" could suggest to me that it was a health problem that no one knew about. IMHO, someone dying at age 42 overnight with "no foul play" is messed up, no matter who it is.
jreilly89 wrote: Why? Joe McKnight was murdered due to a road rage incident. A lot of former NFL players have bad stuff happen to them post-NFL.
The thing here is, there is none of that apparent... We don't know if it was suicide by pill, or whether he had a heart attack while alone.
That they found him by himself with "no evidence of foul play" could suggest to me that it was a health problem that no one knew about. IMHO, someone dying at age 42 overnight with "no foul play" is messed up, no matter who it is.
I guess? I mean, I'd think being murdered over an accident is more messed up than a guy possibly passing away from a health problem.
What happened is what I said going into Week 7 after the Eagles lost to the Redskins:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I know it's easy to look for an outside source to blame for the loss, but the reality is that the Eagles were a fake 3-0 team going into their bye.
There are no nefarious, behind-the-scenes forces at work here... the Eagles just aren't that good.
Philly talk radio is ANGRY right now. Definitely a "FIRE EVERYONE" mood. Including the coach 12 games into his rookie season.
*You would think* that fans would be able understand why that's a bad idea. The Cleveland Browns are the perfect object lesson, after all.
I guess? I mean, I'd think being murdered over an accident is more messed up than a guy possibly passing away from a health problem.
I think we're coming at this from opposite sides... I guess what I'm trying to say is that someone dying because of their health (presumably in this case) is kind of shocking to those of us who weren't professional athletes... It's messed up in the "if it can happen to him, it can happen to me" kind of way.
I personally see incidents like the road rage thing, or the NFLers who have shot themselves as less shocking because so many of them came up in environments where violence, gangs and the like were fairly normal... It's still messed up, but I guess because I can kind of foresee it happening, there's less shock.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: There are no nefarious, behind-the-scenes forces at work here... the Eagles just aren't that good.
Interesting development.....
Three of Dallas' remaining games have been "Flexed" to Prime Time.
The "Flex Schedule" was supposed to put games of interest and/or playoff significance into the spotlight. Dallas already has a playoff spot and can secure the #1 with a win and a Seattle loss or tie.
They win the Division with a win and a NYG loss or tie.
So their remaining games have very little significance.
My guess is that they are using similar logic to why we have Thursday games: people want more. In this case, the league is saying that Dallas games tend to have the highest ratings/viewership... so obviously MORE Dak and Elliott are good things.
Because pretty boy Romo in on the side lines without a helmet, and you can see his face. His dreamy, dreamy face with his eyes so deep and cowboy blue.
My guess is that they are using similar logic to why we have Thursday games: people want more. In this case, the league is saying that Dallas games tend to have the highest ratings/viewership... so obviously MORE Dak and Elliott are good things.
Obviously it's about ratings. Not sure why this needs to be explained. I mean, a tilt between the Falcons and Bucs might technically have more "playoff implications." But to most of the country...eh.
Is this the first season of the NFL you've ever watched?
They've done flex scheduling for over 10 years and they have always favored teams that are winning and are popular because that's where the ratings (and money) lie. This is not a new phenomena and it's not the reason why the Eagles have lost. They've lost games because they aren't good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Dallas games tend to have the highest ratings/viewership...
Yep. Dallas' win against the Redskins was the highest rated regular season game in over twenty years with 35.1 million viewers. Likewise, their game against the Vikings drew 21.8 million viewers, the most for any Thursday night game since they started.
For better or worse (definitely worse!), the Cowboys draw viewers.
helgrenze, why did the Eagles lose again today? Did the Roger Goodell call down to Eagles sideline and demand Wentz stand there to allow Ryan Kerrigan to strip-sack him to end the game?
DEZOAT wrote: OMG!OMG!OMG! The freaking Detroit Lions are 8 and 4 4 more games to go. We shall see what happen. Bears ,Giants ,Cowboys and the Packer at home.
We are 9 -4 and the seahawks are about to smash our only real threat in the north, I am praying that Saint Stafford leads us to the promised land (or at least the NFC Title game) Giants, Cowboys, and Packers left! We have the talent to win out, but likely will go 1-2 but still win the north!
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: helgrenze, why did the Eagles lose again today? Did the Roger Goodell call down to Eagles sideline and demand Wentz stand there to allow Ryan Kerrigan to strip-sack him to end the game?
Given the injuries to certain key players, it's to be expected. Have to admit, taking out the Long Snapper was a brilliant play. Taking out his back up was just being mean.
DEZOAT wrote: OMG!OMG!OMG! The freaking Detroit Lions are 8 and 4 4 more games to go. We shall see what happen. Bears ,Giants ,Cowboys and the Packer at home.
We are 9 -4 and the seahawks are about to smash our only real threat in the north, I am praying that Saint Stafford leads us to the promised land (or at least the NFC Title game) Giants, Cowboys, and Packers left! We have the talent to win out, but likely will go 1-2 but still win the north!
On behalf of the Bears and their ability to completely melt down in the final two minutes when they were threatening to win...completion/holding, completion/holding, 2 right-on-the-numbers dropped would've-been first down completions deep in Lions territory, game over...you're welcome.
DEZOAT wrote: OMG!OMG!OMG! The freaking Detroit Lions are 8 and 4 4 more games to go. We shall see what happen. Bears ,Giants ,Cowboys and the Packer at home.
We are 9 -4 and the seahawks are about to smash our only real threat in the north, I am praying that Saint Stafford leads us to the promised land (or at least the NFC Title game) Giants, Cowboys, and Packers left! We have the talent to win out, but likely will go 1-2 but still win the north!
On behalf of the Bears and their ability to completely melt down in the final two minutes when they were threatening to win...completion/holding, completion/holding, 2 right-on-the-numbers dropped would've-been first down completions deep in Lions territory, game over...you're welcome.
helgrenze wrote: Given the injuries to certain key players, it's to be expected.
Everyone has hurt players. Good teams have depth and can overcome.
Have to admit, taking out the Long Snapper was a brilliant play. Taking out his back up was just being mean.
Right, because Washington's inept defense "took out" the long snapper when he injured his wrist and Celek when he got a stinger. I mean, Sproles I can understand because that was a bs play by Everett (who hopefully gets at least a decent fine for it), but come on...
Is it normal for Eagles fans (and probably media) to blame the other team when their players get hurt?
Hmm... I don't think so. This is the same guy whose "theory" is that the NFL wants Dallas to win the Super Bowl (so Jerry Jones can give Romo a ring) and since the Eagles "stood in the way" of Dallas making a run, they had to be stopped. It's also the reason one of the best and most popular teams in the league has had their high ratings-earning games flexed closer to prime time.
He also blamed the Seahawks for deliberately injuring (without evidence) two of the Eagles players when they stunk it up against them in Seattle.
helgrenze wrote: Given the injuries to certain key players, it's to be expected.
Everyone has hurt players. Good teams have depth and can overcome.
Have to admit, taking out the Long Snapper was a brilliant play. Taking out his back up was just being mean.
Right, because Washington's inept defense "took out" the long snapper when he injured his wrist and Celek when he got a stinger. I mean, Sproles I can understand because that was a bs play by Everett (who hopefully gets at least a decent fine for it), but come on...
Is it normal for Eagles fans (and probably media) to blame the other team when their players get hurt?
So. How's the bandwagon? Looks like it might be a bit uncomfortable with everyone jumping on.
Rumor out of Dallas is that Romo doesn't get a Hall invite without a ring. It also suggests that he will retire after this season due to his back issues.
1) What bandwagon is Scooty jumping on? I can't tell!
2) Romo SHOULD retire due to all of his injuries - if he wants some sort of 'life' after football, but I can totally see him going somewhere for one last shot...
3) Not sure Romo is 'Hall Worthy' even with one ring.
3) Not sure Romo is 'Hall Worthy' even with one ring.
On Romo I think this is extremely true.... Yeah, he was apparently statistically good in "big games" but everyone who isn't a Dallas fan sees him as a choke artist.
On the Everett hit of Sproles, I think they got the call on the field correct, and I agree with Pereira, who the broadcast brought in during the injury time to explain what he saw. As far as fines/suspensions go, I don't think it's necessary because while it was certainly mistimed, it was still a "football play," but at the same time, he was involved in the long-snapper injury play and the league may be thinking he's too close to the edge, and fine him to maybe make him think a bit more.
helgrenze wrote: So. How's the bandwagon? Looks like it might be a bit uncomfortable with everyone jumping on.
What bandwagon am I jumping on?
Rumor out of Dallas is that Romo doesn't get a Hall invite without a ring.
That's conventional wisdom, but it's entirely possible to be a Hall of Famer without a ring... it's just really unlikely. There are 23 quarterbacks from the "modern era" in Canton, but only six of them don't have a ring. As good as Romo had been in his career, I don't think he'll make to the Hall of Fame.
It also suggests that he will retire after this season due to his back issues.
Yeah, he definitely should or else he'll likely ruin his body for good.
Dorenbros' injury was the result of his wrist being stepped on.
Celek's injury was the result of an illegal hit. Yes, a flag was thrown.
Sproles' injury was the result of an even more illegal hit.
So, Yeah, IT was the opposing player's fault.
These were not fitness injuries like a groin pull.
DEZOAT wrote: OMG!OMG!OMG! The freaking Detroit Lions are 8 and 4 4 more games to go. We shall see what happen. Bears ,Giants ,Cowboys and the Packer at home.
We are 9 -4 and the seahawks are about to smash our only real threat in the north, I am praying that Saint Stafford leads us to the promised land (or at least the NFC Title game) Giants, Cowboys, and Packers left! We have the talent to win out, but likely will go 1-2 but still win the north!
On behalf of the Bears and their ability to completely melt down in the final two minutes when they were threatening to win...completion/holding, completion/holding, 2 right-on-the-numbers dropped would've-been first down completions deep in Lions territory, game over...you're welcome.
Thank you Chicago!
Well, we did have to balance out that victory we somehow managed back in early October against the Lions. One good thing to come of this shudderrific Bears season is that we're looking like we've got a QB going forward. Barkley looks like a keeper...now if the receivers could hold on to the ball...
Alpharius wrote: I think the extension was given before this year, but only announced recently?
So...maybe not as strange as it might first appear.
Plus, he hasn't really been head coach of a good team in while, has he?
Probably a good time for him to get a break.
Fischer isn't HC material imo.
It's his utter lack of interest on the offensive side of the ball. The man can coach a solid-to-mean defensive crew... but, he's totally lost on the offensive side of the game.
Jared Goff isn't a bad QB... he's got some skill. But, he's not one of those rare 'plug-in-play' players that you'd expect a #1 Draft pick to be. The system needed to be tailored around him, and Fischer didn't do that.
All you have to do, is look at Prescott... the 'Boys knew what they were doing there.
Sproles' injury was the result of an even more illegal hit.
I'm guessing your outrage was working overdrive when it happened.... but they did talk about it during the game, and Fox's "referee expert" Mike Pereira did explain that it wasn't *that* dirty of a play... in his, and obviously the field officials' view, it was not an ejectionable offence, merely a football play that was poorly timed.
And really... how can a hit be "more illegal" than another hit? Seriously, there are only two sides of the rules... it's either holding, or its not holding. It's roughing the passer, or it's not. same thing with hits, and the Everett hit on Sproles was penalized because it was illegal.
DEZOAT wrote: OMG!OMG!OMG! The freaking Detroit Lions are 8 and 4 4 more games to go. We shall see what happen. Bears ,Giants ,Cowboys and the Packer at home.
We are 9 -4 and the seahawks are about to smash our only real threat in the north, I am praying that Saint Stafford leads us to the promised land (or at least the NFC Title game) Giants, Cowboys, and Packers left! We have the talent to win out, but likely will go 1-2 but still win the north!
On behalf of the Bears and their ability to completely melt down in the final two minutes when they were threatening to win...completion/holding, completion/holding, 2 right-on-the-numbers dropped would've-been first down completions deep in Lions territory, game over...you're welcome.
Thank you Chicago!
Well, we did have to balance out that victory we somehow managed back in early October against the Lions. One good thing to come of this shudderrific Bears season is that we're looking like we've got a QB going forward. Barkley looks like a keeper...now if the receivers could hold on to the ball...
Well we were in tight competition for the bottom of the north there for a while
Sproles' injury was the result of an even more illegal hit.
I'm guessing your outrage was working overdrive when it happened.... but they did talk about it during the game, and Fox's "referee expert" Mike Pereira did explain that it wasn't *that* dirty of a play... in his, and obviously the field officials' view, it was not an ejectionable offence, merely a football play that was poorly timed.
Yep, it was no doubt a bad play, but I don't think any rational person can sit there and say that Everett was intentionally trying to injure Sproles. Hell, even Brandon Graham doesn't think it was a cheap shot. Like Pereira said, it was a football play. If Everett was there a second later and blew him up after he was "defenseless," it would have been a huge play. But he wasn't and they took a needless penalty, and since the Redskins aren't a garbage team (defense notwithstanding), they didn't let it get them down.
Aww, now how is he going to set the NFL record for most losses by a coach?
Don't worry, I'm sure he'll get a D-coordinator job on a team who's HC will get suspended for a game, leaving him as acting-HC, and he'll lose the game he's filling in
The NFL London games have been announced for 2017, and the Cleveland Browns are heading to London
2017 is the year Brexit negotiations begin, and it will be a tough 2 years.
The last thing we need, with our economy tanking, is the biggest bunch of losers in the NFL coming over and passing on their bad luck!!!
Damn you America! Why? Why?
Dont think of it as receiving a terrible football team, think of it as an audition... The NFL keeps talking about adding a team in London, and I think you guys could really turn the "Browns" around
I'll probably still watch them, because I usually slump out on a chair all day anyway on a Sunday, but damn it America, I want quality, not the Browns!
I'll probably still watch them, because I usually slump out on a chair all day anyway on a Sunday, but damn it America, I want quality, not the Browns!
I dont know what your ticket prices are like for the NFL games already played there... but if you want Tom Brady and "quality" American football, you're probably gonna have to pay something like, Rugby World Cup ticket prices
I'll probably still watch them, because I usually slump out on a chair all day anyway on a Sunday, but damn it America, I want quality, not the Browns!
I dont know what your ticket prices are like for the NFL games already played there... but if you want Tom Brady and "quality" American football, you're probably gonna have to pay something like, Rugby World Cup ticket prices
The ticket prices are quite reasonable, but the big problem with NFL London is London!
Alpharius wrote: I think the extension was given before this year, but only announced recently?
So...maybe not as strange as it might first appear.
Plus, he hasn't really been head coach of a good team in while, has he?
Probably a good time for him to get a break.
Fischer isn't HC material imo.
It's his utter lack of interest on the offensive side of the ball. The man can coach a solid-to-mean defensive crew... but, he's totally lost on the offensive side of the game.
Jared Goff isn't a bad QB... he's got some skill. But, he's not one of those rare 'plug-in-play' players that you'd expect a #1 Draft pick to be. The system needed to be tailored around him, and Fischer didn't do that.
All you have to do, is look at Prescott... the 'Boys knew what they were doing there.
To be fair - the cowboys have a great offensive line - they would make anyone look great. Dak has poise for sure - so I'm not gonna take that away from him but he really benefits from the team he plays on that has talent all over the dang place. #1 draft picks can be duds - more often than not they are. Just look at the Jacksonville jaguars. Gabbert and Bortles are terrible quarterbacks = both got a lot of hype in the draft.
BigWaaagh wrote: Watching the Rams last night was like watching the Bears. So many dropped passes and crushing penalties combined with glimmers of inspiration.
That's what St. Louis had to deal with for years...
LA isn't going to put up with that.
Charger would be Kronke's saving grace if they moved in with the Rams.
I too love this guy. His comments about Thursday Night Football and how the NFL views player safety during the presser after this week's game were fantastic.
Also unsurprisingly, Everett was fined $48K for laying the wood to Sproles and the hit on Celek last week ($24K for each). I agree that the fine may be justifiable on the Sproles hit, but not what happened with Celek. He's going to appeal both.
Yeah I was at the stadium for that game, I just had a feeling that it was coming. Though on the bright side that loss keeps the bears in a #4 draft slot, if only the jaqs had won then the bears would of moved up to #3
Holy gakking efff the colts at vikings game was a dumpster fire for the vikes. Never count out the Vikes ability to lose to a worse team spectacularly. Someone needs to tell the vikes you are supposed to win and losing is bad mmmkay.
Two weeks to go. Who makes it in and who is out of the playoffs.
In the AFC, The Raiders and Patriots are in, and the Steelers look really good to win their division. After their huge win in KC, I think Tennessee wins the AFC south as I think the Texans lose to them in the last game to finish one game back. I think KC wins one of the last two to take one wildcard spot, and Baltimore gets the last wildcard spot as I think Miami drops their last two games (at Buffalo and home vs. New England) while Baltimore goes 1 and 1.
For the NFC, its a little more muddled, Obviously Dallas and Seattle are good to go, with Atlanta is control of their division. I can see either Detroit or Green Bay winning, but lean Green Bay. The Giants are more or less a lock for a wildcard. The last wildcard is much harder to figure, but it seems the schedule favors the Redskins, as I think their only loss in their last 3 comes at New York. But should they lose then I think it is whoever finishes second in the NFC north.
On an interesting note, both last year's Super Bowl teams are not likely to make the playoffs.
I think Steelers-Ravens is a tough game that either side can win. Helps that the Steelers are at home, where Roethlisberger has played much, much better this season (17 TDs, 3 INTs).
Not sure I see Miami losing at Buffalo with Rex being a lame duck and the Bills having nothing to play for.
Well that didn't take long to shake up my playoff predictions after the Redskins laid an egg on Monday night.
Also, Texans did not waste anytime and confirmed that Savage would start against the Bengals. So it looks like it will be 2019 before the Texans have another shot at finding a franchise quarterback. While not Browns bad in terms of futility at the QB position, just think what this team might have been like with a QB that ranked just inside the top half of the league.
Also, Texans did not waste anytime and confirmed that Savage would start against the Bengals. So it looks like it will be 2019 before the Texans have another shot at finding a franchise quarterback. While not Browns bad in terms of futility at the QB position, just think what this team might have been like with a QB that ranked just inside the top half of the league.
Derrick (sp?) Carr, now the QB for the Raiders seems to suggest that at one point the Texans did, in fact, have a very good QB... seems like the Texans are like the Lions and Dolphins of the 90s.... They have a great player at one position, but are severely hampered by an offensive line, or another position, etc.
Also, Texans did not waste anytime and confirmed that Savage would start against the Bengals. So it looks like it will be 2019 before the Texans have another shot at finding a franchise quarterback. While not Browns bad in terms of futility at the QB position, just think what this team might have been like with a QB that ranked just inside the top half of the league.
Derrick (sp?) Carr, now the QB for the Raiders seems to suggest that at one point the Texans did, in fact, have a very good QB... seems like the Texans are like the Lions and Dolphins of the 90s.... They have a great player at one position, but are severely hampered by an offensive line, or another position, etc.
Derek Carr is a different Carr than the one that played for the Texans. That was his older brother, David Carr. Derek was drafted by the Raiders.
Jebus10000 wrote: Derek Carr is a different Carr than the one that played for the Texans. That was his older brother, David Carr. Derek was drafted by the Raiders.
Today was unpleasant for a number of players... I mean, 2 Qbs break a leg, a wide receiver does so in rather gross fashion... Yeah, not great for a number of them.
Yep, I see them getting stopped by NE, but still head and shoulders above the rest in the AFC. Speaking of the bottom, Houston is back on Osweiler, which should be good news for Oakland's defense, but the Raiders are still struggling with a QB injury of their own. So it looks like it will come down who who is less worse.
Atlanta and Dallas are looking strong for the NFC.
Obviously, I want the Seahawks to win it all this year.... but if they get knocked out, my hope is that the Giants meet that Pats in the Super Bowl, again. And again, like the previous meetings, Eli delivers a whoopin to Tom, cuz feth Brady and the Patriots.
Well the Lions are in the playoff. They play tonight with the Seahawk. We shall see what happen. I really want see Packer go down very hard. I hate them.
So... Saturday games are done, and Houston and Seattle are moving on.
My predictions for the Sunday games are Pittsburgh and New York.
Frankly, I have to pick the Giants because of the situation I'd find hilarious, which was previously mentioned, however I think they may be a bit of a long shot in this game as GB has seemed to get their act together at the right time.
Chiefs V Cowboys. Would make my day, as one side of the family favors each. Personally, I want the Chiefs to knock out the Patriots, as they do enough winning already.
Yeah, it's amazing that Houston has managed to stumble its way this far. Although Ostweiler did manage to play a lot better v. the Raiders. Just enough so that the quarterback schizophrenia will continue :-)
I would love to see the Cowboys take down NE in Houston. Just don't see it happening.
jmurph wrote: Yeah, it's amazing that Houston has managed to stumble its way this far. Although Ostweiler did manage to play a lot better v. the Raiders. Just enough so that the quarterback schizophrenia will continue :-)
I would love to see the Cowboys take down NE in Houston. Just don't see it happening.
You don't see those two teams meeting in the Super Bowl, or you don't see Dallas beating NE in the Super Bowl if they meet there?
Because both of those things can absolutely happen!
wuestenfux wrote: Great game by the Steelers with Bell and Brown.
I wonder if they can win the title.
I was at the game. It was fun if you're a Steelers fan.
Fifteen degree air temperature was cold but manageable. My beer was a slushie in minutes, but I've been to games around that temp before. However, the wind that knocked it down to a zero wind chill was a little rough.
Steelers can absolutely beat KC (not guaranteeing the win, just saying it's very doable). NE at home...will be tough. I'll certainly be rooting for the Texans to pull a monster upset.
jmurph wrote: Yeah, it's amazing that Houston has managed to stumble its way this far. Although Ostweiler did manage to play a lot better v. the Raiders. Just enough so that the quarterback schizophrenia will continue :-)
I would love to see the Cowboys take down NE in Houston. Just don't see it happening.
You don't see those two teams meeting in the Super Bowl, or you don't see Dallas beating NE in the Super Bowl if they meet there?
Because both of those things can absolutely happen!
I don't see Dallas beating NE at this point. It absolutely could happen; I just wouldn't bet on it. Plus, they still have to win the conference, which is no joke!
NE can't get cocky about Houston; but I doubt they have much to worry about. It will be the game after that where it really heats up...
Steelers can absolutely beat KC (not guaranteeing the win, just saying it's very doable). NE at home...will be tough. I'll certainly be rooting for the Texans to pull a monster upset.
I think the Steelers will win, because KC's usual advantage isn't really one for this game as Pittsburgh deals with the same sort of freeze your balls to the bleachers type cold. That, and I just don't see KC as being quite as complete a team as Pitt... but they still have playmakers.
Interesting tid bit, can't remember where I saw the article but It's been said that a Dallas/NE super bowl would probably be the highest grossing of all time considering the franchises.
naxium wrote: Interesting tid bit, can't remember where I saw the article but It's been said that a Dallas/NE super bowl would probably be the highest grossing of all time considering the franchises.
MSN I believe mentioned that too. Any way you look at it we should have a good weekend of football, except Houston...
Speaking of Super, and I mean SUPER Bowls, today is the anniversary of Super Bowl III when 'Broadway' Joe Namath and the NY Jets upset the nigh invincible and heavily favored Baltimore Colts back in 1969.
When I was 15 I got sick of playing rugby (I'm an Aussie) and looked for another sport to get into, found out that there was a local American football team so I gave the coach a call and headed down to practice. It was a short live career. I played two seasons and only scored one touch down, tearing my hamstring in the process.
I had a blast every game and eventually decided I had to pick a team to follow in the NFL. I a followed a couple of teams for a little while (Giants and Bears) before landing on the only team no one at my local football club followed.. The ultimate underdog team The Cleveland Browns. Ten years on they are still my team! though come playoff time I throw my weight behind a team each year.
This year I'd really like the Falcons to take it all!
whembly wrote: Anyone has a synopsis of the Redskin's offence? Is he an up and comer? I hadn't paid attention to the 'skins this year...
Third in total yards, second in pass yardage, twelfth in points, twenty-first in rushing yards. They had an awesome passing game but had trouble scoring touchdowns in the red zone. The running game was nothing to write home about but they occasionally had good games, just ask Helgrenze what they did to the Eagles on the ground.
And yeah, he's an up and comer... the dude is only 30 years old.
whembly wrote: Anyone has a synopsis of the Redskin's offence? Is he an up and comer? I hadn't paid attention to the 'skins this year...
Third in total yards, second in pass yardage, twelfth in points, twenty-first in rushing yards. They had an awesome passing game but had trouble scoring touchdowns in the red zone. The running game was nothing to write home about but they occasionally had good games, just ask Helgrenze what they did to the Eagles on the ground.
And yeah, he's an up and comer... the dude is only 30 years old.
Cool beans.
Rams are in need of serious leadership... they have skillz, but man the game planning sucked ass.
Man I hope KC can take down Pittsburgh on Sunday. I'm not confident though, as the Steelers really destroyed them in week 4, and the Chiefs' record of playoff games after a bye week is 0-3 (since the current playoff system was started). I still have to say, GO CHIEFS!!!
Thing is, Spanos tried for years and years to work out something with the city for a new stadium, and they shot him down everytime. Don't get me wrong...I don't feel bad for some multi-millionaire. But if the guy wants to be competitive financially and on the field (and the two are related even with the salary cap), he needs a newer stadium than the dinosaur they have in SD. Clearly he would have preferred to stay there, but they did force his hand.
So Spanos doesn't get his own stadium or his preferred location, SD loses its team, the NFL loses a market, and LA gains a second team that it almost certainly doesn't need. It's not a win for anyone other than maybe the Rams for getting a co-tenant, which does show you how fethed up NFL economics have become.
gorgon wrote: Thing is, Spanos tried for years and years to work out something with the city for a new stadium, and they shot him down everytime. Don't get me wrong...I don't feel bad for some multi-millionaire. But if the guy wants to be competitive financially and on the field (and the two are related even with the salary cap), he needs a newer stadium than the dinosaur they have in SD. Clearly he would have preferred to stay there, but they did force his hand.
So Spanos doesn't get his own stadium or his preferred location, SD loses its team, the NFL loses a market, and LA gains a second team that it almost certainly doesn't need. It's not a win for anyone other than maybe the Rams for getting a co-tenant, which does show you how fethed up NFL economics have become.
The Spanos family has a net worth of $2.4 billion. They didn't need the people of San Diego to pay for stadium renovations they could have covered that easily on their own. The NFL also has a G4 program for stadium renovations that will contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in funds for renovation projects that rely on private funds. The Chargers are leaving because the Spanos family didn't want a renovated stadium badly enough to pay for it themselves.
Spoiler:
Be it Resolved:
1.That for any stadium construction project (new stadium or stadium renovation the costs of which will exceed $50 million) involving a private investment for which an affected club or its affiliated stadium entity (“Developing Club”) makes a binding commitment, either NFL Ventures, an affiliate of NFL Ventures or another entity designated by the Finance Committee (the “League-Level Lender”) shall provide funding (“League-Level Funding”) of up to $200 million in the aggregate to the Developing Club to support such project based on the amount that the Developing Club has committed or that will be applied to such project (either through the issuance of equity or the application of PSL proceeds or, except as otherwise provided below in respect of the Second Tranche, through debt incurred by the applicable entity) as a private contribution (the “Private Contribution”) as follows: •For up to $200 million of project costs for a new stadium and up to $250 million of project costs for a stadium renovation, the League-Level Lender will advance a loan equal to the lesser of the amount of the Private Contribution to such costs and $100 million (i.e., stadium renovations shall be subject to a $50 million deductible to be funded by a Private Contribution) (the “First Tranche”), with such loan to be repaid through waived club seat premium VTS and “Incremental Gate VTS” (defined below) during the first 15 seasons of operations in the new stadium and to otherwise include such terms, including with respect to maturity, interest, repayment and subordination, as the League-Level Lender may determine, provided that the controlling owner of the club will be required to guarantee and pay on a current basis any shortfalls in scheduled repayments due to club seat premium VTS and Incremental Gate VTS falling below the amounts necessary for such repayments;
•If there has been a Private Contribution of $100 million ($150 million in the case of a stadium renovation) towards the costs referenced in subsection (a) above, then for project costs between $200 million and $350 million for a new stadium, and for project costs between $250 million and $400 million for a stadium renovation, the League-Level Lender shall provide, in a manner determined by the Finance Committee on a case-by-case basis, an amount equal to 50% of the Private Contribution towards such costs (i.e., the League-Level Lender will provide up to $50 million of such costs) (the “Second Tranche”), provided that for purposes of such funding, only Private Contributions in the form of proceeds from the issuance of equity or the sale of PSLs shall be counted; and
•If there has been a Private Contribution of $200 million ($250 million in the case of a stadium renovation) towards the costs referenced in subsections (a) and (b) above, then the League-Level Lender will advance a loan to the Developing Club of up to $50 million to cover the project costs between $350 million and $400 million for a new stadium, and for the project costs between $400 million and $450 million for a stadium renovation (the “Third Tranche”), with such loan to be made on such terms, including with respect to maturity, interest rate, repayment and subordination, as the League-Level Lender may determine, provided that any such loan shall be guaranteed by the controlling owner of the club.For purposes of this resolution, Incremental Gate VTS means the amount by which gate VTS in the new or renovated stadium exceeds the greater of (i) the average of the final three years of gate VTS in the old or pre-renovated stadium and (ii) the gate VTS in the final year of operations in the old or pre-renovated stadium, in each case with the gate VTS in the old or pre-renovated stadium being increased on a cumulative annual basis at a percentage for any year equal to the League-wide year-over-year percentage increase in gate VTS for the then current season compared to the prior year, excluding for purposes of such percentage calculation gate VTS from new or substantially renovated stadiums that are not operational for the full two seasons. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the final year in the old or pre-renovated stadium is 2010, then for 2011 only, the increase in the actual gate VTS shall be deemed to be 2%.
2.That any stadium renovations less than $50 million and more than $10 million shall be eligible for a club seat premium waiver, debt ceiling waiver and/or PSL waiver (in each case subject to separate approval from the membership).
3.That League-Level Funding to a project will, unless the Finance Committee otherwise determines on a case-by-case basis, be made in conjunction with other funding sources on a pro rata basis (e.g., unless the Finance Committee otherwise determines, if the project is estimated to cost $1 billion and the League-Level Funding will total $200 million, then for every $4 of funding from other sources put into the project, $1 of League-Level Funding will be put into the project).
An interesting take on that from the latest Sports Guy's Mailbag:
Q: My Chargers could’ve spent $750 million of their own money to build a new football stadium in San Diego. The NFL and the city would have chipped in the rest of the cash. Instead, they’re paying $650 million to leave behind 56 years of history and fans that love them so they can move to a bigger city that doesn’t want them, where they will play in a 27,000-seat soccer stadium for two years, then become the tenants of the L.A. Rams. Sorry, Sports Guy, I don’t have a question.
— Manny D
BS: You know how you could have ended that email? With a hearty round of applause for everyone in San Diego who refused to get extorted by the Spanos family, played a game of stadium chicken with him, sped toward him at 100 mph and eventually sent him scrambling into the guardrail so he could become the Poor Man’s Clippers to the Rams’ Clippers. (There’s no Lakers in this scenario.) Sure, it hurts to lose the football franchise that they’ve had since 1961, and it’s probably a little perplexing to be a one-sport city when it’s one of the most beautiful cities in America. But at least they kept their collective dignity, right?
We broke down the Chargers’ flimsy extortion plan in our HBO piece about the hilariously misguided Convadium (back in October, before it got voted down), but it’s worth mentioning again: Cities get screwed over by these “state of the art” stadiums, again and again, after teams hold a loaded revolver to their heads and offer dreadful deals that they have to either (a) begrudgingly accept, or (b) regretfully turn down (and lose their team in the process). When it’s a new baseball stadium (81 home games plus playoffs) or a new NBA arena (41 home games plus playoffs), the math might make sense. But when it’s an 80,000-seat football stadium used for eight football games, two preseason games and a couple of concerts, how in God’s name does that make sense? What are you doing for the other 350 days? Aren’t there dozens of better ways for a city to spend hundreds of millions? Especially this decade?
Dean Spanos opted against funding his own San Diego stadium because it would have been a suicidal business move. By contrast, Stan Kroenke wanted to build his own Los Angeles football stadium because it was a fantastic business move. For maybe $3 billion total, he owns the signature team in America’s second-biggest market, the obvious Super Bowl stadium every four years or so, the obvious venue for America’s next World Cup final, the obvious stadium for the 2024 Olympics (if L.A. gets it), the obvious home for every major L.A. concert, the new site of the NFL Network’s headquarters, a new home for the NFL combine, a new destination for every major soccer friendly and a fun partner right next door with the Forum.
You know why Kroenke didn’t try to get Los Angeles to pay for any of it? He wanted it all for himself! These guys always think with their wallets — always. It’s the same reason Spanos wanted help from San Diego; he knew it was a bad deal. But this happened on Roger Goodell’s watch and Paul Tagliabue’s watch — once they rigged the CBA so owners could keep more and more of their own stadium revenue as long as they kept figuring out increasingly creative ways to generate it, then potentially three relocations in 14 months became inevitable. The NFL doesn’t care about us. It never did. We’re an ATM to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT:
Having lived in the San Diego area for 6 years, I can tell you, most people there aren't going to miss the team.
Hell, they might not even realize they're gone for a few years!
Alpharius wrote: An interesting take on that from the latest Sports Guy's Mailbag:
Q: My Chargers could’ve spent $750 million of their own money to build a new football stadium in San Diego. The NFL and the city would have chipped in the rest of the cash. Instead, they’re paying $650 million to leave behind 56 years of history and fans that love them so they can move to a bigger city that doesn’t want them, where they will play in a 27,000-seat soccer stadium for two years, then become the tenants of the L.A. Rams. Sorry, Sports Guy, I don’t have a question.
— Manny D
BS: You know how you could have ended that email? With a hearty round of applause for everyone in San Diego who refused to get extorted by the Spanos family, played a game of stadium chicken with him, sped toward him at 100 mph and eventually sent him scrambling into the guardrail so he could become the Poor Man’s Clippers to the Rams’ Clippers. (There’s no Lakers in this scenario.) Sure, it hurts to lose the football franchise that they’ve had since 1961, and it’s probably a little perplexing to be a one-sport city when it’s one of the most beautiful cities in America. But at least they kept their collective dignity, right?
We broke down the Chargers’ flimsy extortion plan in our HBO piece about the hilariously misguided Convadium (back in October, before it got voted down), but it’s worth mentioning again: Cities get screwed over by these “state of the art” stadiums, again and again, after teams hold a loaded revolver to their heads and offer dreadful deals that they have to either (a) begrudgingly accept, or (b) regretfully turn down (and lose their team in the process). When it’s a new baseball stadium (81 home games plus playoffs) or a new NBA arena (41 home games plus playoffs), the math might make sense. But when it’s an 80,000-seat football stadium used for eight football games, two preseason games and a couple of concerts, how in God’s name does that make sense? What are you doing for the other 350 days? Aren’t there dozens of better ways for a city to spend hundreds of millions? Especially this decade?
Dean Spanos opted against funding his own San Diego stadium because it would have been a suicidal business move. By contrast, Stan Kroenke wanted to build his own Los Angeles football stadium because it was a fantastic business move. For maybe $3 billion total, he owns the signature team in America’s second-biggest market, the obvious Super Bowl stadium every four years or so, the obvious venue for America’s next World Cup final, the obvious stadium for the 2024 Olympics (if L.A. gets it), the obvious home for every major L.A. concert, the new site of the NFL Network’s headquarters, a new home for the NFL combine, a new destination for every major soccer friendly and a fun partner right next door with the Forum.
You know why Kroenke didn’t try to get Los Angeles to pay for any of it? He wanted it all for himself! These guys always think with their wallets — always. It’s the same reason Spanos wanted help from San Diego; he knew it was a bad deal. But this happened on Roger Goodell’s watch and Paul Tagliabue’s watch — once they rigged the CBA so owners could keep more and more of their own stadium revenue as long as they kept figuring out increasingly creative ways to generate it, then potentially three relocations in 14 months became inevitable. The NFL doesn’t care about us. It never did. We’re an ATM to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT:
Having lived in the San Diego area for 6 years, I can tell you, most people there aren't going to miss the team.
Hell, they might not even realize they're gone for a few years!
That's good because the LA fan base can easily accommodate being apathetic about both the Rams and the Chargers so it will take a few years for them to accept the Chargers as "their" team.
gorgon wrote: Thing is, Spanos tried for years and years to work out something with the city for a new stadium, and they shot him down everytime. Don't get me wrong...I don't feel bad for some multi-millionaire. But if the guy wants to be competitive financially and on the field (and the two are related even with the salary cap), he needs a newer stadium than the dinosaur they have in SD. Clearly he would have preferred to stay there, but they did force his hand.
So Spanos doesn't get his own stadium or his preferred location, SD loses its team, the NFL loses a market, and LA gains a second team that it almost certainly doesn't need. It's not a win for anyone other than maybe the Rams for getting a co-tenant, which does show you how fethed up NFL economics have become.
The Spanos family has a net worth of $2.4 billion. They didn't need the people of San Diego to pay for stadium renovations they could have covered that easily on their own. The NFL also has a G4 program for stadium renovations that will contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in funds for renovation projects that rely on private funds. The Chargers are leaving because the Spanos family didn't want a renovated stadium badly enough to pay for it themselves.
But how many other billionaire owners "paid for their own" stadium? I believe MetLife is the only one.
It's not about how things should be, but how they actually are in the marketplace. Ponying up substantial amounts of public money is what cities have to do to keep an NFL team. Spanos was being asked to take a much worse deal than his fellow owners. And a 'renovated' stadium wasn't going to get a deal done. It's a old building that simply isn't built to fatten an owner's wallet like the new breed.
Look, I'm definitely a critic of the palaces that are being built with public money -- especially this new wave of billion(!) dollar stadiums. But NFL teams are still businesses, and it wasn't like Spanos ducked out in the middle of the night like the Colts. He tried for years to get a deal done, and the city basically told him they didn't care if he left. So he did. SD may have done the right thing, and may have its pride, but now it has no NFL team and probably won't get another for a very long time without a brand-new public palace. Congrats?
gorgon wrote: Thing is, Spanos tried for years and years to work out something with the city for a new stadium, and they shot him down everytime. Don't get me wrong...I don't feel bad for some multi-millionaire. But if the guy wants to be competitive financially and on the field (and the two are related even with the salary cap), he needs a newer stadium than the dinosaur they have in SD. Clearly he would have preferred to stay there, but they did force his hand.
So Spanos doesn't get his own stadium or his preferred location, SD loses its team, the NFL loses a market, and LA gains a second team that it almost certainly doesn't need. It's not a win for anyone other than maybe the Rams for getting a co-tenant, which does show you how fethed up NFL economics have become.
The Spanos family has a net worth of $2.4 billion. They didn't need the people of San Diego to pay for stadium renovations they could have covered that easily on their own. The NFL also has a G4 program for stadium renovations that will contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in funds for renovation projects that rely on private funds. The Chargers are leaving because the Spanos family didn't want a renovated stadium badly enough to pay for it themselves.
But how many other billionaire owners "paid for their own" stadium? I believe MetLife is the only one.
It's not about how things should be, but how they actually are in the marketplace. Ponying up substantial amounts of public money is what cities have to do to keep an NFL team. Spanos was being asked to take a much worse deal than his fellow owners. And a 'renovated' stadium wasn't going to get a deal done. It's a old building that simply isn't built to fatten an owner's wallet like the new breed.
Look, I'm definitely a critic of the palaces that are being built with public money -- especially this new wave of billion(!) dollar stadiums. But NFL teams are still businesses, and it wasn't like Spanos ducked out in the middle of the night like the Colts. He tried for years to get a deal done, and the city basically told him they didn't care if he left. So he did. SD may have done the right thing, and may have its pride, but now it has no NFL team and probably won't get another for a very long time without a brand-new public palace. Congrats?
Kroenke is building the new LA stadium for the Rams with private funding, the Giants and Jets built the new MetLife stadium with private funding, the 49ers are building their new stadium with only 12% public funding. The Chargers are now going to end up playing in the stadium that Stan Kroenke is building without taking any public money. Only 2 of the last 7 NFL stadiums that were built will have had a majority of the funding be from the public. The reason Spanos didn't build a new stadium for the Chargers with private funding was because he knew it was a bad business decision and the city of San Diego didn't value the Chargers enough to pay for that bad business decision for Spanos' benefit. If the people of San Diego really wanted to keep the Chargers they could have made a deal but it wasn't going to be a good deal because there was no good deal to be had.
The economics are also different in NY and LA. And while Jeruh paid for the majority of Cowboys stadium, he also got a hefty $444 mil in public money.
I believe the Vikings are getting almost $500 million in public money for theirs. That would have been enough or nearly enough to build any stadium in the NFL before 2008. The issue is at least as much about the cost and extravagance of the newest stadiums as it is the funding.
What is it with the NFL playing musical chairs with which cities the teams set up camp in?
The owners are typically rich d-bags who don't want to spend a dime, but want all the money.... So they hold the tax payers hostage. When hostage negotiations don't go well, they find someone else who *wants* to be a hostage.
Also... unlike soccer and rugby in Europe, the NFL started as a professional, money-making venture. There aren't near the same levels of community ties in an NFL team (with a few exceptions) as there are with European counterparts.
The Seahawks played too erratically this year to make it to the Superbowl. They really need to do some soul searching and rebuild. Tripping over your own people is not a trait of a Superbowl team.
The Seahawks played too erratically this year to make it to the Superbowl. They really need to do some soul searching and rebuild. Tripping over your own people is not a trait of a Superbowl team.
I don't think there's too much of a rebuild needed. They need to upgrade the offensive line significantly, but other than that it's mostly not having key players injured. Of course you're going to get stuff like tripping the QB when you have to put in a backup lineman in on a team where the offensive line is already the weakest point. The core of the team is already there and under contract, adding necessary depth to survive injuries is far from a major rebuild.
Man, the Cowboys put up one hell of a fight. They really should have won that game. However, I also think they should have played as well in the first as they did in the second half.
jreilly89 wrote: Man, the Cowboys put up one hell of a fight. They really should have won that game.
No they shouldn't have. There are times when that expression could be accurate, but most of the time, like last night, it isn't. The game was theirs to win but they couldn't do it. They took dumb penalties; the unsportsmanlike conduct for having too many people in the huddle was straight up dumb. Letting Rodgers catch them with too many men on the field on defense is equally as dumb... I mean, have they never played Green Bay or watched film? That's Aaron Rodgers trick and he does it all the time. The Cowboys also got away with a number of would-be penalties, including some defensive holding and pass interference calls. (To be fair, the Packers got away with one too in the second quarter when Witten was interfered with in the end zone.)
Green Bay made huge plays when they needed them (that pass to Cook was phenomenal) and they made three 50+ yard field goals in the fourth quarter, including the two need to win the game after the Cowboys tried to ice Crosby.
jreilly89 wrote: Man, the Cowboys put up one hell of a fight. They really should have won that game.
No they shouldn't have. There are times when that expression could be accurate, but most of the time, like last night, it isn't. The game was theirs to win but they couldn't do it. They took dumb penalties; the unsportsmanlike conduct for having too many people in the huddle was straight up dumb. Letting Rodgers catch them with too many men on the field on defense is equally as dumb... I mean, have they never played Green Bay or watched film? That's Aaron Rodgers trick and he does it all the time. The Cowboys also got away with a number of would-be penalties, including some defensive holding and pass interference calls. (To be fair, the Packers got away with one too in the second quarter when Witten was interfered with in the end zone.)
Green Bay made huge plays when they needed them (that pass to Cook was phenomenal) and they made three 50+ yard field goals in the fourth quarter, including the two need to win the game after the Cowboys tried to ice Crosby.
Cookie is finally being that player that Rammies wanted in a TE. Just goes to show that gameplanning and a decent QB goes a long way.
Well, I don't guess I care who wins now that the Chiefs are out. I really should have expected it given their playoff record, but I'm still pissed. They could have won it, but they choked.
ZergSmasher wrote: Well, I don't guess I care who wins now that the Chiefs are out. I really should have expected it given their playoff record, but I'm still pissed. They could have won it, but they choked.
I'm pretty mad now that the Cowboys are out.
I don't care who wins, as long as it's not the patriots.
ZergSmasher wrote: Well, I don't guess I care who wins now that the Chiefs are out. I really should have expected it given their playoff record, but I'm still pissed. They could have won it, but they choked.
I'm pretty mad now that the Cowboys are out.
I don't care who wins, as long as it's not the patriots.
ZergSmasher wrote: Well, I don't guess I care who wins now that the Chiefs are out. I really should have expected it given their playoff record, but I'm still pissed. They could have won it, but they choked.
I'm pretty mad now that the Cowboys are out.
I don't care who wins, as long as it's not the patriots.
On that, we can agree! Anybody but the Patriots.
I'd rather the pats win than the steelers honestly, Can't have those bumble bees getting a 7th ring!
Alpharius wrote: Well, here's to hoping you're sad and disappointed soon!
We should note, if the Patriots do win it all, we will see history being made.
Tommy will have the most rings of any QB ever. The Patriots will have the record for the most superbowl apperances. A win will put them past the Cowboys for most wins.
This should be hard to do, the Steelers are the appropriate team to face at this moment in time. If only the Cowboys could still be in it.
Alpharius wrote: Well, here's to hoping you're sad and disappointed soon!
We should note, if the Patriots do win it all, we will see history being made.
Tommy will have the most rings of any QB ever. The Patriots will have the record for the most superbowl apperances. A win will put them past the Cowboys for most wins.
This should be hard to do, the Steelers are the appropriate team to face at this moment in time. If only the Cowboys could still be in it.
Steelers currently have the most wins, another win will tie them with the Cowboys.
Alpharius wrote: Well, here's to hoping you're sad and disappointed soon!
We should note, if the Patriots do win it all, we will see history being made.
Tommy will have the most rings of any QB ever. The Patriots will have the record for the most superbowl apperances. A win will put them past the Cowboys for most wins.
This should be hard to do, the Steelers are the appropriate team to face at this moment in time. If only the Cowboys could still be in it.
Plus, on the other side, you have a red hot Green Bay team and their "run the table" motto. Obviously, Green Bay has a tough road game in Atlanta, which IIRC, they won in the regular season... but the way they just seem to find ways to win leads me to think they can keep it rolling.
Alpharius wrote: Well, here's to hoping you're sad and disappointed soon!
We should note, if the Patriots do win it all, we will see history being made.
Tommy will have the most rings of any QB ever. The Patriots will have the record for the most superbowl apperances. A win will put them past the Cowboys for most wins.
This should be hard to do, the Steelers are the appropriate team to face at this moment in time. If only the Cowboys could still be in it.
Steelers currently have the most wins, another win will tie them with the Cowboys.
This is correct, steelers have 6, both the cowboys and the 49ers have 5, the pats currently hold 4 I believe.
Alpharius wrote: Again, most of the people there won't care, so yes, congrats to them!
I guess...
Having just come back from San Diego a couple hours ago and lived there most of my life, this is about the reaction.
Nobody is particularly broken up, everyone seems to either just be relieved its over or actively excited the Chargers are leaving, and itll be one less thing contributing to traffic on the 15 through mission valley. People just had had enough of Spanos and if the team had go too, oh well, nothing if value would be lost.
All because the stadium didnt have enough VIP skyboxes for superbowls the team was never going to make it to...
Apparently, a Cowboys v. Patriots matchup was seen as the most profitable.
I wonder if that was due to a belief that the Cowboys presented the "best" chance to beat Belichick and Brady, or because of the fan base size/lack of SB appearances in forever.
jmurph wrote: Apparently, a Cowboys v. Patriots matchup was seen as the most profitable.
That's because it a lot easier to price gouge all those bandwagon fans.
As well as the probability that those Cowboy fans old enough to really remember the last SB they were in, are now wealthy enough to buy Ferrari's (but settle for Mustangs)... As in, they've moved up the corporate ladder, and now have sufficient funds to toss away on a game like this, so they can relive their "glory years"
Apparently, a Cowboys v. Patriots matchup was seen as the most profitable.
I wonder if that was due to a belief that the Cowboys presented the "best" chance to beat Belichick and Brady, or because of the fan base size/lack of SB appearances in forever.
I'm going with the latter - especially as it would have almost been a home game for the Cowboys.
Also, IIRC correctly, both the Cowboys and Patriots franchises consistently top the sales and profits charts for the league. So it makes sense that a matchup would be uber profitable.
The Pats and their fans should just be thankful that Goodell swept Spygate under the rug and immediately destroyed all the evidence. That was Goodell's mistake, and one which he compounded by trumping up Deflategate in order to make up for his past missteps regarding the Patriots. Good example of why you handle things right the first time.
Regarding Brady, the guy has already said he wants to play until he's 45 or something. The goal becomes to hit him enough to make him want to rethink that plan.
I sat at Heinz Field in weird 60 degree and sunny weather in January 2002 watching that debacle unfold. Those temps almost never happen in Pittsburgh that time of year, and the sun certainly doesn't come out.
Not gonna lie -- it's my worst football experience ever. Those Steelers woulda beat that team at least 8 times out of 10. But that's the single-elimination format for you. Sometimes it works for you, sometimes it works against you. *shrug*
Trade everyone but Howard.
