Log in:  

Register

National Football League

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Alpe d'Huez, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky, King Boonen

08 Aug 2017 14:18

Who will improve and who will decline ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AojqVsM61sU

I think the Jets decline is a no brainer and I think the Falcons could. I'm in two minds about Seattle. The improvers ? I will pick the Bucs and maybe the Eagles. Browns and 49ers to show some improvement. Getting off the bottom but not threatening the playoffs.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,590
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re:

08 Aug 2017 16:55

movingtarget wrote:Who will improve and who will decline ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AojqVsM61sU

I think the Jets decline is a no brainer and I think the Falcons could. I'm in two minds about Seattle. The improvers ? I will pick the Bucs and maybe the Eagles. Browns and 49ers to show some improvement. Getting off the bottom but not threatening the playoffs.

Well, ESPN put together the list of teams they expect to decline and improve, so right off the bat I'm very skeptical how accurate those lists will be (OFC only time will tell), and skeptical whether or not ESPN INTENDED to be as accurate as possible but instead are just putting something out to stir up controversy and sell news. Their list of teams expected to decline, in order: Raiders, Texans, Dolphins, Giants, Cowboys. They have to be fools to put they Raiders on that list, so I stopped watching the video after that. But I can actually see a case for the other 4 teams to be expected to decline. Giants I'm on the bubble with actually. Texans cant get too much worse than their record of 9-7 last year but who's their QB? Dolphins on that list reflects the QB situation, otherwise the Fins are not too bad. But because of the QB situation, I can SEE them on the list, but think Cutler will do better than some expect. Cowboys have lost talent on defense and offensive line, teams will have Dak figured out and will make more trouble for him this year, so Dak could hit a sophomore slump, and so I can see them on that list. But the Raiders on that list is a huge gaffe, even if they were 12-4 last season and therefore have much less to improve on. Honestly, THAT's the primary reason they are on their decliners list IMO.

A common comment among millennials these days is "nobody in our age group watches ESPN anymore. They used to have good programs that we all watched, but now they suck". I actually agree. If ESPN is aware of that impression and wants to change it, expect some controversial or profoundly odd material from them. Or they could do what they should do and start producing good material, but I do not think they have the horsepower to accomplish that.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,637
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

Re: Re:

08 Aug 2017 19:57

on3m@n@rmy wrote:Their list of teams expected to decline, in order: Raiders, Texans, Dolphins, Giants, Cowboys. They have to be fools to put they Raiders on that list, so I stopped watching the video after that.

Well, at least Herm Edwards had the right reaction. Miami and NYJ will drop, for the reasons they said. Four easy wins for the Patriots in that division (plus the other 2 easy wins against Buffalo).

I think record wise, the Raiders could drop from 12-4, but does anyone see them dropping to less than 10-6, in a division where Denver appears on the decline, and most pundits see KC slipping a little too?

I think the Cowboys are in for a little decline overall, and agree with you on Dak. But he's pretty dynamic, and they are still talented. They look like a 10-6 team. Will the Giants finish 10-6 or better? Maybe.

I think Philly is iffy, just like last season, same with Jax, though Coughlin, and a year under some of these guys belts on defense, may give some stability and wins. Cleveland looks like a 6-10 team, maybe. Still, that's five more wins than last year. Recall last year they were actually in several of the games they lost, and could have gone 5-11 then with a few bounces. SF still looks like a 3-13 team. They need at least this entire season to improve at all. It won't be quick.

A common comment among millennials these days is "nobody in our age group watches ESPN anymore. They used to have good programs that we all watched, but now they suck". I actually agree.

Yes, but it's not as much they used to produce good things, as they have become stale. That's because they are re-producing the same studio content over and over, which is easiest, and cheapest to do. Just bring in some ex-jocks in the studio, and have them gab about a topic the producer tosses at them, while adding some graphics. Very Y2K broadcasting. Compare this to the snapchat/instagram/twitter world we live in, where Facebook is for middle aged people. No wonder the millenneals think ESPN sucks.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,997
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

08 Aug 2017 21:31

Its always a safe bet to say that a 12+ win from last year could decline. Will (can) the Browns decline?
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,098
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

08 Aug 2017 21:52

Here's another way to look at that.

On paper at least, the Patriots appear to be a better team this year, than they were last. Plus last year they were missing Brady for 4 games, then Gronk got hurt. No problem, they went 14-2 anyway. USA Today was bold enough to say this was quite possibly the best Belicheck/Brady team yet, and predicted they would go 16-0.

Still, not enough to get mentioned on such a show, right?
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,997
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: Re:

08 Aug 2017 23:44

Alpe d'Huez wrote:
on3m@n@rmy wrote:Their list of teams expected to decline, in order: Raiders, Texans, Dolphins, Giants, Cowboys. They have to be fools to put they Raiders on that list, so I stopped watching the video after that.

Well, at least Herm Edwards had the right reaction. Miami and NYJ will drop, for the reasons they said. Four easy wins for the Patriots in that division (plus the other 2 easy wins against Buffalo).

I think record wise, the Raiders could drop from 12-4, but does anyone see them dropping to less than 10-6, in a division where Denver appears on the decline, and most pundits see KC slipping a little too?

I think the Cowboys are in for a little decline overall, and agree with you on Dak. But he's pretty dynamic, and they are still talented. They look like a 10-6 team. Will the Giants finish 10-6 or better? Maybe.

I think Philly is iffy, just like last season, same with Jax, though Coughlin, and a year under some of these guys belts on defense, may give some stability and wins. Cleveland looks like a 6-10 team, maybe. Still, that's five more wins than last year. Recall last year they were actually in several of the games they lost, and could have gone 5-11 then with a few bounces. SF still looks like a 3-13 team. They need at least this entire season to improve at all. It won't be quick.

A common comment among millennials these days is "nobody in our age group watches ESPN anymore. They used to have good programs that we all watched, but now they suck". I actually agree.

Yes, but it's not as much they used to produce good things, as they have become stale. That's because they are re-producing the same studio content over and over, which is easiest, and cheapest to do. Just bring in some ex-jocks in the studio, and have them gab about a topic the producer tosses at them, while adding some graphics. Very Y2K broadcasting. Compare this to the snapchat/instagram/twitter world we live in, where Facebook is for middle aged people. No wonder the millenneals think ESPN sucks.


HaHaaaaaa. Ya know, the first time I watched the video I was so ticked with the Raiders being put on the decline list that I killed it before Herm's comments. I had to re-watch it to see what he said.

Herm:
Who's doing this? A computer? Oh, so there's human error involved in this?

White dude with blond hair:
It's. Listen. It'a a prediction game.


Also agree with Herm that players who fight (fisticuffs, not the shoving variety) in practice should be tossed from the practice field. Just that happened to Seattle's DL Frank Clark, who punched LT Germain Ifedi in the face, putting Ifedi on the ground. This happened several days ago and Germain has not returned to practice since then. Ifedi has a reputation for dirtiness in practice, and so afterward I noticed Frank in a knee brace. Not sure if Ifedi went for Frank's knees or not, but that would be motive for a response like Frank's. Shouldn't do it, but things get hot at times. Still, tossing from practice is appropriate.

Regarding health, some players are commenting on the new version of the Vicis Pro helmet saying:
- last year's model was so uncomfortable in the forehead area that it could not be worn for a game
- this year's model has corrected the comfort issues and some guys will be using them in preseason (Richard Sherman is one)
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,637
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

Re:

08 Aug 2017 23:52

jmdirt wrote:Its always a safe bet to say that a 12+ win from last year could decline. Will (can) the Browns decline?

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Here's another way to look at that.

On paper at least, the Patriots appear to be a better team this year, than they were last. Plus last year they were missing Brady for 4 games, then Gronk got hurt. No problem, they went 14-2 anyway. USA Today was bold enough to say this was quite possibly the best Belicheck/Brady team yet, and predicted they would go 16-0.

Still, not enough to get mentioned on such a show, right?


PLUS, the Patriots have added WR Brandin Cooks, who is killing it in practice from what I heard. Cooks is prolly the fastest man in the NFL right now. Also hear he took less money to play for the Pats. What a novel concept. And probably with less touches as Brady spreads the ball around. Unselfish.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,637
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

Re: Re:

09 Aug 2017 08:54

Alpe d'Huez wrote:
on3m@n@rmy wrote:Their list of teams expected to decline, in order: Raiders, Texans, Dolphins, Giants, Cowboys. They have to be fools to put they Raiders on that list, so I stopped watching the video after that.

Well, at least Herm Edwards had the right reaction. Miami and NYJ will drop, for the reasons they said. Four easy wins for the Patriots in that division (plus the other 2 easy wins against Buffalo).

I think record wise, the Raiders could drop from 12-4, but does anyone see them dropping to less than 10-6, in a division where Denver appears on the decline, and most pundits see KC slipping a little too?

I think the Cowboys are in for a little decline overall, and agree with you on Dak. But he's pretty dynamic, and they are still talented. They look like a 10-6 team. Will the Giants finish 10-6 or better? Maybe.

I think Philly is iffy, just like last season, same with Jax, though Coughlin, and a year under some of these guys belts on defense, may give some stability and wins. Cleveland looks like a 6-10 team, maybe. Still, that's five more wins than last year. Recall last year they were actually in several of the games they lost, and could have gone 5-11 then with a few bounces. SF still looks like a 3-13 team. They need at least this entire season to improve at all. It won't be quick.

A common comment among millennials these days is "nobody in our age group watches ESPN anymore. They used to have good programs that we all watched, but now they suck". I actually agree.

Yes, but it's not as much they used to produce good things, as they have become stale. That's because they are re-producing the same studio content over and over, which is easiest, and cheapest to do. Just bring in some ex-jocks in the studio, and have them gab about a topic the producer tosses at them, while adding some graphics. Very Y2K broadcasting. Compare this to the snapchat/instagram/twitter world we live in, where Facebook is for middle aged people. No wonder the millenneals think ESPN sucks.


ESPN had a clean out recently. Quite a few staff gone even long timers. Must be a reduction in viewership and revenue.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,590
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re: Re:

09 Aug 2017 12:18

on3m@n@rmy wrote:Regarding health, some players are commenting on the new version of the Vicis Pro helmet saying:
- last year's model was so uncomfortable in the forehead area that it could not be worn for a game
- this year's model has corrected the comfort issues and some guys will be using them in preseason (Richard Sherman is one)

That's really good news. This is a long process, so every step is important. I've said before reducing long term brain injuries in football isn't just about changing rules on hits. It's an issue with evaluating health, and technology. I'm curious to hear what players using the Vicis have to say by the end of the season.

QB shuffle going around in camp. For example, in Cleveland Cody Kessler was the projected starter, then DeShone Kizer played very well with the first team making it appear he could be ready from week 1, but he then struggled, and in recent days Hugh Jackson said the job is Brock Osweiller's to lose. He apparently just has the veteran experience and leadership skills, and is throwing the ball well enough and adapting quick enough.

In Denver it looks like again Paxton Lynch is being outplayed by Trevor Simeon, which has to be a bit of a disappointment to Bronco brass. Lynch will start game 2 of the preseason, and more will be known then.

With the Fins overpaying Jay Cutler ($10m, not as badly as the Bears overpaid him), and Adam Gase saying they didn't pay Cutler to stand on the sidelines, does this mean Matt Moore, who has been a pretty serviceable backup his career, even played well when started, doesn't have a chance at the starting job, considering Tannehill will be out for several weeks, maybe the season?

Reports are that Tom Savage is clearly outplaying Deshaun Watson in Houston and already penciled in as the starter. I'm one of the people who believes Watson was drafted too high, and expectations are too high for him, though I don't think he'll completely bust. So far, this doesn't surprise me, but it says something, because not many people in the league hear Tom Savage name and think of him as a starter. That's the one reason I said "penciled in" above. The pressure to start and play Watson, both to fill seats, and roll the dice, may cause coaches to start him anyway if the competition for the job is at all close.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,997
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: Re:

09 Aug 2017 13:55

Alpe d'Huez wrote:
on3m@n@rmy wrote:Regarding health, some players are commenting on the new version of the Vicis Pro helmet saying:
- last year's model was so uncomfortable in the forehead area that it could not be worn for a game
- this year's model has corrected the comfort issues and some guys will be using them in preseason (Richard Sherman is one)

That's really good news. This is a long process, so every step is important. I've said before reducing long term brain injuries in football isn't just about changing rules on hits. It's an issue with evaluating health, and technology. I'm curious to hear what players using the Vicis have to say by the end of the season.

QB shuffle going around in camp. For example, in Cleveland Cody Kessler was the projected starter, then DeShone Kizer played very well with the first team making it appear he could be ready from week 1, but he then struggled, and in recent days Hugh Jackson said the job is Brock Osweiller's to lose. He apparently just has the veteran experience and leadership skills, and is throwing the ball well enough and adapting quick enough.

In Denver it looks like again Paxton Lynch is being outplayed by Trevor Simeon, which has to be a bit of a disappointment to Bronco brass. Lynch will start game 2 of the preseason, and more will be known then.

With the Fins overpaying Jay Cutler ($10m, not as badly as the Bears overpaid him), and Adam Gase saying they didn't pay Cutler to stand on the sidelines, does this mean Matt Moore, who has been a pretty serviceable backup his career, even played well when started, doesn't have a chance at the starting job, considering Tannehill will be out for several weeks, maybe the season?

Reports are that Tom Savage is clearly outplaying Deshaun Watson in Houston and already penciled in as the starter. I'm one of the people who believes Watson was drafted too high, and expectations are too high for him, though I don't think he'll completely bust. So far, this doesn't surprise me, but it says something, because not many people in the league hear Tom Savage name and think of him as a starter. That's the one reason I said "penciled in" above. The pressure to start and play Watson, both to fill seats, and roll the dice, may cause coaches to start him anyway if the competition for the job is at all close.


Going to be interesting with the draft QBs. Everyone seemed to have a different opinion about who was the best and most pundits didn't think it was a good year for QBs. Also going to be an interesting year for Goff especially if he doesn't show much improvement. The Browns obviously won't cut Osweiler now. I thought Prescott and Carson Wentz were the best of last season's rookie QBs.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,590
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re: Re:

09 Aug 2017 19:08

movingtarget wrote:ESPN had a clean out recently. Quite a few staff gone even long timers. Must be a reduction in viewership and revenue.

The initial round was announced around April 26. 100 or so employees affected. In March, ESPN made this statement regarding the layoffs, but revenue had to be the primary reason, which they would not likely admit:
We have long been about serving fans and innovating to create the best content for them. Today’s fans consume content in many different ways and we are in a continuous process of adapting to change and improving what we do. Inevitably, that has consequences for how we utilize our talent.
Translation = we suck. Upthread Alpe i believe mentioned lack of adaptability.
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/espn-layoffs-fired-list-1202399712/

The above link includes a full list of names laid off. Here is the list of the employees who covered the NFL:
- NFL analyst Trent Dilfer
- NFL analyst Ashley Fox
- NFL reporter Ed Werder

However, that is not the complete list. Here are a few other names who were either laid off or left on their own accord:
- NFL analyst John Clayton. John still works his Seattle-based show mostly covering sporting news in the Seattle area (Seahawks, Mariners, & other miscellaneous stuff).
- NFL analyst Mark Schlereth. He was the most recent employee let go, who has since been picked up by FOX.
- General analyst Doug Gotlieb. Also picked up by FOX.
- Probably the most important name: COLIN COWHERD, who I believe was let go over some politically incorrect statement he made that I do not even recall what it was. He was almost immediately picked up by FOX, who allowed him to continue operating his former ESPN show "The Herd" under a similar format. The new show is "The Herd - with Colin Cowherd". I say he was an important loss to ESPN because his show was well watched and had good ratings. Since joining FOX, ratings for his show continued or improved slightly. Some say he continues to outperform competitor shows of NBC and ESPN (http://www.inquisitr.com/2566874/colin-cowherd-continues-to-outperform-dan-lebatard-dan-patrick-in-ratings-department/). That last link was from November. Since then, The Herd has not lost any steam. If anything it has gained steam.

Colin's "The Herd" show on FOX Sports1 is important not just because of ratings. The show is doing so well that FOX is using his show to host guests of other analysts who have joined the FOX team after leaving ESPN. Some examples I saw in the past week:
- Doug Gotlieb (today)
- Mark Schlereth (last week, who talked about the logic of the Fins signing of Cutler)

Anyway, enough of that boring name dropping. FWIW, right?

I do like Cowherd though because he says things nobody else does or will, and he gives it thought. Most of it is his own opinion, some I agree with, some not. And he usually has good guests who are knowledgeable. He treats them professionally and lets them make their points. Some recent examples of potentially controversial guests:
- Richie Incognito. Got his 2nd chance with the Bills after bullygate. Colin treated him like a valued guest. Richie had some really good points on how college football is ruining offensive line play in the NFL - something I posted about upthread.
- Lavar Ball. Now that was a tough interview where co-host Kristine Leahy was being dehumanized on set by Lavar, who acted like a child. Colin handled that so well, but at the same time did not disrespect Lavar or his Baller Brand. IMO, Lavar should have been tossed offset, but that's not how to get controversial guests to come on set in the first place.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,637
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

Re: Re:

09 Aug 2017 19:26

movingtarget wrote:
Alpe d'Huez wrote:
on3m@n@rmy wrote:Regarding health, some players are commenting on the new version of the Vicis Pro helmet saying:
- last year's model was so uncomfortable in the forehead area that it could not be worn for a game
- this year's model has corrected the comfort issues and some guys will be using them in preseason (Richard Sherman is one)

That's really good news. This is a long process, so every step is important. I've said before reducing long term brain injuries in football isn't just about changing rules on hits. It's an issue with evaluating health, and technology. I'm curious to hear what players using the Vicis have to say by the end of the season.

QB shuffle going around in camp. For example, in Cleveland Cody Kessler was the projected starter, then DeShone Kizer played very well with the first team making it appear he could be ready from week 1, but he then struggled, and in recent days Hugh Jackson said the job is Brock Osweiller's to lose. He apparently just has the veteran experience and leadership skills, and is throwing the ball well enough and adapting quick enough.

In Denver it looks like again Paxton Lynch is being outplayed by Trevor Simeon, which has to be a bit of a disappointment to Bronco brass. Lynch will start game 2 of the preseason, and more will be known then.

With the Fins overpaying Jay Cutler ($10m, not as badly as the Bears overpaid him), and Adam Gase saying they didn't pay Cutler to stand on the sidelines, does this mean Matt Moore, who has been a pretty serviceable backup his career, even played well when started, doesn't have a chance at the starting job, considering Tannehill will be out for several weeks, maybe the season?

Reports are that Tom Savage is clearly outplaying Deshaun Watson in Houston and already penciled in as the starter. I'm one of the people who believes Watson was drafted too high, and expectations are too high for him, though I don't think he'll completely bust. So far, this doesn't surprise me, but it says something, because not many people in the league hear Tom Savage name and think of him as a starter. That's the one reason I said "penciled in" above. The pressure to start and play Watson, both to fill seats, and roll the dice, may cause coaches to start him anyway if the competition for the job is at all close.


Going to be interesting with the draft QBs. Everyone seemed to have a different opinion about who was the best and most pundits didn't think it was a good year for QBs. Also going to be an interesting year for Goff especially if he doesn't show much improvement. The Browns obviously won't cut Osweiler now. I thought Prescott and Carson Wentz were the best of last season's rookie QBs.

This year's crop of rookie QBs need to sit as the backup, study, watch, and learn from the veterans. Same with sophomore Paxton Lynch. Exception might be KC's rookie Patrick Mahomes (and OFC soph. Dak Prescott), but Mahomes won't take the job from Alex Smith this year. And if Trubisky starts in Chicago he will get murdered. Nothing's wrong with being the backup for 3-4 years (Rogers, Hasselbeck, etc). But it almost as if patience in the NFL is a vanishing trait of teams and owners.

Now maybe USC's QB Sam Darnold could jump in and start when he comes out, but we'll see. Poor guy. If he continues playing they way he has at SC, he will be destined to be drafted by the team with the worst record in the NFL. Kind of like Luck.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,637
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

Re: Re:

09 Aug 2017 22:00

on3m@n@rmy wrote:
movingtarget wrote:
Alpe d'Huez wrote:
on3m@n@rmy wrote:Regarding health, some players are commenting on the new version of the Vicis Pro helmet saying:
- last year's model was so uncomfortable in the forehead area that it could not be worn for a game
- this year's model has corrected the comfort issues and some guys will be using them in preseason (Richard Sherman is one)

That's really good news. This is a long process, so every step is important. I've said before reducing long term brain injuries in football isn't just about changing rules on hits. It's an issue with evaluating health, and technology. I'm curious to hear what players using the Vicis have to say by the end of the season.

QB shuffle going around in camp. For example, in Cleveland Cody Kessler was the projected starter, then DeShone Kizer played very well with the first team making it appear he could be ready from week 1, but he then struggled, and in recent days Hugh Jackson said the job is Brock Osweiller's to lose. He apparently just has the veteran experience and leadership skills, and is throwing the ball well enough and adapting quick enough.

In Denver it looks like again Paxton Lynch is being outplayed by Trevor Simeon, which has to be a bit of a disappointment to Bronco brass. Lynch will start game 2 of the preseason, and more will be known then.

With the Fins overpaying Jay Cutler ($10m, not as badly as the Bears overpaid him), and Adam Gase saying they didn't pay Cutler to stand on the sidelines, does this mean Matt Moore, who has been a pretty serviceable backup his career, even played well when started, doesn't have a chance at the starting job, considering Tannehill will be out for several weeks, maybe the season?

Reports are that Tom Savage is clearly outplaying Deshaun Watson in Houston and already penciled in as the starter. I'm one of the people who believes Watson was drafted too high, and expectations are too high for him, though I don't think he'll completely bust. So far, this doesn't surprise me, but it says something, because not many people in the league hear Tom Savage name and think of him as a starter. That's the one reason I said "penciled in" above. The pressure to start and play Watson, both to fill seats, and roll the dice, may cause coaches to start him anyway if the competition for the job is at all close.


Going to be interesting with the draft QBs. Everyone seemed to have a different opinion about who was the best and most pundits didn't think it was a good year for QBs. Also going to be an interesting year for Goff especially if he doesn't show much improvement. The Browns obviously won't cut Osweiler now. I thought Prescott and Carson Wentz were the best of last season's rookie QBs.

This year's crop of rookie QBs need to sit as the backup, study, watch, and learn from the veterans. Same with sophomore Paxton Lynch. Exception might be KC's rookie Patrick Mahomes (and OFC soph. Dak Prescott), but Mahomes won't take the job from Alex Smith this year. And if Trubisky starts in Chicago he will get murdered. Nothing's wrong with being the backup for 3-4 years (Rogers, Hasselbeck, etc). But it almost as if patience in the NFL is a vanishing trait of teams and owners.

Now maybe USC's QB Sam Darnold could jump in and start when he comes out, but we'll see. Poor guy. If he continues playing they way he has at SC, he will be destined to be drafted by the team with the worst record in the NFL. Kind of like Luck.

Some of the teams don't have anyone to learn from really.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,098
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Re:

10 Aug 2017 02:57

on3m@n@rmy wrote:
movingtarget wrote:ESPN had a clean out recently. Quite a few staff gone even long timers. Must be a reduction in viewership and revenue.

The initial round was announced around April 26. 100 or so employees affected. In March, ESPN made this statement regarding the layoffs, but revenue had to be the primary reason, which they would not likely admit:
We have long been about serving fans and innovating to create the best content for them. Today’s fans consume content in many different ways and we are in a continuous process of adapting to change and improving what we do. Inevitably, that has consequences for how we utilize our talent.
Translation = we suck. Upthread Alpe i believe mentioned lack of adaptability.
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/espn-layoffs-fired-list-1202399712/

The above link includes a full list of names laid off. Here is the list of the employees who covered the NFL:
- NFL analyst Trent Dilfer
- NFL analyst Ashley Fox
- NFL reporter Ed Werder

However, that is not the complete list. Here are a few other names who were either laid off or left on their own accord:
- NFL analyst John Clayton. John still works his Seattle-based show mostly covering sporting news in the Seattle area (Seahawks, Mariners, & other miscellaneous stuff).
- NFL analyst Mark Schlereth. He was the most recent employee let go, who has since been picked up by FOX.
- General analyst Doug Gotlieb. Also picked up by FOX.
- Probably the most important name: COLIN COWHERD, who I believe was let go over some politically incorrect statement he made that I do not even recall what it was. He was almost immediately picked up by FOX, who allowed him to continue operating his former ESPN show "The Herd" under a similar format. The new show is "The Herd - with Colin Cowherd". I say he was an important loss to ESPN because his show was well watched and had good ratings. Since joining FOX, ratings for his show continued or improved slightly. Some say he continues to outperform competitor shows of NBC and ESPN (http://www.inquisitr.com/2566874/colin-cowherd-continues-to-outperform-dan-lebatard-dan-patrick-in-ratings-department/). That last link was from November. Since then, The Herd has not lost any steam. If anything it has gained steam.

Colin's "The Herd" show on FOX Sports1 is important not just because of ratings. The show is doing so well that FOX is using his show to host guests of other analysts who have joined the FOX team after leaving ESPN. Some examples I saw in the past week:
- Doug Gotlieb (today)
- Mark Schlereth (last week, who talked about the logic of the Fins signing of Cutler)

Anyway, enough of that boring name dropping. FWIW, right?

I do like Cowherd though because he says things nobody else does or will, and he gives it thought. Most of it is his own opinion, some I agree with, some not. And he usually has good guests who are knowledgeable. He treats them professionally and lets them make their points. Some recent examples of potentially controversial guests:
- Richie Incognito. Got his 2nd chance with the Bills after bullygate. Colin treated him like a valued guest. Richie had some really good points on how college football is ruining offensive line play in the NFL - something I posted about upthread.
- Lavar Ball. Now that was a tough interview where co-host Kristine Leahy was being dehumanized on set by Lavar, who acted like a child. Colin handled that so well, but at the same time did not disrespect Lavar or his Baller Brand. IMO, Lavar should have been tossed offset, but that's not how to get controversial guests to come on set in the first place.


Yeah I don't mid Cowherd, not as irritating as Stephen Smith and Jason Whitlock or even Shannon and Skip. I like Herm's guest commentary when he appears on different shows because it's short and sweet and the guy is knowledgeable and honest with his opinions.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,590
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re: Re:

10 Aug 2017 03:07

jmdirt wrote:
on3m@n@rmy wrote:
movingtarget wrote:
Alpe d'Huez wrote:
on3m@n@rmy wrote:Regarding health, some players are commenting on the new version of the Vicis Pro helmet saying:
- last year's model was so uncomfortable in the forehead area that it could not be worn for a game
- this year's model has corrected the comfort issues and some guys will be using them in preseason (Richard Sherman is one)

That's really good news. This is a long process, so every step is important. I've said before reducing long term brain injuries in football isn't just about changing rules on hits. It's an issue with evaluating health, and technology. I'm curious to hear what players using the Vicis have to say by the end of the season.

QB shuffle going around in camp. For example, in Cleveland Cody Kessler was the projected starter, then DeShone Kizer played very well with the first team making it appear he could be ready from week 1, but he then struggled, and in recent days Hugh Jackson said the job is Brock Osweiller's to lose. He apparently just has the veteran experience and leadership skills, and is throwing the ball well enough and adapting quick enough.

In Denver it looks like again Paxton Lynch is being outplayed by Trevor Simeon, which has to be a bit of a disappointment to Bronco brass. Lynch will start game 2 of the preseason, and more will be known then.

With the Fins overpaying Jay Cutler ($10m, not as badly as the Bears overpaid him), and Adam Gase saying they didn't pay Cutler to stand on the sidelines, does this mean Matt Moore, who has been a pretty serviceable backup his career, even played well when started, doesn't have a chance at the starting job, considering Tannehill will be out for several weeks, maybe the season?

Reports are that Tom Savage is clearly outplaying Deshaun Watson in Houston and already penciled in as the starter. I'm one of the people who believes Watson was drafted too high, and expectations are too high for him, though I don't think he'll completely bust. So far, this doesn't surprise me, but it says something, because not many people in the league hear Tom Savage name and think of him as a starter. That's the one reason I said "penciled in" above. The pressure to start and play Watson, both to fill seats, and roll the dice, may cause coaches to start him anyway if the competition for the job is at all close.


Going to be interesting with the draft QBs. Everyone seemed to have a different opinion about who was the best and most pundits didn't think it was a good year for QBs. Also going to be an interesting year for Goff especially if he doesn't show much improvement. The Browns obviously won't cut Osweiler now. I thought Prescott and Carson Wentz were the best of last season's rookie QBs.

This year's crop of rookie QBs need to sit as the backup, study, watch, and learn from the veterans. Same with sophomore Paxton Lynch. Exception might be KC's rookie Patrick Mahomes (and OFC soph. Dak Prescott), but Mahomes won't take the job from Alex Smith this year. And if Trubisky starts in Chicago he will get murdered. Nothing's wrong with being the backup for 3-4 years (Rogers, Hasselbeck, etc). But it almost as if patience in the NFL is a vanishing trait of teams and owners.

Now maybe USC's QB Sam Darnold could jump in and start when he comes out, but we'll see. Poor guy. If he continues playing they way he has at SC, he will be destined to be drafted by the team with the worst record in the NFL. Kind of like Luck.

Some of the teams don't have anyone to learn from really.


Maybe Kaep's last chance where some of the really average QBs are having less than average seasons with even worse back ups ? Or even if one of them gets injured. It's a numbers game for Kaep now. The more he is overlooked when average players go down and get replaced by the same type of player, it's another strike against Kaep. Either he's done, already in the minds of team owners or someone will get desperate at some stage and forget the situation and just sign him. Impossible to know who that would be though at this stage but if he sits out the season, he's done it seems. Even Ponder was signed last season as a third string at the 49ers and he has not started a comp game for years, now been cut of course.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,590
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re: Re:

10 Aug 2017 11:49

movingtarget wrote:
ESPN had a clean out recently. Quite a few staff gone even long timers. Must be a reduction in viewership and revenue.


ESPN is stuck with a LOT of over priced long term rights contracts (11 years, 7.3 billion for college football playoffs as an example) and a shrinking revenue stream.

They lose on average 10 000 (cable) subscribers per day, which at ~$9 per rapidly adds up directly, plus obviously makes their advertising revenue slow down long term as well.

They are cutting the only places they can, but its too little and too late.
User avatar Catwhoorg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,893
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 11:00
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re:

10 Aug 2017 12:17

Alpe d'Huez wrote:I think at this point no one will sign him, period. I think he's viewed as being radioactive, and teams have their starting QB's, and are willing to roll the dice with a lesser talented backup QB, than Kaepernick.

He says he wants to play football, but if you look at his Twitter account, it's all politics and social commentary still. All about "rights", police abuse, people oppressed in his eyes, etc. Tweet after tweet, day after day.

If he doesn't get signed by mid-season, I think he will start looking into politics. Or should. I imagine there are a lot of fringe radio programs, and some TV shows that would love to have him on there for ratings. Let him go on about how oppressive the country is to minorities, how bad the police are, and how great Castro was, etc. I think he sold his mansion in the bay area to move to NYC. Maybe he can find a district there and run for office.

Land of the free, as long as you don't mind to lose your job for merely voicing your opinion.
User avatar Jagartrott
Member
 
Posts: 1,994
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

Re: Re:

10 Aug 2017 12:42

Jagartrott wrote:
Alpe d'Huez wrote:I think at this point no one will sign him, period. I think he's viewed as being radioactive, and teams have their starting QB's, and are willing to roll the dice with a lesser talented backup QB, than Kaepernick.

He says he wants to play football, but if you look at his Twitter account, it's all politics and social commentary still. All about "rights", police abuse, people oppressed in his eyes, etc. Tweet after tweet, day after day.

If he doesn't get signed by mid-season, I think he will start looking into politics. Or should. I imagine there are a lot of fringe radio programs, and some TV shows that would love to have him on there for ratings. Let him go on about how oppressive the country is to minorities, how bad the police are, and how great Castro was, etc. I think he sold his mansion in the bay area to move to NYC. Maybe he can find a district there and run for office.

Land of the free, as long as you don't mind to lose your job for merely voicing your opinion.


....yeah its kinda free until you sign a contract that sorta kinda restricts your ability to act....and act is the proper word here because at the end of the day Kaep as a football player is just an entertainer....and somebody else owns the stage....and that is sad but also true...

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,739
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

Re: National Football League

11 Aug 2017 12:20

The moment Vicis has been waiting for:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/10/vicis-helmet-makes-its-nfl-debut/amp/
Hope this helps reduce or frequency & severity of concussions. League still needs to mandate better tackling technique.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,637
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

11 Aug 2017 12:51

That is good news. An important step.

Meanwhile, rookies looked good in the last couple days. DeShone Kizer played very well, with NFL.com saying he looked like the starter for the Browns.

Mitch Turbinsky also outplayed Mike Glennon in Chicago.

And Deshaun Watson looked good with his arms and legs, and made good decisions, in Houston in a losing cause, so much so Bleacher Report said "start him!"

Fournette actually looked good against New England, quickly finding holes, and looking at positive yardage all the time.

As anyone with a brain knows these games don't count. Even if you're not playing against 2nd, 3rd, 4th string scrubs, the proposed starters may be trying things in these games they won't in a real game, which also applies to coaching.

Of all these new QBs, Kizer looks the most ready to me, and well coached. He seems to be a classic drop back QB who quickly goes through progressions and pulls the trigger. He also moved well within the pocket.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,997
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Back to top