National Football League

[Alpe d'Huez]

If there is one factor not being discussed much yet is that it will reportedly be bitter cold in Minneapolis on Sunday. Like, a high temperature of 0, and a low of -8 (that's Fahrenheit). People seem to be forgetting that the Vikings are playing in TFC Bank Stadium. And TFC isn't very enclosed, like Dallas, or Denver even. It's wide open, so even a light wind will be very cutting. In case anyone forgot, Seattle absolutely pulverized the Vikings a couple weeks ago, 38-7.

There are a lot of indications that AJ McCarron is the starter for Cincy this weekend. What happens if McCarron beats the Steelers with outstanding play? Who gets the call the following week? What if he has a big win, and they go back to Dalton anyway, and then Dalton loses the Divisional game?

Brady says he has played with worse injuries and will be close to normal in two weeks. As usual for the Pats, no indications on Edelman, Chung, Vollmer, etc. I just presume they'll be playing hurt.

While I'm tired of both teams (and don't like Denver anyway), I'm entertaining the thought of another AFC Championship where the Patriots and Tom Brady go to Denver, who starts Peyton Manning. One last game, for the ages.

If I were to rank the teams I think most likely to win the SB, it would be:

Carolina
Arizona
Seattle
Pittsburgh
New England
Denver
Cincinnati
Kansas City
Minnesota
Washington
Green Bay
Houston

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

You all know how I feel about the Raiders. I don't need to repeat it.

Correct on Manziel being in Vegas on Saturday night. Plus lying about his whereabouts (again), and the no-show for Sunday's mandatory Dr. appointment, and no-show for the game. The guy in Vegas was his brother.

As to Coughlin, he hinted he's not done coaching. Where does he go though? Cleveland? Why would he want that gig? Who would want to go to CLE?

NFL.com says Tom Coughlin's next stop may be Canton, and those two SB wins seal it. Do they? Tom Flores won two SBs, he's not in. Then again, Flores is one of the many Raiders unfairly kept out of the HOF (some finally made it way late, some still waiting: Stabler, Branch, Christenson, Plunkett, etc.). Canton is near CLE.

Talk is the Saints want a 2nd round draft pick in exchange for Payton, and that's just to even answer the phone.

I have no clue why Sean Payton would rather coach in SF than NO. Why Kelly would seek the job there has to do something with location and personnel I guess. To me Kaep still is a real wild card. If I were looking to build a superstar QB, I'd look to Mariota before Kaepernick.

Panthers DC Sean McDermott given the okay to interview for the Cleveland job.see above

Early thoughts on the games coming up in another post...

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

If Steelers win the Cincinnati game then I need chiefs to win so that new England get challenged at least a bit in the divisional round, but if Bengals win then i'll want Houston to pull it off to help ensure against Foxboro holding another championship game.

If Bengals win, they go to NE, so what difference does the KC-HOU game make? NE will host the title game if they win in the first round and if Denver loses. Are you thinking HOU has a better chance of beating DE than KC?

Of the four games, I'd say Pitt at Cincy is the toughest to pick. I'd take Cincy with a healthy Dalton, but without him, this game promises to be really tough for the Bengals.

I think people are looking at the way GB has faded this season and thinking Washington will win. But other than Cousins, who's had a great year, Washington doesn't have much. Their rushing game is below average, and their defense is poor.

FWIW, Brian Billick picks AZ and NE in the SB, and thinks Denver will flame out in its first game.

What do Alex Smith, Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger have in common?

They're QBs for teams in the AFC playoffs, of course (Manning may or may not start), but they’re also the only qualified QBs who didn’t lose a fumble this season. Manning and Roethlisberger were first and third in the NFL, respectively, in interception %, so however much they helped their team by not fumbling, they more than lost that advantage with turnovers in the air. However, their interceptions were not that surprising, because there is a well-known inverse relationship between sacks and interceptions. A QB can avoid sacks by throwing the ball sooner, but risks getting picked off, and conversely, if a QB takes a sack, he can avoid throwing a risky pass. Manning and Roethlisberger were among the QBs sacked the fewest times this year. If you're not sacked much, you're not going to fumble much.

Now consider Alex Smith. Only two QBs, Brady and Rodgers, had a lower interception %. As you might expect, all three of these QBs were sacked a lot, with Rodgers second and Smith third in number of sacks. But what is remarkable, despite all those sacks, Smith didn't lose a fumble, though he did drop the ball four times. Even more remarkable, Smith was fourth among all QBs in rushing attempts, which nearly tripled the total number of times he was tackled while carrying the ball. Only three QBs had a greater total of rushing attempts + sacks, Cam Netwon, who lost four fumbles, Russell Wilson, who lost three, and my vote for the most surprising QB of the season, Tyrod Taylor, who lost only one fumble (though he dropped the ball nine times).

To be fair, it's hard to interpret fumble data, because of small sample size. There's a lot of chance involved, not only in whether a QB drops the ball, but whether it's recovered by one of his teammates or by the other team. Given that, though, Alex Smith, IMO, is a gem. He may not be one of the elite QBs, up there with Brady and Rodgers and the recent if not current Manning, but he gives you minimum mistakes, and as is often forgotten, can run the ball. Only Newton, Wilson and Taylor rushed for more yards, and Smith had a higher YPA rushing than any of them.

He was once considered a bust, since he was a no. 1 draft pick, but ask yourself this. Suppose you're one of the many teams that needs a QB. Suppose you had the no. 1 pick in the draft, and you could take a chance with whoever you considered the best current college QB available, or you could take someone who turned out like Alex Smith. Would taking Alex Smith be that bad a deal? How many no. 1 QB picks have turned out better? Cam Newton may be better, but I'd say at this point the jury is still out. Andrew Luck will probably prove to be better, but Luck was considered a sure thing in a way that very no. 1 picks are. Winston might prove to be better eventually, but he certainly hasn't yet.

 

[Billie]

Cam Newton will win the MVP this year. Alex Smith never was and never will be a top 10 QB in the NFL. There should be no question who you'd rather have.

Smith is the definition of a game-manager. Perfect QB to put around a strong defense and great running game who will protect the ball whle avoid taking any risks. Like in his final years in San Fran and now in KC. You'd want the QB you take first overall (any QB you take in the first round actually) to be more than a game manager imo.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

If Steelers win the Cincinnati game then I need chiefs to win so that new England get challenged at least a bit in the divisional round, but if Bengals win then i'll want Houston to pull it off to help ensure against Foxboro holding another championship game.

If Bengals win, they go to NE, so what difference does the KC-HOU game make? NE will host the title game if they win in the first round and if Denver loses. Are you thinking HOU has a better chance of beating DE than KC?

No, i think Houston has a worse chance of beating DE than KC.

New England have had 1 away playoff game since that AFC championship game in the 2006 season when Peyton came back and won the SB.

11 out of 12 playoff games at Foxborough. BTW the one game away, Brady kind of sucked.
I don't want to see the AFC go through Boston yet again.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Cam Newton will win the MVP this year. Alex Smith never was and never will be a top 10 QB in the NFL. There should be no question who you'd rather have.

Smith is the definition of a game-manager. Perfect QB to put around a strong defense and great running game who will protect the ball whle avoid taking any risks. Like in his final years in San Fran and now in KC. You'd want the QB you take first overall (any QB you take in the first round actually) to be more than a game manager imo.

	Total QB Rating	QB Efficiency Rating
	Newton	Smith	Newton	Smith
2015	66.1	66.5	99.4	95.4
2014	54.4	55.0	82.1	93.4
2013	61.1	49.7	88.8	89.1
2012	57.6	65.0*	86.2	104.1*
2011	56.2	45.2	84.5	90.7

*just missed qualifying number of pass attempts

The efficiency rating just considers passing, while the total rating includes running, avoiding sacks, etc.

For their careers, Cam has an efficiency rating of 88.2 vs. 84.5 for Smith. But if you just consider since 2011, when Smith finally got in a good situation with Harbaugh then later with KC, his rating has been 93+. It's been 92.5 in his three years at KC.

Newton's career total QB rating is about 59, Smith's for the past 5 years about 55.

As far as being a top 10 QB, Smith has been in the top 10 in efficiency rating in 2011, 2012 and 2015, and in total rating in 2015.

Newton supporters have pointed out that he doesn't have any good WR to throw to. But until KC got Maclin from Philly last year, Smith was in the same boat. In fact, I think the team set some kind of record for most consecutive games without a TD pass to a WR.

No, i think Houston has a worse chance of beating DE than KC.

Oh, right, I see your point. Denver beats Houston, so NE has to play in Denver.

The Manziel soap opera continues:

According to the ESPN radio affiliate in Las Vegas, Manziel was "wearing a blonde wig, a fake mustache, glasses, and a hoodie" when he went out on Saturday night. Manziel was also allegedly introducing himself as "Billy," presumably so people wouldn't know it was him.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25438554/report-manziel-partied-while-wearing-wig-and-fake-mustache-in-las-vegas

If I were a GM, I wouldn't even think about trading for this guy.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Cam Newton will win the MVP this year. Alex Smith never was and never will be a top 10 QB in the NFL. There should be no question who you'd rather have.

Smith is the definition of a game-manager. Perfect QB to put around a strong defense and great running game who will protect the ball whle avoid taking any risks. Like in his final years in San Fran and now in KC. You'd want the QB you take first overall (any QB you take in the first round actually) to be more than a game manager imo.

I agree, I don't see any scenario that Cam doesn't win the MVP. But, I disagree that Smith isn't a top 10 QB. As you said, he is the definition of game manager, but in so doing he is certainly one of the top 10 QBs this year (as well as a few other years in his career). Who is better than him this year? Cam, Palmer, Wilson, Brady, RBerger (EDIT) Dalton. That makes Alex 4th- 7th. I could see an argument for Rogers, and Cousins, being at a similar level, but not above him.

 

[movingtarget]

http://www.ninersnation.com/2016/1/5/9871450/best-head-coach-options-san-francisco-49ers

 

[Billie]

Re: Re:

Cam Newton will win the MVP this year. Alex Smith never was and never will be a top 10 QB in the NFL. There should be no question who you'd rather have.

Smith is the definition of a game-manager. Perfect QB to put around a strong defense and great running game who will protect the ball whle avoid taking any risks. Like in his final years in San Fran and now in KC. You'd want the QB you take first overall (any QB you take in the first round actually) to be more than a game manager imo.

I agree, I don't see any scenario that Cam doesn't win the MVP. But, I disagree that Smith isn't a top 10 QB. As you said, he is the definition of game manager, but in so doing he is certainly one of the top 10 QBs this year (as well as a few other years in his career). Who is better than him this year? Cam, Palmer, Wilson, Brady, RBerger. That makes Alex 6th. I could see an argument for Rogers, and Cousins, being at a similar level, but not above him.

There are many good QB's not in the playoffs. You shouldn't discount them cause their teams didn't make it.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I tend to think of Alex Smith as being an above average QB. I'm hesitant to call him "elite", though I suppose that depends on how you define the word. A quick analysis to me shows:

• Excellent accuracy across the field, with the possible exception to long throws.
• Able to make quick reads, and decisions, with very few poor throws.
• Much more mobile than given credit for.
• Durable - Once they fixed his shoulder in 2011, he's played almost every game, sans one concussion in SF.

Here's what I don't like about him:

• Mediocre arm. Not weak, but he rarely throws the long ball.
• Never thrown for over 3,500 yards in a season.
• Averages just over 200 yard passing each game, 29th in the league. Ho hum.
• I can't think of a single big game his team won on his shoulders.

Now, to his credit, his best season may have been this one. Threw for more yards, and over 7 yards per pass. Plus helped win a lot of close games. In the 2011 playoffs he had a very good big game against the Saints, though it wasn't all on him. And the Niners should have beaten the Giants in the NFC Championship and gone to the Super Bowl. But they didn't, and his inability to complete 3rd down throws late didn't help. He's also reportedly a classy guy. Jim Harbaugh noted that even after he benched Smith in favor of Kaepernick, Smith acted like a mentor to Kaep, and was coaching him even more than he was.

I do have to agree with Merckx in that if I were a coach and needed a QB, I'd take him in a heartbeat. Call him a game manager if you will, but the fact is he's very steady, and being "good" means a lot in this league.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

Cam Newton will win the MVP this year. Alex Smith never was and never will be a top 10 QB in the NFL. There should be no question who you'd rather have.

Smith is the definition of a game-manager. Perfect QB to put around a strong defense and great running game who will protect the ball whle avoid taking any risks. Like in his final years in San Fran and now in KC. You'd want the QB you take first overall (any QB you take in the first round actually) to be more than a game manager imo.

I agree, I don't see any scenario that Cam doesn't win the MVP. But, I disagree that Smith isn't a top 10 QB. As you said, he is the definition of game manager, but in so doing he is certainly one of the top 10 QBs this year (as well as a few other years in his career). Who is better than him this year? Cam, Palmer, Wilson, Brady, RBerger, (EDIT) Dalton. That makes Alex 6th. I could see an argument for Rogers, and Cousins, being at a similar level, but not above him.

There are many good QB's not in the playoffs. You shouldn't discount them cause their teams didn't make it.

Being in the playoffs wasn't one of my criteria, but its pretty tough to make the playoffs without a top 10 QB. I'm assuming that you want to see Drew, Eli, Sam, Matthew, Matt, Derek, Fitz, Phil, Teddy, Tyrod...?? on the list, but none of them were better than Alex this year.

EDIT: Proof that my brain is becoming more and more useless, I forgot about Dalton in my list of top QBs this season.

 

[Billie]

Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Eli were all much better than Smith. Heck even Cutler and Stafford were better.

Smith is just asked very little of. He excels at what is asked form him but it's very little. Doesn't make him a top 10 QB for me.

Being in the playoffs wasn't one of my criteria, but its pretty tough to make the playoffs without a top 10 QB.

don't agree. Look at the AFC playoff teams. There's Brady and Roethlisberger but other than that not much good qb's there. It's how good your 53 guys are that matter.

Manning/Osweiler
Mallett/Hoyer/Weeden/Yates
Dalton (good enough for me)/McCarron
Smith

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Eli were all much better than Smith. Heck even Cutler and Stafford were better.

Smith is just asked very little of. He excels at what is asked form him but it's very little. Doesn't make him a top 10 QB for me.

Being in the playoffs wasn't one of my criteria, but its pretty tough to make the playoffs without a top 10 QB.

don't agree. Look at the AFC playoff teams. There's Brady and Roethlisberger but other than that not much good qb's there. It's how good your 53 guys are that matter.

Manning/Osweiler
Mallett/Hoyer/Weeden/Yates
Dalton (good enough for me)/McCarron
Smith

OK, you said Smith wasn't a top 10 QB, so who are the 10 who were better than him this year (I can see six or seven)? Just an FYI, I'm not a KC fan, nor a Smith fan necessarily, but I have always appreciated the way he plays. Not everyone can be MVP Aaron Rodgers, not even Aaron this year, but Smith ticks off solid years every year.

EDIT: Sorry, you listed these already: "Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Eli were all much better than Smith. Heck even Cutler and Stafford were better." I disagree with all of those.

Yah, Houston made the playoffs without much behind center.

Even though Manning had the worst year of his career, he is so good at reading the game (hard to type that with his NFL leading picks, but his injuries, not his mind lead to most of those) that he was able to do enough to keep Denver on top. Osweiler played better than the bottom half of the other QBs. Dalton was top 10 this year.

EDIT: I agree that the entire roster has to play well. I've posted before that to be a successful team, they have to have at least 30 guys who can bring it on game day.

 

[Billie]

QB's this season: (I based this on what I saw with my eyes aswell as analysis from PFF, FO, PFref) Not a big fan of any individual stat to measure qb'ing. They generally are better at describing a teams passing game as a whole than the performance of an individual qb. Things I like: Deep passing, handling the rush. Things I don't like: throwing short of the sticks, screens (they require no QB skill whatsoever though play a large role in his stats).

1Tie. Newton/Palmer
3. Brady
4. Roethlisberger
5. Wilson
6. Dalton
7. Rivers
8. Brees
9. Rodgers
10. Manning
11. Cutler
12. Stafford
13. Cousins
14. Smith
15. Taylor

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

QB's this season: (I based this on what I saw with my eyes aswell as analysis from PFF, FO, PFref) Not a big fan of any individual stat to measure qb'ing. They generally are better at describing a teams passing game as a whole than the performance of an individual qb. Things I like: Deep passing, handling the rush. Things I don't like: throwing short of the sticks, screens (they require no QB skill whatsoever though play a large role in his stats).

1Tie. Newton/Palmer
3. Brady
4. Roethlisberger
5. Wilson
6. Dalton
7. Rivers
8. Brees
9. Rodgers
10. Manning
11. Cutler
12. Stafford
13. Cousins
14. Smith
15. Taylor

I agree with the bold/red.

Using the "eye/I", I agree with your top six. Rivers, Brees, Rodgers, Manning looked top half, but sloppy this year. Cousins could be top 10, but Stafford, and even more so Cutler just make too many bad plays. Like I said, I see Smith at six or seven, but his clean play definitely puts him above Stafford and Cutler for me.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Despite an off year, where he faced too much pressure, and lost his best receiver, one would have to still consider Rodgers a top 5, or top 3 QB in the league. He goes through progressions as quick as anyone, sees the entire field as well as anyone, and has a very accurate and very strong arm that can put balls into very tight places. He also is well capable of throwing the ball deep down the field and to the sidelines with accuracy. While the Packers can get into grooves of throwing a lot of quick slants and outs and screens, with Rodgers they are equally dangerous on any given play on throws 20+ yards down the field. More than any other QB in the NFL.

As to Alex Smith, I think this week's game might be telling. They play on the road, against a Houston defense who has given up, 6, 6, and 10 points in their last three games. They also held New Orleans, and Cincinnati (with Dalton) each to just 6 points. There is every reason to think they'll play a lot of press man coverage, with the linebackers hogging the middle of the field, challenging the Chiefs to try to go deep, or wide, and try to stop JJ Watt. But the Chiefs offense is diverse, and they have been excellent in the red zone. 9th in scoring overall.

People talk about Kansas City winning 10 in a row, but the Texans have gone 7-2 in their last nine games. My big concern is the Texans being able to move the ball with consistency, and get into the end zone against the KC defense. The Chiefs may not score much, and Smith may do little more than manage the game, but odds are it's more than the Texans will do. Could be one of those 20-16 games.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Despite an off year, where he faced too much pressure, and lost his best receiver, one would have to still consider Rodgers a top 5, or top 3 QB in the league. He goes through progressions as quick as anyone, sees the entire field as well as anyone, and has a very accurate and very strong arm that can put balls into very tight places. He also is well capable of throwing the ball deep down the field and to the sidelines with accuracy. While the Packers can get into grooves of throwing a lot of quick slants and outs and screens, with Rodgers they are equally dangerous on any given play on throws 20+ yards down the field. More than any other QB in the NFL.

As to Alex Smith, I think this week's game might be telling. They play on the road, against a Houston defense who has given up, 6, 6, and 10 points in their last three games. They also held New Orleans, and Cincinnati (with Dalton) each to just 6 points. There is every reason to think they'll play a lot of press man coverage, with the linebackers hogging the middle of the field, challenging the Chiefs to try to go deep, or wide, and try to stop JJ Watt. But the Chiefs offense is diverse, and they have been excellent in the red zone. 9th in scoring overall.

People talk about Kansas City winning 10 in a row, but the Texans have gone 7-2 in their last nine games. My big concern is the Texans being able to move the ball with consistency, and get into the end zone against the KC defense. The Chiefs may not score much, and Smith may do little more than manage the game, but odds are it's more than the Texans will do. Could be one of those 20-16 games.

RE: Rodgers: Even though he's had an off year, I have every expectation that he has plenty more MVP level seasons in the future, but IMO he isn't a top 5 QB this year. EDIT: Even in a bad year he tickles the top 10 though.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Agree. Not this year. But in general the guy is capable of GOAT talk.

I've been reading, listening, and thinking about the whole Los Angeles issue. Will 1 team move there? Two? Which teams? Even though the owners meeting will address it next week, there's no guarantee we'll get a solid answer from that meeting. Still, I think we'll learn a lot. And I think the league's decision will come down to two key factors:

Money and Risk.

If you start thinking like a businessman, a franchise owner, you start contemplating what decision costs the least, and mitigates the most risk, while still attaining enough reward (profit). It's not about what city is closest to building a stadium that currently has a team. Or which city has the worst stadium already. For this reason, I think there will be one team that moves to LA, and that team is the Rams. Here's why:

While LA is a big market, they haven't had a team in years. So, you're going to have to make damned sure there's enough fans to fill seats. People in LA are fickle, and you don't think of it as being a huge sports town, despite being a huge metropolis. And they'll look for a team to be loyal to. The team most associated with the city historically, is the Rams. The Chargers started there but that was very brief, they are San Diego. When the Raiders were there, many people thought of them as the Oakland Raiders anyway. Having one team there mitigates the risk. Ignore the "two teams one huge stadium" deal. That's a minimal part of the picture. Having just one team go there, cuts the risk factor down, and guarantees more success.

Next is cost. And this is key to me. Stan Kroenke is without question the best of three options here. He's got more business smarts than either Dean Spanos (SD), or Mark Davis (Oak), and more money. He already owns the land in LA, and is willing to pony up all the money to build a stadium if he has to. He has nearly five times as much wealth as Spanos and Davis combined. Even if you factor in the entire Spanos family (really Alex and Dean), plus Davis willingness to sell minority ownership of the Raiders, they still don't come close to Kroenke's wealth. Also, if you look at some of the decisions the Spanos family has made regarding the Chargers and San Diego, they've rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. While Raiders fans are loyal to the Davis family, Mark hasn't exactly shown much wisdom in this regard. So asking the Spanos family, plus Davis, to somehow work with the city of Carson, with the NFL, is going to be not only more risky, but more costly than just letting Kroenke cut a big check.

Next, if you look at another ugly side, it's what current fans are willing to put up with. Without question, as awful as the Oakland coliseum is (and I've been there, many years ago, and it was a dump then), Raider fans are quite loyal, and some even embrace their dump. Overall numbers aren't high (because of it's design) but they tend to sell tickets, and have few no-shows. Charger fans are more fair, but their stadium isn't as bad, it's just old, and many of their fans still show up. They're in the lower quarter of the league, but that's not terrible. The Rams have had a harder time filling seats. In fact, they ranked dead last in 2015 in attendance. Not just numbers, but percentage as well.

Next, even if only one team moves to LA, it's not the end of the world for the other two teams. Both San Diego and The Bay Area (not likely the city of Oakland, but anywhere there, or between there and Sacramento) could still build stadiums in a year or two. And if not, there are cities who might do it. San Antonio, Portland, Las Vegas St. Louis even.

Well know more next week. But this is what my gut tells me.

 

[movingtarget]

Payton decides to stay with the Saints. Chip Kelly and Mike Shanahan are now the favorites for the 49ers job. Chip Kelly will obviously polarize opinions after what happened at his previous team. Some were expecting him to head back to college football like Jim Harbaugh. But as predicted by some it seems that not a lot of proven coaches are interested in the 49ers. Adam Gase is unlikely after being favored to get the job last year.The other candidates are either new coaches or coaches who have never been a head coach. If Kelly does get the job it will be interesting how that impacts on Kaep who is now undergoing thumb surgery. It could turn out worse for Gabbert who has done okay in a poorly performing team.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

Agree. Not this year. But in general the guy is capable of GOAT talk.

I've been reading, listening, and thinking about the whole Los Angeles issue. Will 1 team move there? Two? Which teams? Even though the owners meeting will address it next week, there's no guarantee we'll get a solid answer from that meeting. Still, I think we'll learn a lot. And I think the league's decision will come down to two key factors:

Money and Risk.

If you start thinking like a businessman, a franchise owner, you start contemplating what decision costs the least, and mitigates the most risk, while still attaining enough reward (profit). It's not about what city is closest to building a stadium that currently has a team. Or which city has the worst stadium already. For this reason, I think there will be one team that moves to LA, and that team is the Rams. Here's why:

While LA is a big market, they haven't had a team in years. So, you're going to have to make damned sure there's enough fans to fill seats. People in LA are fickle, and you don't think of it as being a huge sports town, despite being a huge metropolis. And they'll look for a team to be loyal to. The team most associated with the city historically, is the Rams. The Chargers started there but that was very brief, they are San Diego. When the Raiders were there, many people thought of them as the Oakland Raiders anyway. Having one team there mitigates the risk. Ignore the "two teams one huge stadium" deal. That's a minimal part of the picture. Having just one team go there, cuts the risk factor down, and guarantees more success.

Next is cost. And this is key to me. Stan Kroenke is without question the best of three options here. He's got more business smarts than either Dean Spanos (SD), or Mark Davis (Oak), and more money. He already owns the land in LA, and is willing to pony up all the money to build a stadium if he has to. He has nearly five times as much wealth as Spanos and Davis combined. Even if you factor in the entire Spanos family (really Alex and Dean), plus Davis willingness to sell minority ownership of the Raiders, they still don't come close to Kroenke's wealth. Also, if you look at some of the decisions the Spanos family has made regarding the Chargers and San Diego, they've rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. While Raiders fans are loyal to the Davis family, Mark hasn't exactly shown much wisdom in this regard. So asking the Spanos family, plus Davis, to somehow work with the city of Carson, with the NFL, is going to be not only more risky, but more costly than just letting Kroenke cut a big check.

Next, if you look at another ugly side, it's what current fans are willing to put up with. Without question, as awful as the Oakland coliseum is (and I've been there, many years ago, and it was a dump then), Raider fans are quite loyal, and some even embrace their dump. Overall numbers aren't high (because of it's design) but they tend to sell tickets, and have few no-shows. Charger fans are more fair, but their stadium isn't as bad, it's just old, and many of their fans still show up. They're in the lower quarter of the league, but that's not terrible. The Rams have had a harder time filling seats. In fact, they ranked dead last in 2015 in attendance. Not just numbers, but percentage as well.

Next, even if only one team moves to LA, it's not the end of the world for the other two teams. Both San Diego and The Bay Area (not likely the city of Oakland, but anywhere there, or between there and Sacramento) could still build stadiums in a year or two. And if not, there are cities who might do it. San Antonio, Portland, Las Vegas St. Louis even.

Well know more next week. But this is what my gut tells me.

I agree I think the Rams will be moving. It makes sense with the poor attendance in St Louis and LA not having a team at the moment.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Agree. Not this year. But in general the guy is capable of GOAT talk.

I've been reading, listening, and thinking about the whole Los Angeles issue. Will 1 team move there? Two? Which teams? Even though the owners meeting will address it next week, there's no guarantee we'll get a solid answer from that meeting. Still, I think we'll learn a lot. And I think the league's decision will come down to two key factors:

Money and Risk.

If you start thinking like a businessman, a franchise owner, you start contemplating what decision costs the least, and mitigates the most risk, while still attaining enough reward (profit). It's not about what city is closest to building a stadium that currently has a team. Or which city has the worst stadium already. For this reason, I think there will be one team that moves to LA, and that team is the Rams. Here's why:

While LA is a big market, they haven't had a team in years. So, you're going to have to make damned sure there's enough fans to fill seats. People in LA are fickle, and you don't think of it as being a huge sports town, despite being a huge metropolis. And they'll look for a team to be loyal to. The team most associated with the city historically, is the Rams. The Chargers started there but that was very brief, they are San Diego. When the Raiders were there, many people thought of them as the Oakland Raiders anyway. Having one team there mitigates the risk. Ignore the "two teams one huge stadium" deal. That's a minimal part of the picture. Having just one team go there, cuts the risk factor down, and guarantees more success.

Next is cost. And this is key to me. Stan Kroenke is without question the best of three options here. He's got more business smarts than either Dean Spanos (SD), or Mark Davis (Oak), and more money. He already owns the land in LA, and is willing to pony up all the money to build a stadium if he has to. He has nearly five times as much wealth as Spanos and Davis combined. Even if you factor in the entire Spanos family (really Alex and Dean), plus Davis willingness to sell minority ownership of the Raiders, they still don't come close to Kroenke's wealth. Also, if you look at some of the decisions the Spanos family has made regarding the Chargers and San Diego, they've rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. While Raiders fans are loyal to the Davis family, Mark hasn't exactly shown much wisdom in this regard. So asking the Spanos family, plus Davis, to somehow work with the city of Carson, with the NFL, is going to be not only more risky, but more costly than just letting Kroenke cut a big check.

Next, if you look at another ugly side, it's what current fans are willing to put up with. Without question, as awful as the Oakland coliseum is (and I've been there, many years ago, and it was a dump then), Raider fans are quite loyal, and some even embrace their dump. Overall numbers aren't high (because of it's design) but they tend to sell tickets, and have few no-shows. Charger fans are more fair, but their stadium isn't as bad, it's just old, and many of their fans still show up. They're in the lower quarter of the league, but that's not terrible. The Rams have had a harder time filling seats. In fact, they ranked dead last in 2015 in attendance. Not just numbers, but percentage as well.

Next, even if only one team moves to LA, it's not the end of the world for the other two teams. Both San Diego and The Bay Area (not likely the city of Oakland, but anywhere there, or between there and Sacramento) could still build stadiums in a year or two. And if not, there are cities who might do it. San Antonio, Portland, Las Vegas St. Louis even.

Well know more next week. But this is what my gut tells me.

All good points. I would like to see the Raiders get a football field for the entire season even if they don't move.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sean Payton staying in New Orleans.

Chuck Pagano staying in Indy. Reportedly it was a two hour meeting with the owner where Pagano convinced him he has a plan and the team should stick with him. This re-signing has so far been well received by players.

Lovie Smith was fired yesterday as the Bucs coach. I can't recall which pundit said it, an ex-player or ex-coach under him, who said he's a very polite and thoughtful man, and never better than a below average coach. Greg Rosenthal of NFL.com says TB is the top coaching vacancy, but I disagree. I think it's the New York Giants. Yes, the Giants have a lot of problems coming up, but it's in the top market, a team with great ownership, and a lot of history. It looks like Bob McAdoo, current OC, will get an interview for the job. Eli likes him a lot, or so I hear.

Hugh Jackson has been given the okay to interview for the Cleveland job. When looking at their roster, outside of QB, and help on the right side of the line, they're roster isn't so bad. Presuming Josh Gordon comes back with his head on straight, they'll have him and Travis Benjamin who can just fly. Joe Thomas is an outstanding LT, for example. Plus, their defense is decent. It seems to be management and an impatient, meddling owner that's the problem. Oh, and QB.

But I still think the place a coach could go and rebuild is Tennessee. Potential star QB, first pick in the draft. There's a lot to like there. Bud Adams may be getting senile, but they have hope.

Alex Smith spoke yesterday about needing to perform at a higher level, pointing out his inability to close the door in the 2014 playoff game against the Colts as an example. The last time the Chiefs won a playoff game? Joe Montana was their quarterback!

Calvin Johnson is dropping hints he may retire. After 9 years he's more and more beat up.

And Sunday's Minnesota-Seattle game has a forecast high of 1 degree. Accuweather says the "real feel" will be -14.

 

[jmdirt]

"And Sunday's Minnesota-Seattle game has a forecast high of 1 degree. Accuweather says the "real feel" will be -14."

I have long been a supporter of having all NFL facilities closed. It makes all games an even playing field. I want to see both teams at their best, not one or both struggling to figure out how to do something on a slick surface, while their fingers and toes are numb. I don't want to see a passing offense have to run the ball 40 times. Its better for the fans who attend the game as well. I get all of the nostalgia, but they didn't used to wear helmets, or make millions of $$ either. I could go on, but I have a meeting.

EDIT: I realize that the Min. has a unique situation this year.

 

[The Hitch]

-14 meh that's not that bad. I mean its bad but iirc GB vs SF 2 years ago had real feel of -50 and Kaep was running around in a t shirt

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re:

I have long been a supporter of having all NFL facilities closed....

I completely disagree with you, and feel the exact opposite, that domes should be banned. This isn't basketball, it's football. As to the players, the weather is the same for everyone. So it's not like one team is freezing while the other is warm. Modern technology also makes the field playable with heaters underneath, plus sophisticated drainage systems for storms. Benches are heated, and there are jet engine heaters on the sidelines as well. Some players like QB's also use chemical hand warmers in pouches. Rarely, rarely do players complain about the weather in football. Many like the challenge of playing in it, many even play in short sleeves, and it also adds to football lore. If a team has a total passing attack in September, but by January they can't play because they can't run the ball, that too can be remedied by planning and coaching.

This isn't the 1960s, with the Ice Bowl and unheated Lambeau frozen over into a sheet of ice, nor Budd Grant of the Vikings insisting there be no heaters on his sidelines, because he wants his players to play harder on the field to keep warm. Also, even the most open stadiums are not like they used to be, like the old Met where the Vikings played, or Cleveland's old stadium, that was open on one end, welcoming the wind. There's also the issue of global warming. Yes, that's only a small amount, but that's also the direction the world is headed.