• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Cycling News community!

National Football League

Page 207 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
52520Andrew said:
Pretty big Ravens fan here so you will probably see me frequent this thread a lot

In other news, RGIII took an absolute beating last night from Detroit, don't know who all was playing on the O-line as I know Trent Williams was out but it was not pretty. 8 pass attempts from RGIII and he got hit 6 times and got knocked out of the game with a concussion and shoulder stinger.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000513808/article/rgiii-suffers-concussion-shoulder-stinger-vs-lions
I think it's fair to call me an RGIII hater (total "me" guy), and I was shocked that Gruden put him out for another series in that game. What on earth is the point of getting him pounded like that? His answer afterwards had the effect of "football is a tough game and we wanted the offense to get something going".

After what they gave up to get him, they just can't handle him like that. If I'm Snyder or the GM there, I'm not happy about that bit of bluster.
Good article on the situation today in bleacher report:
http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2553631-nfl-head-coach-on-jay-gruden-leaving-rg3-in-game-it-looks-personal-to-me

"What is baffling," he said, "is that I can't think of a single head coach in the NFL who would take an injury-prone quarterback, put him behind a very shaky offensive line, in a preseason game, watch him take those kinds of hits, and leave him in the game. It looks personal to me."
Good quotes from Brian Mitchell in that article on RGIII and his part in all this as well.
 
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
Did you skip my first sentence? ;)
I was overtly referencing it. :)

It's going to be interesting to see what the Packers do with Nelson out for the season (or if it's not a full tear, a good four months). However, what seems awful may not impact them that much. They still have Cobb, they also have Davante Adams, who McCarthy said improved greatly over the off season, and they just drafted Ty Montgomery in the 3rd round.

As to RG3 getting thrown to the wolves by Gruden. I'm not sure what else to say. I guess what I don't get is if he thinks RG3 isn't good enough to play, why even start him? And why give him that much playing time? And if it's about ego and that RG3 is an arrogant baby with the owner on speed dial, why not call him out on that in the coach's office?

John Harbaugh was asked about being blown out by the Eagles and barely shrugged. Said they didn't prep their game for the Eagle's speedy offense, but were working on their own game. Welcome to the pre-season, courtesy of a Super Bowl winning coach. (I also think the Ravens are going to be a top team in the AFC this season.)

Tennessee's offense looked good much of the night against the Rams, with both QBs playing well. And the Rams offense still looks like it needs a lot of work, especially on the OL. And Foles did not seem in rhythm with his receivers in a few short drives. But Case Keenum had some nice throws and looks like a solid backup for them.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
As to RG3 getting thrown to the wolves by Gruden. I'm not sure what else to say. I guess what I don't get is if he thinks RG3 isn't good enough to play, why even start him? And why give him that much playing time? And if it's about ego and that RG3 is an arrogant baby with the owner on speed dial, why not call him out on that in the coach's office?
The feeling amongst the sportswriters who cover it, is that that Gruden wants no part of RGIII but is being forced to start him. After what they gave away for him (idiotic even if he became an all-pro), they really have to have him play and do everything they can to try and make it work.

Total dysfunction, starting with giving away way too much to get him. Puts way too much pressure on the position and the ensuing FA signings and drafts. Always seems to work well for the teams that get all the picks, however.
 
But even that makes questionable sense, at least for the organization. I mean, they just picked up RG3's extension for 2016 which is a whopping $16m. This I don't get, one bit. I just don't. Let's say he has a year like his last two, and they franchise tag him. Would an arbiter value him at $16m on three injury riddled, mediocre seasons in a row?

This tells me they have high expectations for him. They still think he's going to return to his rookie year form, injuries and all. Poor OL and all. They have faith. Then they must not have very good communication between the owner, GM and head coach. Because the HC is going in another direction.

The only thing I can deduct from this is that not only does Gruden not get along with Griffin, he also wants him out of town as fast as possible. But there's another problem here. Despite my belief that Kirk Cousins would be a good QB to develop, and McCoy has played decent in the last year. I'm not sure they have an OL, or offense period, to help them very much either. They coughed up way too much to get RG3 (as in, half of the Rams current defense - a defense Greg Williams says is the most talented he's ever worked with - it seems). It's baffling.

Most of all I feel bad for Washington fans. They have a crazy owner, are terribly mismanaged, and look like they are headed for a 2-14 season. Foxxy likes to joke (joke?!) that the Eagles will finish 5-11 or 0-16. But I'd be surprised if the Skins don't finish in the cellar in that division.

Here's the capper: Below is a link to Walter Football, a detailed site, on their mock 2016 NFL draft. They have Washington picking third (matching my 2-14 prediction) and taking Christian Hackenberg - Penn State's QB, third in the draft. Considering they'd be eating much of the $16m paid to RG3 for his extension (presuming they can't trade him), this would go down as one of the worst debacles in NFL. Right up there with some of Al Davis decisions at the end...when Al was months from death and senile.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2016.php
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Foxxy likes to joke (joke?!) that the Eagles will finish 5-11 or 0-16
No joke. That was my lone pre season prediction (or did I also predict NE will win even with the QB whose name I cant spell? I think I did).

Would be funny if the Eagles copy the 0-16 Lions, by going 4-0 in the pre season, by looking beautiful with 3rd stringers battling it out against ... well ... 3rd stringers. But mess it up in the real games...
 
Aug 21, 2015
380
0
0
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Good analysis on the hit Terrell Suggs made on Sam Bradford. If you didn't hear, Bradford and the Eagles were saying that Suggs went for Bradford's legs intentionally, and there was a flag on the play. But shows the play, and this guy's analysis is spot on:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000515248/article/blandino-terrell-suggs-hit-on-bradford-a-legal-play
Yeah I didn't have an issue with the other calls as frankly the Ravens were pretty undisciplined that night but that was completely legal. The Ravens did the same with Kaepernick during the Super Bowl. Explanation pretty much sums up everything.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000515336/article/kelly-suggs-hit-on-bradford-wasnt-on-zone-read

Apparently now Chip is saying that it wasn't a read option play but it is pretty clear at least to me that it was. Suggs is running free and Bradford looks right at him before handing it off to the inside.
 
Mike Pereira, former referee and head of officiating for the NFL, and now Fox rules analyst addressed that as well, basically saying it's pointless, and impossible to expect the defender to be able to determine the difference between the two plays, especially with the advent of the read option. Basically he said with so many teams getting burned by the read option (remember Kaep and the Packers two seasons ago in the playoffs?), defenses have found subtle ways to deal with it, and one of them is to have a key OL or DE focus on the QB whenever he initiates such a play, which is what Suggs did.

I am definitely glad Sam didn't get hurt, but Kelly is just whining.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
But even that makes questionable sense, at least for the organization. I mean, they just picked up RG3's extension for 2016 which is a whopping $16m. This I don't get, one bit. I just don't. Let's say he has a year like his last two, and they franchise tag him. Would an arbiter value him at $16m on three injury riddled, mediocre seasons in a row?

This tells me they have high expectations for him. They still think he's going to return to his rookie year form, injuries and all. Poor OL and all. They have faith. Then they must not have very good communication between the owner, GM and head coach. Because the HC is going in another direction.

The only thing I can deduct from this is that not only does Gruden not get along with Griffin, he also wants him out of town as fast as possible. But there's another problem here. Despite my belief that Kirk Cousins would be a good QB to develop, and McCoy has played decent in the last year. I'm not sure they have an OL, or offense period, to help them very much either. They coughed up way too much to get RG3 (as in, half of the Rams current defense - a defense Greg Williams says is the most talented he's ever worked with - it seems). It's baffling.

Most of all I feel bad for Washington fans. They have a crazy owner, are terribly mismanaged, and look like they are headed for a 2-14 season. Foxxy likes to joke (joke?!) that the Eagles will finish 5-11 or 0-16. But I'd be surprised if the Skins don't finish in the cellar in that division.

Here's the capper: Below is a link to Walter Football, a detailed site, on their mock 2016 NFL draft. They have Washington picking third (matching my 2-14 prediction) and taking Christian Hackenberg - Penn State's QB, third in the draft. Considering they'd be eating much of the $16m paid to RG3 for his extension (presuming they can't trade him), this would go down as one of the worst debacles in NFL. Right up there with some of Al Davis decisions at the end...when Al was months from death and senile.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2016.php
Thanks for depressing me even further, Alpe. I was so looking forward to a 5-11 season. :eek:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Thanks for depressing me even further, Alpe. I was so looking forward to a 5-11 season. :eek:
If it makes you feel any better, keep in mind that I'm an Oakland Raiders fan. Not only are we likely to finish 5-11 as well, I might not even have a team next year. :(
Which is completely wrong in my opinion. The Raiders should stay in Oakland.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
To LA again?

Why dont they name themselves California Raiders and play 4 in OAK and 4 in LA. Double suck the taxpayers, all good... The ongoing 35 year saga ended.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Thanks for depressing me even further, Alpe. I was so looking forward to a 5-11 season. :eek:
If it makes you feel any better, keep in mind that I'm an Oakland Raiders fan. Not only are we likely to finish 5-11 as well, I might not even have a team next year. :(
Another Raider fan here. Sucks to say it, but I hope they get a stadium one way or another. I love going to a game or two a year, but I want them to win more than I want them to be here. Get a stadium and you can start competing for free agents. Right now no one really wants to play at the Coliseum.

Just get a stadium, baby.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Thanks for depressing me even further, Alpe. I was so looking forward to a 5-11 season. :eek:
If it makes you feel any better, keep in mind that I'm an Oakland Raiders fan. Not only are we likely to finish 5-11 as well, I might not even have a team next year. :(
Another Raider fan here. Sucks to say it, but I hope they get a stadium one way or another. I love going to a game or two a year, but I want them to win more than I want them to be here. Get a stadium and you can start competing for free agents. Right now no one really wants to play at the Coliseum.

Just get a stadium, baby.
Not at all. Taxpayers shall not finance rich players...

And I highly doubt ... skip that ... I am 100% sure players would not base their FA moves on stadiums. In 99% of cases its about the biggest contract they can get. The other 1% is guys like Brady who have enough dollars for 7.000 years anyway, and so sometimes reconstructure contracts for better pass protection, or overall talent around them in general. But not before they are seriously asked for such moves...
 
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
red_flanders said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Thanks for depressing me even further, Alpe. I was so looking forward to a 5-11 season. :eek:
If it makes you feel any better, keep in mind that I'm an Oakland Raiders fan. Not only are we likely to finish 5-11 as well, I might not even have a team next year. :(
Another Raider fan here. Sucks to say it, but I hope they get a stadium one way or another. I love going to a game or two a year, but I want them to win more than I want them to be here. Get a stadium and you can start competing for free agents. Right now no one really wants to play at the Coliseum.

Just get a stadium, baby.
Not at all. Taxpayers shall not finance rich players...

And I highly doubt ... skip that ... I am 100% sure players would not base their FA moves on stadiums. In 99% of cases its about the biggest contract they can get. The other 1% is guys like Brady who have enough dollars for 7.000 years anyway, and so sometimes reconstructure contracts for better pass protection, or overall talent around them in general. But not before they are seriously asked for such moves...
I don't want them to use public money either, but since I'm not making that call I'm pulling for Carson who seem to want to do it and who can afford to.

If you don't think stadiums, facilities and the location thereof, particularly in LA (2nd largest media market in the U.S.), are a factor in free agent decisions you're simply not paying attention as closely as you would need to be to be informed on the topic.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
... then I am not... But just now I remember how Reggie White decided to play in the ice cold north... tundra... I guess the millions of dollars lured him there, not the facilities and infrastructure.
 
I would have to say by and large it's money, but there also his history of loyalty, and players wanting to play in certain markets. But those decisions are usually based on where they have family and "home" more than stadium facilities.

The latest on the Oakland deal is that a developer who owns a hedge fund firm named Floyd Kephart is trying to broker a billion dollar deal where he would develop land where both the Raiders and A's play, plus add a shopping plaza with restaurants, plus housing of some sort, all to be done by 2020. He's not looking for the city to pay...much. He's mostly looking for favors. He would also get something like 20% stake in the team. He has plenty of money, and says that's not the issue. The issue is politics. Which to me still has something to do with money. Here's an article on it:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2015/08/oakland-raiders-nfl-floyd-kephart-new-city.html

Personally, it seems like a long shot.

However, both San Diego and especially St. Louis may be in worse positions, if you can imagine that. Rams owner Stan Kroenke is from LA, and seems to have little patience or interest left in what St. Louis does, as they are really dragging their feet.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/122432/20150824/st-louis-rams-rumors-stan-kroenkes-la-relocation-plan-has-leg-up-on-raiders-chargers.htm

San Diego's offer seems like it's all smoke and mirrors, and the Chargers slammed it just a couple weeks ago.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13413497/chargers-slam-san-diego-latest-stadium-proposal

But the NFL probably does want two teams in one stadium, New York style, because of cost, and LA is such a huge city. And the Raiders and Chargers moving there makes most sense, leaving a team in St. Louis because of the market. Then again, for years the NFL had the Chargers, Rams and Raiders all in California without a problem either.

Any way you slice it, it's a mess.
 
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
... then I am not... But just now I remember how Reggie White decided to play in the ice cold north... tundra... I guess the millions of dollars lured him there, not the facilities and infrastructure.
I'm not suggesting that money isn't a draw, of course that's true. It's a primary draw. But it's not 100%. You can also look at many other players, with the prime example being Brady. He's often restructured his contract for less money because he's already well-paid, loves the organization and wants to win. So it's definitely not all about money for all players. As with all things, there are a range of motivations, perspectives and behaviors from different people in the system.

As for Reggie, he also won a championship there, if I recall. They upgraded the Lambeau facilities just before he got there and again while he was there. Lambeau is hallowed ground in the NFL. In many ways it's similar to the Oakland situation–a historically great franchise fallen on hard times with a new organization and plans for several facility upgrades.

The Raiders play in a dilapidated facility, and the field has a baseball infield on it for a good part of the season. It's the last NFL stadium like this, and contributes in no small part to the negative view of the franchise. That said, mismanagement is the overarching theme, from a ridiculous, almost mafia-like organization steeped in dedication to one overlord, a focus on loyalty over performance, old-school scouting techniques, poor drafts historically, and wild over-spending on free agents to draw them into playing in a place where the facilities and organization were a joke.

The field and weight room facilities are just finishing a major upgrade, a demand Del Rio made of ownership as part of agreeing to take the job. Why? To help prove to players (and specifically free agents) that there was a new regime in town and they were willing to spend on facilities. The organization has been restructured by Reggie McKenzie from scouting on up, and the drafting has been far better than in last 20 years of the Al Davis era.

A new stadium in LA would give players access to media they are never going to get in Oakland unless they become a super bowl contender. This means more money. More prestige. A better place to work and bring their families and friends. As with any other job, many things matter. The work, the money, the co-workers, the management, the location and the facilities. Getting a new stadium would be huge for recruiting free agents as it would come with all the attendant facilities upgrades. The difference between the Coliseum and a new stadium is light years different from status, player comfort and competitive advantage.
 
Mar 13, 2015
949
0
0
More bad news for the Redskins, Junior Galette injured, looks like a torn achilles, likely out for the season. Cowboys CB Orlando Scandrick out for the season after tearing his ACL and MCL
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
A new stadium in LA would give players access to media they are never going to get in Oakland unless they become a super bowl contender. This means more money. More prestige. A better place to work and bring their families and friends. As with any other job, many things matter. The work, the money, the co-workers, the management, the location and the facilities.
I'm actually going to somewhat disagree. If a new stadium were built in Oakland, and it were dedicated to the Raiders. I would rather play there, and live near there, than in a shared stadium with the Chargers (or Rams) in Carson, California.

But I would also go first to the team that would treat me well, while paying me a fair salary. My first choice would be Seattle, because I like the city, the stadium, and organization. But I'd play in Oakland, sure. I'd play there before several other places. NY Jets? Washington? Jacksonville?
 
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
red_flanders said:
A new stadium in LA would give players access to media they are never going to get in Oakland unless they become a super bowl contender. This means more money. More prestige. A better place to work and bring their families and friends. As with any other job, many things matter. The work, the money, the co-workers, the management, the location and the facilities.
I'm actually going to somewhat disagree. If a new stadium were built in Oakland, and it were dedicated to the Raiders. I would rather play there, and live near there, than in a shared stadium with the Chargers (or Rams) in Carson, California.

But I would also go first to the team that would treat me well, while paying me a fair salary. My first choice would be Seattle, because I like the city, the stadium, and organization. But I'd play in Oakland, sure. I'd play there before several other places. NY Jets? Washington? Jacksonville?
No argument. Different players will see it differently. Either way, a team with a new stadium is more attractive to a player than a team with an old, dilapidated stadium and dirt on the field 1/2 the season.

For the fans, a new stadium in Oakland would come with a new development, most likely. So it would be a better place to go as a fan than the current stadium which has no decent restaurants, amenities or neighborhood anywhere around it. I'd certainly rather it was closer to me, but I had written off Oakland. The sad truth is that the Chargers and the Rams (the latter almost certainly) look to be the ones getting in. Sure hope that doesn't mean San Antonio, that would just be weird. Such a tradition in California. I'd have to bail on them at that point.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
But it's not 100%
... and I never claimed that ...

Anyway...

Funny thing is, the stadium was good enough for all Raiders players stepping on that field until 2015... including the glorious area.

Again: No player decides where to go coz of facilities... Alpe has more of an argument; may some players chose less money if staying near their backround.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS