National Football League Thread

[dmsleight]

50 minutes ago, I Am Error said:

So The Raiders are reportedly considering acquiring Marshawn lynch http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18931085/oakland-raiders-consider-acquiring-retired-rb-marshawn-lynch

 

Say what????????

 

The Seahawk org  has a history of good relations with players, there is no way they would impede him playing for another team.  If Oak can get lynch on board, Seattle will release him, or ask for a late draft pick (or maybe they have a player on the raiders they like?).

[skidmarkgn]

2 hours ago, I Am Error said:

So The Raiders are reportedly considering acquiring Marshawn lynch http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18931085/oakland-raiders-consider-acquiring-retired-rb-marshawn-lynch

Watch them convince him to come out of retirement to play for Oakland, his home town, then BAM! Relocate to Vegas, lol.

[dmsleight]

Seattle is getting active in FA.  Lots of signings and visitations (and still in the works) and rumors.  So far, I have only read of one year deals.  I guess they expect to fill long term needs with the draft.

[Conker]

New York Jets Sign Josh McCowan to potentially be the starter http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/josh-mccown-signs-with-jets-could-be-their-starting-quarterback-in-2017/

[acasser]

Josh McCown is a place holder, and a very temporary one.  He doesn't stop the Jets from drafting a quarterback if they want to, and he won't hold up Bryce Petty and/or Christan Hackenberg for more than a few weeks.  He's simply a veteran body to "hold the fort" until McCown gets hurt or one of the kids is "ready".... and his paycheck should tell you as much.

 

McCown will do some "mentoring", and he'll gracefully step aside (or get thrown onto IR) when it's time.  Which is probably more than can be said for a lot of other veterans out there holding signs that say "will QB for food" at the moment.

[dmsleight]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/report-seattle-seahawks-to-sign-bradley-mcdougald/

 

I like this signing.  I hope they can find a good fit when Cam and Thomas are healthy.

[Conker]

So what do you all think of this proposal? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/26/nfl-to-consider-unlimited-challenges-as-long-as-theyre-successful/

[skidmarkgn]

40 minutes ago, I Am Error said:

So what do you all think of this proposal? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/26/nfl-to-consider-unlimited-challenges-as-long-as-theyre-successful/

Why not just keep it at 2 and let everything be challengable instead?

[starcrunch061]

15 hours ago, I Am Error said:

So what do you all think of this proposal? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/26/nfl-to-consider-unlimited-challenges-as-long-as-theyre-successful/

 

I like it. 

 

15 hours ago, skidmarkgn said:

Why not just keep it at 2 and let everything be challengable instead?

 

That, too, would be an improvement. But really, we need to open officials to more criticism, because they are just getting worse. Like everyone said, officials now use replay as a chance to save them on controversial calls, which has added to confusion on plays.

[PerryToxteth]

23 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

I like it. 

 

 

That, too, would be an improvement. But really, we need to open officials to more criticism, because they are just getting worse. Like everyone said, officials now use replay as a chance to save them on controversial calls, which has added to confusion on plays.

 

You have to give officials some leniency though.  They are seeing the play from one angle at real-time speed.  The viewer at home is seeing it in slow motion from multiple angles.  To expect them to replicate that kind of perfection is unrealistic. 

[starcrunch061]

2 hours ago, PerryToxteth said:

 

You have to give officials some leniency though.  They are seeing the play from one angle at real-time speed.  The viewer at home is seeing it in slow motion from multiple angles.  To expect them to replicate that kind of perfection is unrealistic. 

 

Who said perfection? Officials make mistakes. But when officials deliberately ingore calls, on the hope that challenges or replay bail them out, something has to change.

[acasser]

18 hours ago, skidmarkgn said:

Why not just keep it at 2 and let everything be challengable instead?

 

A lot of the stuff that would be challenged are judgment calls.  And that's something I would find problematic, because that gets into a grey area as opposed to things like "did the ball hit the ground before he caught it".  As soon as you make everything able to be challenged, we're going to start seeing flags to dispute Pass Interference and Holding and all that good stuff.

 

As for the idea itself?  I like it in the abstract but I think there's room for abuse.  The NHL instituted a "coach's challenge" this year where goals could (potentially) be waved off for alleged goaltender interference or if the play itself was offside when it first entered the zone -- albeit, with a limit of a Coach being allowed to use one challenge per game (total) and losing his timeout (teams only get one) if it fails.  And there are a ton of coaches who have a tendency to challenge anything that might seem the least bit borderline because "why not".  And it murders the flow of the game.

 

It just seems to me that it's a little curious to talk about increasing the number of challenges when it's juxtaposed against a time where the NFL is also talking about not killing the gameflow with massive numbers of commercials.  Like it's going to be taking with one hand and giving back with the other.

 

Maybe if the penalty for a failed challenge was a little steeper, Coaches would be less inclined to throw their red flags all the freaking time.  Like if there was a 15-yard penalty (and an automatic first down) for a failed challenge instead, teams would think twice about challenging given the cost.  You want the obvious stuff corrected and overturned, but too many coaches are prone to throwing their flags for stupid stuff the same way they're completely incompetent when it comes to time management and the use of their TOs.

[skidmarkgn]

3 minutes ago, acasser said:

 

Maybe if the penalty for a failed challenge was a little steeper, Coaches would be less inclined to throw their red flags all the freaking time.  Like if there was a 15-yard penalty (and an automatic first down) for a failed challenge instead, teams would think twice about challenging given the cost.  You want the obvious stuff corrected and overturned, but too many coaches are prone to throwing their flags for stupid stuff the same way they're completely incompetent when it comes to time management and the use of their TOs.

1 challenge per game, 15 yards if you're wrong, everything can be challenged...

 

 

 

 

[dmsleight]

If time outs and challenges were directly linked (won or not) that would limit frivolous challenges and help maintain game flow. Personally, I don't see a need to change the number of challenges, but I think it is childish logic to award a team an extra challenge for winning both.  Give everyone three or everyone 2.  What's with the games?

 

Childish logic? you know what I'm talking about.  Kids love stipulations.  Your only out if you used your left hand, but if you were standing on the side walk then its your right but if you were...

[dmsleight]

I don't like the new field goal rule.  It makes the game less exciting and the odds for a blocked fg plummet.  I think the old rule was sufficient.

 

I have no issue with the other rule change, so long as they don't make it a point of emphasis.  Odel should have been ejected and anything similar should too.  As long as this is enforced on plays where intention seems clear, and not frivolously I have no issue, and I think it should have always been policy.

[Conker]

1 hour ago, dmsleight said:

I don't like the new field goal rule.  It makes the game less exciting and the odds for a blocked fg plummet.  I think the old rule was sufficient.

 

I have no issue with the other rule change, so long as they don't make it a point of emphasis.  Odel should have been ejected and anything similar should too.  As long as this is enforced on plays where intention seems clear, and not frivolously I have no issue, and I think it should have always been policy.

Yeah I hate the new rule change for field goals, the interesting thing is that The Philadelphia Eagles actually proposed the rule and not the NFL .

 

Other rule is fine

 

Also, anyone think the Raiders play somewhere else then Oakland whilst there getting Vegas ready, since crowds might not come anymore and what do people think of there move to Vegas? 

[acasser]

3 hours ago, I Am Error said:

Also, anyone think the Raiders play somewhere else then Oakland whilst there getting Vegas ready, since crowds might not come anymore and what do people think of there move to Vegas? 

 

No.  They've sold tickets for next year, so that possibility is already gone.  They also have a lease for the next two seasons, and I suspect it's cheaper and easier to simply play it out and take their lumps from unhappy fans than it is to break it and find somewhere else to play.  Finally, the NFL probably wouldn't want the optics and commentary that would come from such a move.

[dmsleight]

8 hours ago, I Am Error said:

Yeah I hate the new rule change for field goals, the interesting thing is that The Philadelphia Eagles actually proposed the rule and not the NFL .

 

Other rule is fine

 

Also, anyone think the Raiders play somewhere else then Oakland whilst there getting Vegas ready, since crowds might not come anymore and what do people think of there move to Vegas? 

 

4 hours ago, acasser said:

 

No.  They've sold tickets for next year, so that possibility is already gone.  They also have a lease for the next two seasons, and I suspect it's cheaper and easier to simply play it out and take their lumps from unhappy fans than it is to break it and find somewhere else to play.  Finally, the NFL probably wouldn't want the optics and commentary that would come from such a move.

 

I saw a headline about Raiders possibly playing in Houston temporarily.  I wasn't interested enough to read and learn details.  With the move settled, I don't see why fans would want to support them.  The whole thing reeks.  They have 2 years yet they are voting now?  Oakland put together a plan for them to stay and they ignored them.  The NFL "wanting teams to stay" is far worse than empty words, its outright lies. 

 

the last sports memorabilia that I bought was a hat year ago and I can't imagine I will buy anything again.  I am rarely in the states or in a country where I can easily watch games.  So they don't get money from me (and I've never lived in a community that was pillaged by a sports team).

(not that I would have a choice about it if I did)

[PsychicVibe]

The reality is that the NFL has become a high-rollers league. As far as attendance revenue goes, it's all about those luxury suites.

And Vegas is a high-roller town.

Raider fans in Oakland can still be fans and watch them on TV just as easily as before.

And of course, you can always pay to watch them online.

I expect that the Raider Nation will grow and flourish as a result of this move.

[acasser]

3 hours ago, dmsleight said:

 

I saw a headline about Raiders possibly playing in Houston temporarily.  I wasn't interested enough to read and learn details.  With the move settled, I don't see why fans would want to support them.  The whole thing reeks.  They have 2 years yet they are voting now?  Oakland put together a plan for them to stay and they ignored them.  The NFL "wanting teams to stay" is far worse than empty words, its outright lies.

 

There's a lease agreement with Oakland (Alameda County, iirc) that has to be dealt with before the Raiders can be shipped off to another city on a temporary basis.  It's not an insurmountable obstacle, but it's probably not such a cavalier thing to overturn.  The Raiders already have to cough up a pretty fair-sized chunk of change for the privilege of relocating -- I've seen speculation that the number is in the vicinity of a half billion dollars -- and they may not want to cough up more money to break a lease plus refunds for the tickets already paid for.

 

The city isn't going to support them, neither are the fans.... and they probably shouldn't.  I don't know how viable the new stadium plan for Oakland was, but my instinct would be to peg it as "not very" given the issues they've had in recent years with the Warriors (who have broken ground on a new arena in San Francisco and are moving for 2019-2020) and the ongoing issues with the Athletics (who keep exploring stadium options outside the city) and given Oakland's malaise in general.

 

But back to the matter at hand.... playing two years as a lame duck in Oakland is probably the "easiest" solution all around.  Or at least playing next season in Oakland and figuring out 2018 after that, because much of the logistics involved in planning the season ahead is already done and not very easy to do on short notice -- witness the fiasco that was the New Orleans Saints and their season following Hurricane Katrina.

[dmsleight]

On 3/29/2017 at 11:48 PM, acasser said:

 

There's a lease agreement with Oakland (Alameda County, iirc) that has to be dealt with before the Raiders can be shipped off to another city on a temporary basis.  It's not an insurmountable obstacle, but it's probably not such a cavalier thing to overturn.  The Raiders already have to cough up a pretty fair-sized chunk of change for the privilege of relocating -- I've seen speculation that the number is in the vicinity of a half billion dollars -- and they may not want to cough up more money to break a lease plus refunds for the tickets already paid for.

 

I was reading that for the next 2 years the team has a option out clause for the stadium, and the stadium has an option out clause after 2 years.  So, at the end of the season,  the Raiders can pack up if they want (and now likely will).  Apparently, Oakland Coliseum looses $1mil every year the Raiders are there (don't ask me how that is).

[Conker]

The reasons for not signing kaepernick are getting ridiculous http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-teams-reportedly-consider-colin-kaepernicks-vegan-diet-a-red-flag/

[Lithium_Lemon]

20 minutes ago, I Am Error said:

The reasons for not signing kaepernick are getting ridiculous http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-teams-reportedly-consider-colin-kaepernicks-vegan-diet-a-red-flag/

Was the fact that he isn't very good been brought up yet? This sounds like just another headline grabbing article hoping to create controversy on why he has not been signed yet. Trust me, if teams actually thought this guy had a shot at being a good NFL quarterback they would be lining up to sign him. The guy had his chance with what I believe was one of the most dominant NFL teams of the modern day era. I would put that defense up in ranks with the early 2000's Ravens defense with Willis, Aldon Smith, Justin Smith, Bowman, Brooks, Whitner, Goldson, and Rodgers. I recall that defense going like 17+ straight games without a 100+ yard rusher or something absolutely ridiculous like that. I'm pretty sure they also went 10+ straight games without giving up a rushing touchdown to a running back. Not only that but they also had a fantastic offensive line with a great tight in in Vernon Davis and a HOF running back in Frank Gore. With a competent quarterback, the 49ers could easily have won 2 or even 3 Superbowls in a row during that period that's how amazing that team was. The fact that they couldn't win any is an indicator of his mediocrity. Mabey if we wasn't looking for $10+ Million a year to be the biggest distraction on the team as a backup quarterback he would have been signed already. 

[acasser]

9 hours ago, I Am Error said:

The reasons for not signing kaepernick are getting ridiculous http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-teams-reportedly-consider-colin-kaepernicks-vegan-diet-a-red-flag/

 

Has Kaepernick's inflated expectations been brought up yet?  How he's quite possibly looking for more money than teams are willing to give him and a starter's job (or a chance to compete for a starter's job) to boot?

 

I believe it's quite possible that there are teams out there that refuse to consider Colin Kaepernick for non-football reasons.  But I also believe it's very possible that there are teams who would be willing to bring him in, but only at a price tag and in a role of their choosing.  I mean, I'd like to have an NFL job as well, but that doesn't oblige other teams to hire me.

[skidmarkgn]

10 hours ago, I Am Error said:

The reasons for not signing kaepernick are getting ridiculous http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-teams-reportedly-consider-colin-kaepernicks-vegan-diet-a-red-flag/

Jay Cutler doesn't have a job right now either, funny how that never makes any headlines.  Maybe teams don't want him because he's a 1 trick pony (stare down his 1st read and run if he's not open) and after a season and a half defensive coordinators figured him out.  Or maybe it's because he has a terrible locker room reputation.  Or maybe it's because he wants a 10 million dollar contract to do this: