National Football League

[Alpe d'Huez]

This whole thing is plain egregious; 55 years of tradition in SD, and all is lost because these Billionaire owners can't figure out how to finance a stadium without having to prey on the taxpayers for financial support of these ridiculous mega-stadiums...Greedy owners, spoiled management, wimpy fans...not the same product anymore

I understand what you are saying, but there are only 4 fixed dome stadiums in the NFL (Minnesota mostly fixed, with glass roof, and doors that open to the side), and 4 retractables, that's it. The retractables in Dallas and Arizona have glass/plex roofs, and Arizona plays on grass. There are a few stadiums I do despise though. Atlanta's Georgia Dome most of all. What on earth are they doing playing in a dome? And a dim and dark one at that. I could say the same for New Orleans, but the city and state simply don't have the money to do anything now.

If you flip this around, look at Green Bay. I can't ever, ever, ever see a domed stadium going in there. The same really for Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, New England, a few more teams and cities. They accept and embrace the weather, players and fans. Seattle can be very wet, but I distinctly recall when their new stadium went in fans insisting they wanted it open air.

As to San Diego, I agree about the Spanos family, they didn't even wait until the extended NFL deadline to announce they were gone. Alex Spanos is worth $2.4b, and didn't seem to want to budge. Mark Davis has about $500m, and has offered to sell a minority stake in the team to keep them in Oakland. Davis also is known to be fairly modest. He uses an old cell phone, and drives a 1997 Dodge Caravan to work, which he bought off the lot. He apparently goes to the same barber he has for 30 years.

Now that San Diego is moving, the Raiders will be playing in the worst stadium in the NFL. I personally think they should move to Levi Stadium, at least to try it out, but egos seem to get in the way of that. Not just owners, but fans, city officials, it's just stupid. I can't see the NFL wanting a team in Las Vegas, and people in the other 98% of the large state will be fuming if they have to pay taxes for a stadium, but stranger things have happened.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Nomad's and Alpe's discussion of stadiums and SD moving to LA is a segue to these comments by Pete Carroll, who, having coached at USC, knows something about LA area fan support:

I think it's hard having one (team), so it's going to be harder having two," Carroll said Thursday, via The Seattle Times. "(StubHub Center is) a beautiful stadium, just not very big. It'll be interesting. It's going to be fascinating to see what happens and I think it's an extraordinary challenge for the people of the area to figure out their allegiance and what they're doing. There will be a strong pull, I'm sure, from the southern part down by San Diego and all through that. It will be fascinating to see what happens. It's an enormous experiment.

(http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...carroll-its-hard-enough-having-one-team-in-la)

StubHub has a nice rep in terms of quality. But e-gads! Seating capacity is just 27,000.
http://www.stubhubcenter.com/about/about-stub-hub-center has to be a temporary home until something with more capacity is figured out.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

Nomad's and Alpe's discussion of stadiums and SD moving to LA is a segue to these comments by Pete Carroll, who, having coached at USC, knows something about LA area fan support:

I think it's hard having one (team), so it's going to be harder having two," Carroll said Thursday, via The Seattle Times. "(StubHub Center is) a beautiful stadium, just not very big. It'll be interesting. It's going to be fascinating to see what happens and I think it's an extraordinary challenge for the people of the area to figure out their allegiance and what they're doing. There will be a strong pull, I'm sure, from the southern part down by San Diego and all through that. It will be fascinating to see what happens. It's an enormous experiment.

(http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...carroll-its-hard-enough-having-one-team-in-la)

StubHub has a nice rep in terms of quality. But e-gads! Seating capacity is just 27,000.
http://www.stubhubcenter.com/about/about-stub-hub-center has to be a temporary home until something with more capacity is figured out.

Just like the Sonics in 2008, the Chargers are getting royally screwed with this. A franchise that's been in the same city for 56 years leaves with a whimper, the fans irate, the owners 'understanding' of the fans disappointment but in reality they are giving the fans a big middle finger and laughing all the way to the bank. There are a number of PNW fans in these threads. I am sure you guys can relate with the city of San Diego. Oakland is next.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I can definitely relate to & understand SD fans loss, including video showing their fans burning Charger flags, jerseys, etc.

I'm sure many of you have noticed some of the Charger/LA trashing going on in social media. Here is the caption to one of the better ones I have seen:

IN 2015 LOS ANGELES HAD NO PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAMS.
A YEAR LATER THEY ARE STILL LOOKING FOR ONE.

 

[Nomad]

This whole thing is plain egregious; 55 years of tradition in SD, and all is lost because these Billionaire owners can't figure out how to finance a stadium without having to prey on the taxpayers for financial support of these ridiculous mega-stadiums...Greedy owners, spoiled management, wimpy fans...not the same product anymore

I understand what you are saying, but there are only 4 fixed dome stadiums in the NFL (Minnesota mostly fixed, with glass roof, and doors that open to the side), and 4 retractables, that's it. The retractables in Dallas and Arizona have glass/plex roofs, and Arizona plays on grass. There are a few stadiums I do despise though. Atlanta's Georgia Dome most of all. What on earth are they doing playing in a dome? And a dim and dark one at that. I could say the same for New Orleans, but the city and state simply don't have the money to do anything now.

If you flip this around, look at Green Bay. I can't ever, ever, ever see a domed stadium going in there. The same really for Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, New England, a few more teams and cities. They accept and embrace the weather, players and fans. Seattle can be very wet, but I distinctly recall when their new stadium went in fans insisting they wanted it open air.

As to San Diego, I agree about the Spanos family, they didn't even wait until the extended NFL deadline to announce they were gone. Alex Spanos is worth $2.4b, and didn't seem to want to budge. Mark Davis has about $500m, and has offered to sell a minority stake in the team to keep them in Oakland. Davis also is known to be fairly modest. He uses an old cell phone, and drives a 1997 Dodge Caravan to work, which he bought off the lot. He apparently goes to the same barber he has for 30 years.

Now that San Diego is moving, the Raiders will be playing in the worst stadium in the NFL. I personally think they should move to Levi Stadium, at least to try it out, but egos seem to get in the way of that. Not just owners, but fans, city officials, it's just stupid. I can't see the NFL wanting a team in Las Vegas, and people in the other 98% of the large state will be fuming if they have to pay taxes for a stadium, but stranger things have happened.

U.S. Bank Stadium is a completely fixed translucent roof facility to the tune of 1 Billion dollars with some of that coming from public funding. But owners got to show-off and keep the fans nice & toasty warm (it's hard to believe that once upon a time ago the Vikings played "outdoors" in Bloomington in the good old days of Tarkenton & Foreman). In addition, Hard Rock stadium now has a partial roof/canopy that shields 90% of the fans from the rain (Dolphins fans have been getting rained on for decades in the old Orange Bowl/Joe Robbie/Sun Light stadiums and now they get wimpy...go figure):

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-dolphins/fl-dolphins-hard-rock-stadium-0830-20160829-story.html

CenturyLink Field may be open air, but it's canopy shields about 70% of the seating capicity from the rain. I believe the original design was for a retractable but the owner didn't want it (they played for decades in the Kingdome). Similar situation for Metlife, the fans wanted a retractable, but it was too expensive (shocking they had a SB there...fans could have been very uncomfortable with the cold temps at that time of year in NY. Lol). OTOH, I give the tough-fan award to the Buffalo faithful who sit year after year in freezing temps in Nov/Dec/Jan rooting for a team that hasn't been to the playoffs since 1999.

And you said that you despise the Georgia Dome? No worries anymore...it's history, and replaced with the Mercedes-Benz palace to the tune of *1.5* Billion Bucks! Check out the virtual tour...I'm surprised they didn't add a shopping mall, IMAX theatre, family fun center, etc. Lol.

https://youtu.be/8qoGP1NNJwY

It seems to have become a big game with owners now to show-off with extravagant, grandiose mega-stadiums. Plan to build a spectacle of a stadium and prey on the taxpayers for financial support, and if they resist then play poor sport and move your club to another city that'll be a sucker to your demands. It's nonsense and the owners just sit back and laugh. Rams to LA, Chargers to LA, Raiders to Vegas...who's next? And in the meantime the average Joe get's priced out of going to any games

 

[Tank Engine]

Back to this weekend:

Apart from Houston at NE, they look like pretty good match ups.

The Steelers were inconsistent at the beginning of the season, but are on a roll with their offence firing on all cylinders. The Chiefs are simply a solid football team. I said about 2/3 of the way for the season that the Steelers seemed the most likely team to make a late run. I'll stick with that, but I think it'll be close.

The Seahawks have also been hot and cold. I think the Atlanta offence will just have enough to deal with the admittedly talented Seahawks defense.

Jody Nelson is out of the Packers' team, which will be a blow (although the Packers' pass offense is very balanced).
The Packers are on a roll and the Cowboys have had their feet off the throttle for the last few weeks, so they'll have to step up a few gears tomorrow.
I think it will be a close match up (just as two years ago). The Dez Bryant non-catch was the big talking point then, but I think the crucial play came on the Murray fumble when it looked like he had an open field in front of him. The key for Dallas (as usual) will be to control the clock, avoid turnovers and be highly efficient in the red zone. The Packers run defense is fairly solid, but Zeke had a big game against them and Dallas should be able to move the ball through the air. They're not going to stop the Packers' offense, so it should be a high scoring game. I'm biased, so I have to pick Dallas.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I'm going to pretty much stick with my original picks, if only barely.

I'll take Seattle to squeak by Atlanta, again, unless they get too far behind.

I like New England to beat Houston by double digits.

I'll take Pittsburgh to eek out a win over Kansas City. I just think the Steelers have more tools.

I'll take Dallas over Green Bay in a close, high scoring game, unless Dallas gets too far behind.

 

[Nomad]

I like your first two picks with Seattle & NE.

On Pitt & KC...the question is just how healthy is Big Ben? This time of year he always seems to have one injury or another. Also, the condition of the field may not be alI that great with the impending ice storm they're expecting...not good for an immobile QB. I think KC's defense will put the wood on him - KC in a close one.

I Like GB over Dallas: The "Pack is Back" with a 7-game winning streak. Rogers vs the young kid who may be little rusty after a 2 week layoff, and overwhelmed in his first playoff game with the pressure of the high expectations to win being the #1 seed & best record in NFL.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

You bring up good points in the KC-Pitt game.

I'm 0-1 so far, though I was right if Seattle got behind by a bit, they'd lose. This is what happens when all your salary goes to a few players, and nothing is left for your OL. It's been said many times by many pundits, games are won and lost in the trenches, and that's really where Seattle lost this one. Props to Atlanta, especially on offense, and their OL, firing on all cylinders.

 

[movingtarget]

Atlanta did well in the Battle of the Birds. Even with an impressive game by the Seattle kick returner often giving them good field position they couldn't manage it. Falcons defense also picked up as the game wore on. Seattlle looked a bit battered and tired by the fourth quarter. Falcons are looking good and are going to be a SB threat I think. Sherman was getting beaten quite a lot.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

You bring up good points in the KC-Pitt game.

I'm 0-1 so far, though I was right if Seattle got behind by a bit, they'd lose. This is what happens when all your salary goes to a few players, and nothing is left for your OL. It's been said many times by many pundits, games are won and lost in the trenches, and that's really where Seattle lost this one. Props to Atlanta, especially on offense, and their OL, firing on all cylinders.

I think the warning signs have been there all season for Seattle.

 

[movingtarget]

Just as the Texans looked like getting back into the game mistakes killed them off. A few dropped balls that should have been caught including one in the end zone plus a few bad throws by Ostweiler and that was the game done.

 

[movingtarget]

Aaron Rodgers family rift

http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pgCZAgHscsrtUELvfSt53SSi5xdpx0QJbUfFMIoizrXjc/9sxOIkeXyyPVE3yDcCLlAlRVl0+gc68D9iaHpeYp0l4sQbCNRajXIzEyEVvJwFvMViDzmFNB2KpsaR+VPFqNKH7pilVGwlx0Ozh2n61XgmgbX5tv8gmF&campaign_id=129&instance_id=90188&segment_id=101699&user_id=12d98412e3bcc0522f6cfbf4c21c54e6&regi_id=42685115

Let me guess..........someone doesn't like the new girlfriend...........

 

[Nomad]

Re:

Just as the Texans looked like getting back into the game mistakes killed them off. A few dropped balls that should have been caught including one in the end zone plus a few bad throws by Ostweiler and that was the game done.

Agree...and how in the heck did Will Fuller drop that beautifully thrown pass right to him right in the endzone? And Osweiler definitely has an arm at times...just needs more consistency. One of the things that killed Houston was their red zone offense was terrible: 1-4 vs 3-4 for the Pats. Though the game at times looked interesting with Houston fighting to keep it close, I never doubted NE would win. What people forget is Brady's career record in home playoff games is 18-5...incredible.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Re: Re:

You bring up good points in the KC-Pitt game.

I'm 0-1 so far, though I was right if Seattle got behind by a bit, they'd lose. This is what happens when all your salary goes to a few players, and nothing is left for your OL. It's been said many times by many pundits, games are won and lost in the trenches, and that's really where Seattle lost this one. Props to Atlanta, especially on offense, and their OL, firing on all cylinders.

I think the warning signs have been there all season for Seattle.

That's the truth. And now for the reasons. Atlanta blew out Seattle so badly that I'm not sure a completely healthy Seattle defense with Earl Thomas would have made enough of a difference. Had Seattle not made special teams mistakes/ penalties in the first half the game would have been different, but I'm not even sure that erasing those mistakes could have made enough of a difference either.

I wonder if player personnel and payroll is starting to have an effect on Seattle's ability to play at a higher level. I've not checked Atlanta, but seems they have a payroll balance skewed more to the offensive players, and have lower paid defenders who just got the job done. Much like Seattle used to be that led to their 2013 superbowl win when Seattle's star defenders were not all paid that much. Now Seattle has defenders with big contracts (Thomas, Kam, Wagner, KJ Wright, Avril, Sherman, and now Bennett) at the expense of offensive players with exception of Wilson, Baldwin and Graham. Also, many know Seattle's OL in 2013 was a better playing group who also got paid better or were due to be paid better (Okung, Unger, Carpenter, Bailey, Giaccomini - of which the last 3 were at least serviceable). It is pretty clear Seattle's anemic Jekyll & Hyde offense really comes down to inconsistent OL play, who can either be good (though not really good) or really bad any given day (or play). Sometimes the best defense is a good enough offense to score some points and give the defense a spell. Cliche, but true.

Dallas is another example of a team that favors offensive payroll, even if they are not having to pay much for Dak Prescot at this time.

It could be that all Seattle's OL needs is some more expierence together and time to gel and improve. Either that or they shed payroll somewhere and go after some free agent help in the off season. Those are the kind of decisions those high paid GMs and coaches get to make that can either make or break them.

Either way, nice game by Atlanta even if they got away with offensive PI on that first TD to Julio.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I personally would not want to play New England next week. Even though either team they face, especially Pittsburgh, will have a better offense than what the Pats faced in Houston, the Pats will be facing a weaker defense, and I can't imagine them, especially Brady, playing so out of sync.

Lots of talk about people like Atlanta's chances next week, but whomever they face, is going to have a much better offense, especially an OL, than the Seattle team they just beat.

Seattle's OL had all season, plus the pre-season, training camp, and arguably the best OL coach in the NFL to help them "gel". I think it takes more than that, it takes actual talent, and that costs money, money the Seahawks didn't want to spend, and don't have right now.

 

[BullsFan22]

Well, I honestly felt the Hawks had a chance. Heck, I even had a bit of confidence that they'd win, particularly as they hung tough in the first half, but alas, it didn't happen. They were outplayed in virtually every facet of the game, offense, defense, secondary, special teams.

I felt when they Hawks were trailing 12-10, the Falcons made a big stop on 3rd down late in the 2nd quarter and then on their drive, they scored and then it was halftime. 19-10. Everyone can play the 'could of should of would of' game every game, but that may have been that moment in yesterdays game. If the Hawks somehow get to the end zone on that drive or even get a FG out of it, it could have had a different complexion to the game.

Anyway, the big picture here is that if Paul Allen, the management and the coaches want to seriously challenge for the SB next season, they are going to have to cough up some money on the OL, among other areas. It's important to keep Wilson, obviously, but many other positions have to be evaluated. Can't keep going with the same plan year after year and hoping that it may work even though it didn't work the year before. That's not going to get the job done. Wilson, Rawls and Graham have to be kept. Sherman, Thomas, Bennett also. Those are the backbone(s) of the offense/defense. Maybe they'll get try to free up some space/money, who knows, but they have to upgrade the OL. There is no excuse now. Paul Allen is one of the wealthiest owners in the NFL. Even if Wilson is getting a nice piece of the pie, Allen has the money and resources to upgrade the roster.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Re:

Seattle's OL had all season, plus the pre-season, training camp, and arguably the best OL coach in the NFL to help them "gel". I think it takes more than that, it takes actual talent, and that costs money, money the Seahawks didn't want to spend, and don't have right now.

True it takes talent, which is why I said they might need going after some in free agency. Or (tho I did not say here) do more in the draft like they did a bit last year, and with Britt 3 years ago.

But the OL did not have ALL season (or preaseason) to gel. By position:
LT - day 1 (Aug 30) starter = Gilliam. Oops, that did not work. Sowell takes over through about November. That did not work either. FANT (in first OL start since middle school) takes over in early December through playoff loss to ATL.
RT - day 1 starter = Webb. Again oops. Gilliam takes over. That did not work either. Keeping the competition going Sowell becomes starter in early December at RT after losing LT job. That lasted 1 or 2 weeks when Gilliam reclaimed the starting spot through playoff loss to ATL.
RG - day 1 starter = rookie Ifedi. Looks promising. Injury for a couple week has Webb or rookie Ohdiambo fill in. When Ifedi returned, Webb cut from team.
LG and C - Solid all season except for a couple weeks for injuries to LG Glowinski and C Britt.
So, during the regular season, that's 2 changes at LT (3 since last season) and 3 changes at RT (and 4 since last season). That hardly counts as spending all season together as one unit. Just being on the team does not suffice as being together all season. If it were true that being on the team is good enough, then when Ifedi went out to injury for a couple series in the playoff loss to ATL that DE (Goldilocks, as I forget his name) for ATL would not have sacked Wilson after being unblocked through the B gap (in a clear lack of communication between RG Ohdiambo & RT Gilliam).

That said, the conclusion that more talent is needed is probably true at 1 or 2 positions (LT and RT). If management wants to give Cable more time they might go with the "gel" option, and that could possibly work. I just don't have much faith it will.

As for coach Cable, I'm losing faith in him. He's the one who told Sowell that he could "fix you if you work hard for me". How'd that work? For a zone blocking guru, his players often lunge, getting off balance. That's more coaching, not so much talent. And I don't know, but he's probably telling Carroll he can pull a rabbit out of the hat.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Paul Allen may have a heap of money, but just like many other owners, they have way more than they can spend within the restrictions of the salary cap. Part of Seattle's real problem is when the LOD players started getting big contracts, then selfishly holding out to match each other, and the team caved in thinking short term, it is starting to hurt them long term.

One team with a lot of salary cap space? New England. Scary, huh?

Best team in the league? Cleveland. They may be 1-15, but they aren't broke!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

How valuable is a quarterback? Consider this, if you look at TQR ratings that ESPN puts together, and the traditional passer rating for that matter, you find the list looks like this.

1. Matt Ryan
2. Tom Brady
3. Dak Prescott
4. Aaron Rodgers

Roethlesberger and Smith are 10th and 11th.

The only other QB on the NFL stats, depending on how you crunch them, that is in this elite, is Drew Brees, who throws for an insane amount of yards on a team with no defense. Brees will end up on the HOF, and no one questions if he were on a better team, he'd still likely be in the playoffs as well.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

Paul Allen may have a heap of money, but just like many other owners, they have way more than they can spend within the restrictions of the salary cap. Part of Seattle's real problem is when the LOD players started getting big contracts, then selfishly holding out to match each other, and the team caved in thinking short term, it is starting to hurt them long term.

Restrictions of the salary cap is an issue, but as you said, the real problem is some of the players getting big contracts and holding out and holding out until the last minute. It's like bidding. Unfortunately when there is a part of a team that gets a ton of money, there isn't going to be much for the rest of the team. And what's more, the contract(s) the money makers sign, will hold the team back as far as what they can sell or spend. Getting greedy is what cost them (no pun intended). I don't exactly know where they'll go from here, but they have to upgrade and some will probably not get the money that they want.

 

[movingtarget]

Nice game Packers and Cowboys. Rodgers got them through. They were lucky it did not go to extra time. Cowboys made a good comeback. The last throw by Rodgers probably would not have been made by anyone else.

 

[sienna]

Re:

Nice game Packers and Cowboys. Rodgers got them through. They were lucky it did not go to extra time. Cowboys made a good comeback. The last throw by Rodgers probably would not have been made by anyone else.

Good game but nerve-wracking as hell to watch. Rodgers was in trouble a few times but came good when it counted. Whoo Hoo!

 

[leftover pie]

Good to see the packers finally win a close playoff game, that last kick wobbled so much.

The Cowboys should still be pleased with their season - a lot to look forward to, could probably swap Romo for a few key pieces and take an extra step next year.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

Good to see the packers finally win a close playoff game, that last kick wobbled so much.

The Cowboys should still be pleased with their season - a lot to look forward to, could probably swap Romo for a few key pieces and take an extra step next year.

You are right I thought the kick was veering off but it just scraped in. A great first year from Elliott and Prescott. They will gain a lot from that and from experiencing the playoffs. I agree that Romo will either retire or move on as a few teams need QBs and there are mixed feelings about the draft QBs this year. Last year was seen as a better batch.

The Kansas game also went down to the wire, a holding penalty cost the Chiefs maybefrom extra time although Pittsburgh still had some time up their sleeve.