National Football League

Page 302 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
BullsFan22 said:
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19031009/seattle-seahawks-considering-trade-offers-richard-sherman

Not sure if this is good or bad for the Seahawks. Probably a bit of both, if that makes sense. Sherman hasn't been as good these past two seasons, but he hasn't been horrible either. Thomas and Chancellor have been great, mostly, and those are essentially the three that drive the backbone of the Seattle defense. These guys have all dealt with injuries in recent seasons, but then again, the majority of the NFL has had similar problems. The Seahawks have had a decent offseason in terms of trades and pick ups so far, but if it were up to me, I'd keep Sherman. He is still relatively young and can step up, particularly in pressure situations. They'll be favorites to win the division again, but the way they've played in the playoffs the last two seasons was disappointing, to say the least. Sure, they came up against two teams that flat out beat them in most, if not all categories and they played catch up, and they made a game of it against the Panthers two seasons ago, but if they want to win another SB they have to do it sooner rather later. From the news I've read, Wilson is motivated and working hard. They should have the players to contend for a SB, but I thought the same thing the last two years and they fell way short of that.
Well, it is neither good nor bad for anyone, except for teams that want to get him but can't. It is all just a bunch of banter, and it gets more attention because of Sherman's sideline outbursts last season and media folks trying to create something out of it that's not there. In the video Adam Schefter said Seattle is listening, and that Seattle "put it out there" they are listening. Well, they put it out there because teams have been asking and media seems to take interest in it to sell news. Can't say I blame the media for that. They have to earn a living too. They should give Sherman a percentage of their take for the opportunity Sherm gave them. LOL.

Realistically, Seattle will not trade Sherman because 1) Seattle has a shortage at CB and will likely draft one in the first 4 rounds, and this is assuming they hang onto Sherman, 2) Seattle has holes to fill at OL and DL and they certainly do not want to create another huge hole by letting Sherman go. Letting Sherman go just does not make sense if the trade was 1 for 1, equal for equal. A Sherman trade is like a snowball's chance in he!!.

But listen? You bet. You never know what some team might be willing to offer. Three first rounders? Now they got Seattle's attention. Three first rounders plus the entire 2017 draft of the team wanting Sherman? Then I would say Richard would be wearing that team's unis next season. But likely? Not very.

As for falling short of the SB. Too many injuries to key players (Thomas, Kam, Sherman even though Richard did not miss time, Wilson, the running backs - all of them) while at the same time lacking depth, and a weak OL. The OL was actually pretty healthy, but just lacking talent. What you saw in free agency was Seattle going after guys to fill those holes, including going for backup depth. RB Lacey, a very good S McDougald (he could start most any team) to backup Earl and Kam, a couple of LBs for depth and maybe a new starter at the SAM position, and Luke Joeckel & Oday Aboushi for the OL.

They are not done, and in the draft will prolly target OL-CB-DL-RB-LB, or CB-OL in their 1st two picks.
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
I have to partly agree with those guys in that video. Kaep really isn't in a position to negotiate anything. But how much of a distraction would he really be? I mean, you'd know what you get going in, and Kaep is fairly soft spoken, even if opinionated, so it's something any good marketing/PR department could manage I'd think. Real distractions are things that happen out of the blue, or are so unpredictable, you can't plan and prepare (think Albert Haynesworth, or TO for that matter). If I were a team interviewing Kaep, I'd tell him he can say and do what he wants on his own time, but when he's wearing our team colors, or standing on our ground, he only talks football, and I think Kaep would go for it. Doing that would be a good start.

If you look at QB salaries, and I like OverTheCap for the best website (link below), you'd see salaries that's not different from what could be expected of him. But there's a big gap between Goff, and Glennon at $7 and $15m a year respectively. But above that is Tyrod Taylor, is he worth $15m a year? Below that are Winston, Mariota, and Bortles at $6 and $5m. All will definitely start this year, and could have good years. Aren't they worth more than the $9m Kaep seeks? Granted Winston and Mariota are on the end of rookie contracts, but also keep in mind fully guaranteed contracts.

Here's a shocker. Derek Carr makes only $1.3m a year. Is that a steal or what?

As to comparison's to Mike Glennon, well, Kaep is more physical for sure, more mobile (though Glennon isn't bad) and has a stronger arm. But Glennon goes through progressions much quicker than Kaep, and is more accurate of a passer. Is Glennon "worth" $15m a year? I don't think so, but have said in the past I can see him starting for the right team, is Chicago that team? We'll see. I'm having a hard time seeing Kaepernick starting anywhere.

http://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/
Shocked by Carr's salary but I think he is heading for a pay rise if you consider that the Raiders season duly ended when Carr went down injured. As someone said recently you can't win a Super Bowl without a good QB. I am still scratching my head about Osweiler's salary at the Texans and I thought Mariota and Winston would be earning more. Will be interesting to see how Glennon goes. If Kaep wants to keep playing he must realize that he is not guaranteed a job as a starter and even Gabbert has a better win record over the past two seasons. If it's simply about money then he should retire and get more involved in his social causes. He has to realize that his market value has plummeted. Three wins in 19 starts and a lot of those losses were not always the team's fault but often his fault because the offense was broken. He made poor decisions and couldn't make accurate throws. He threw for minus 4 yards against Chicago last year ! Gabbert came on in the last quarter and immediately looked better which is saying something.
 
Yep. As I consider you a pretty loyal Raiders fan in this forum, I think you must know the feeling of being spat on twice.

If the Raiders move games to San Antonio for the next 2 seasons, the karma in that would be the Raiders could take a bite out of Jerry Jones' Cowboys market, after Jones persuaded the owners to approve the Raiders move to Vegas, where (by the way) one of Jerry's companies and he will benefit from sales at Vegas game events (a conflict of interest, which would be a fireable offense in my job). Remember it was Colin Cowherd's idea that Jones did not want the Raiders in San Antonio for the market reasons - but at least this would be a temporary 2 year deal. I believe Cowherd mentioned Jones' company would be involved in Vegas sales revenue, but stopped short of calling it a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest was my 2 cents. {I may have heard the sales revenue tidbit from a source other than Cowherd.} In any case, it looks and smells like shady politics.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

on3m@n@rmy said:
Semper Fidelis said:
HE HATE ME
Some really funny stuff from back in those days. If the interwebs was then what it is now....oh my. Could have been an even better shhhhhhhhh t show.

The dancers / cheerleaders they had - I was in love with the one Asian girl who was a "cheerleader" for the Outlaws.

They even had hot tubs at the end zone for games. with strippers! LMAO
 
I miss the XFL. Well, kind of. The WWE did a great job promoting it, and I think the world is very ripe for spring football, say, 12 teams in emerging markets playing an 8 game season from late February through May, though Summer could be an option, I think competing with the NBA, and during colder, months when people are inside watching TV more, would work. These "minor league" football leagues exist and have, but only four have met with any success (not including the AFL), the WFL, the USFL, WLAF, and XFL. I think if the NFL owned such a league, similar to what they did with the WLAF, but promoted it the way the WWE did with the XFL, I think it would stick, and last. They could also use it as an experimental league for rule changes.

Speaking of:

1. Feet on the Floor, banning leaping on FG's and PAT's. - I'm against this. I think a better way would be to rule that the leaping player cannot touch anyone on the play, at all, or it's a 15 yard penalty, and make the play reviewable.

2. Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right, unsportsmanlike penalty twice results in ejection - I'm fine with this.

3. Safe Space. The competition committee passed a rule that gives a receiver running a route defenseless player protection. - This is going to be really tough to enforce. How do you determine if a receiver is defenseless? Does this mean if Gronkowski is running over the middle of the field on a pass play, the safety can't come up and hit him until he's actually caught the ball and off and running??

4. #Technology, officials will use Surface tablets to review plays. - They got this wrong, again. They need to follow MLB, and have a centralized officiating studio in NY or LA that watches almost every play on every game. If a red flag is thrown, this team immediately gets to work reviewing it, just like the networks do, and you do at home. This would allow calls to be made much quicker, and leave the official on the field out of it. They also need a strict time limit on it. If the officials haven't ruled on the play within 2 minutes after the red flag hits the ground, the call stands. Over time, this could be probably cut to a minute.

5. Closing a Loophole, or stopping teams from multiple fouls during the same down in an effort to manipulate the game clock. - Okay, now it's a 15 yard penalty. But did I read it correctly, it will reset the game clock? That's what really needs to be done. But why only on multiple fouls? Even one blatant penalty can change the outcome of a play. Didn't this happen to the Patriots the second time they lost to the Giants in the SB? A late call against the Giants on defense still ate some 25 precious seconds off the clock?
 
Generally speaking, I'm with you on the rule changes for the most part, Alpe. At least now the owners and league can CLAIM they are attempting to improve safety! I actually like one of the rule changes (ejections for egregious targeting) not covered in the 5 points below or in the SF 49ers link.

1. feet on floor - me too. My preference to be illegal, the leaping player should be the only person initiating the touch. But if the Center is complicit by sticking his arm up or popping his head up thereby initiating the touch in a case where the defender would have otherwise cleared the snapper, then that should be legal for the leaping player. That could be a difficult officiating call and so it would be easier just to have a rule that says no leaping, period.

What I have heard is proponents of the no leaping rule showed video of leap attempts where the leaper landed on this noggin, which was said to be unsafe (e.g. neck breaking). And this change was backed by the players union.

2. the 2 wrongs DMR rule: fine by me.

3. Safe space: As for giving the route runner defenseless player protections, it all depends on what hitting is going to be illegal. If they are only going to apply this to the neck, head, and possibly knee areas, I'm fine with that. But if they are going to flag a defender for putting a shoulder pad into the torso area, then no. Or what about a rub route where the offense is creating possible collision situations? I would agree with the owners that this is more of a legit safety move.

But I think the definition of a defenseless player was not changed. Per the rulebook:
Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
1) forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenselessplayer by encircling or grasping him
2) lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or ”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenselessplayer’s body
3) illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)
So if I understand it correctly, I'm okay with this rule change.

4. completely agree with you on that. Besides, WhoTH is going to carry the dam thing. And what'll they do when it gets knocked around and stomped on?

5. Multiple foul loophole rule change: they should just apply the KISS principle. All fouls should be enforceable and the offense should get to choose which one to enforce, with the added benefit that no time comes off the game clock (since the multiple fouls was an attempt to manipulate the game clock in the first place).


Another Rule Change Approved:
1. The NFL passed a rule for automatic ejections for egregious hits to the head (somewhat like the NCAA has). This new rule comes a year after the league installed an automatic ejection system for players who committed two personal fouls in the same game. So, now a player's first infraction results in ejection.

I actually like this rule change for safety reasons. I'm just not sure if the ejection is just for the current game, or for an entire game like the NCAA imposes (e.g. NCAA: if the infraction occurs in the second half; player is ejected for the remainder of the game, plus the first half of their next game. In other words, in NCAA it works like a full-game ejection).

Here is some more scuttlebutt on the whole thing:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000795748/article/nfl-bans-line-leaping-approves-ejections-for-head-hits
 
Yeah I think the rule changes are mostly fair enough. Blocking the kick is probably the most contentious. Let's face it sometimes the kicker slips or miss kicks the ball anyway giving the blocker opportunities to leap up and knock the ball down. Even leaping over a player without touching him as hard as that can be is fine with me. They should be allowed to pressure the kicker or put him off at least. It's not as if the kicker is going to get hurt. As for the multiple fouls on the same play you would think the play clock has to be reset as well. The safe space rule will be the one that will be open to interpretation the most.
 
I have to say I see the NFLPA's point of view on players not getting hurt leaping. But does it need to be a true penalty? In general though, I'm going to support any rule that helps with safety. It's the future, and both the league and players need to adapt.

There are other rules I'd like to see the NFL implement:

Make pass interference 15 yards and an automatic first down, not at the spot of the foul. The NCAA does it this way, without a problem. The NFL could make this as the default for PI, then have a flagrant PI penalty that is enforced at the spot of the foul, which would likely happen only on plays where a defender was badly beaten, and desperate to break up a sure long pass, which is rare. But this would need to be tested to see how officials adapt. I think just going to the 15 yard automatic first down is the way to go.

In the playoffs, go back to overtime rules where each team gets to have the ball once, even if the first team scores a touchdown. You could add to the excitement if you like by saying no PAT kicks in OT, every TD must be followed by a 2-point conversion. That would make it less likely the game would continue after two teams scoring a TD each.

Allow more contact in off-season drills. The Belicheck rule (though Mike McCarthy wants it too, so do others). This sounds like more potential injuries at first blush, but Belicheck has argued that a good coaching staff will work with this to have players in better "football shape" and practice and prepare better to avoid injuries.

I still want to see the flags removed from the uprights of the goal posts. Let's make kickers gauge the wind on their own without these aids. It will lead to more drives on the field in nasty weather, and more drama overall.

Look into preparing any and all plays for challenges. Another rule Belicheck wants. The NFL simply isn't there yet. But if they did what I suggest and having a centralized review studio that watches all plays, instead of referees on the field trying to look under hoods or at tablets, it wouldn't be long before a skilled team could have a real pulse on all plays, including tough ones like illegal contact, or holding.

Start looking into ways to eliminate more kickoffs. They could only have kickoffs to start the game, or half, as tradition, and then from there on out a team can either get the ball at the 25, or the kicking team could choose to have the ball at their own 25 yard line, and it's 4th and 15 (roughly the same odds as an on-side kick). I also like the idea saying that a runner cannot return the kick from the endzone, unless the ball bounces on the ground first. This would cut down on some of the worst collisions I would think.

I also like the idea of expanding practice and scout squads, and how many and how much players are allowed to prep for games up until Sunday morning. This could also cut down on players going on forced IR with super minimal injuries. Practice and scout players make little money, averaging $88k a year (rookie minimum is $420k), but are part of the team. This pool could be a little larger than it is, and these players should be treated with more value.

Finally, not a rule change, but the NFL and NFLPA start to begin talks on the next CBA soon. It ends in less than four years. There are two serious points of contention they are going to need to look at, and a few more. Starting soon will really help that process. First is to limit the powers of the commissioner in suspensions, and have them taken over by a panel of arbiters who have final say. This is a must, and I can't see the NFLPA moving forward past the 2020 season without this happening. They won't sign a contract without this. Next is to find a way to fund future retiree players health through a mixture of HSA's and other long-term coverage. This must be addressed, even if it's mostly just psychological insurance, or you're going to lose young players who won't want to play the game.

While not really part of a CBA in legal language, the league and NFLPA should also address the way contracts are structured to try to find a way to stop teams from being like Seattle (other teams too) where 5 players make nearly half the payroll. The league and players also need to find a way to encourage work between players, agents, and the owners to accept smaller contracts, for more guaranteed money, like other sports. This is slowly happening a little more anyway, let's discuss it in the open. I realize this isn't likely to be part of the CBA contract, but it's an issue that isn't mentioned enough. Russell Okung was very lucky last year in Denver. Contracts like that shouldn't exist. And Okung is considered an intelligent man. Imagine those who aren't as smart. (BTW, he got a real contract this season, with the Chargers. Still acting as his own agent, but apparently got advice from his attorney before he signed the deal this time).
 
Holy mackerel! A firestorm of moves are keeping the Raiders in Oakland!
Seattle releases Marshawn Lynch, Raiders sign Lynch, in overwhelming city and community support the City proposes a $1.8 billion stadium and convention center plan that, in a late behind closed doors NFL owners meeting, the owners vote 31-1 to keep the Raiders in Oakland! Only Jerry Jones voted against the city's plan. The speculation is that the loss of game sales revenue in the Vegas stadium, and loss of unspecified gratuities from Vegas area businesses were the primary reasons for Jones' Nay vote. Wow!? WTF?
LYNCH SAVES THE DAY!
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re:

on3m@n@rmy said:
Holy mackerel! A firestorm of moves are keeping the Raiders in Oakland!
Seattle releases Marshawn Lynch, Raiders sign Lynch, in overwhelming city and community support the City proposes a $1.8 billion stadium and convention center plan that, in a late behind closed doors NFL owners meeting, the owners vote 31-1 to keep the Raiders in Oakland! Only Jerry Jones voted against the city's plan. The speculation is that the loss of game sales revenue in the Vegas stadium, and loss of unspecified gratuities from Vegas area businesses were the primary reasons for Jones' Nay vote. Wow!? WTF?
LYNCH SAVES THE DAY!
April fools! :lol:
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
on3m@n@rmy said:
Holy mackerel! A firestorm of moves are keeping the Raiders in Oakland!
Seattle releases Marshawn Lynch, Raiders sign Lynch, in overwhelming city and community support the City proposes a $1.8 billion stadium and convention center plan that, in a late behind closed doors NFL owners meeting, the owners vote 31-1 to keep the Raiders in Oakland! Only Jerry Jones voted against the city's plan. The speculation is that the loss of game sales revenue in the Vegas stadium, and loss of unspecified gratuities from Vegas area businesses were the primary reasons for Jones' Nay vote. Wow!? WTF?
LYNCH SAVES THE DAY!
April fools! :lol:
Yep. You got it.
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Re:

on3m@n@rmy said:
Irondan said:
on3m@n@rmy said:
Holy mackerel! A firestorm of moves are keeping the Raiders in Oakland!
Seattle releases Marshawn Lynch, Raiders sign Lynch, in overwhelming city and community support the City proposes a $1.8 billion stadium and convention center plan that, in a late behind closed doors NFL owners meeting, the owners vote 31-1 to keep the Raiders in Oakland! Only Jerry Jones voted against the city's plan. The speculation is that the loss of game sales revenue in the Vegas stadium, and loss of unspecified gratuities from Vegas area businesses were the primary reasons for Jones' Nay vote. Wow!? WTF?
LYNCH SAVES THE DAY!
April fools! :lol:
Yep. You got it.
I'll admit, you had me going for a second.

When I read that only Jerry Jones was against the city's plan I knew something was up and looked around the interwebtubes for confirmation. :D
 
Yeah, i got a little carried away starting at Jerry Jones.

You all probably have one, maybe more, favorite teams you follow. I mean, follow enough to know something about that team's player personnel and team needs. So, with the draft coming up, what do you think would be your team's draft Day-1 shocking move or selection?

I'll have a go. Seattle. Everyone says OL is their biggest need, and if possible should draft an OL at #26 in the first round. There are 3 or 4 OLmen Seattle might take (Bolles, Ramczyk, Robinson, Lamp). Seattle does have other needs (CB, LB). I'm going to predict Seattle goes for best player available that still meets one of the other needs by taking a CB as their 1st round pick, even if one of those OLmen are still available when their #1 selection comes up. They might even go LB, but the better value will be at CB. That is not a really big shocker because the first 3 of those OLmen may already have been selected and Lamp would be a bit of a reach.
 
on3m@n@rmy said:
Yeah, i got a little carried away starting at Jerry Jones.

You all probably have one, maybe more, favorite teams you follow. I mean, follow enough to know something about that team's player personnel and team needs. So, with the draft coming up, what do you think would be your team's draft Day-1 shocking move or selection?

I'll have a go. Seattle. Everyone says OL is their biggest need, and if possible should draft an OL at #26 in the first round. There are 3 or 4 OLmen Seattle might take (Bolles, Ramczyk, Robinson, Lamp). Seattle does have other needs (CB, LB). I'm going to predict Seattle goes for best player available that still meets one of the other needs by taking a CB as their 1st round pick, even if one of those OLmen are still available when their #1 selection comes up. They might even go LB, but the better value will be at CB. That is not a really big shocker because the first 3 of those OLmen may already have been selected and Lamp would be a bit of a reach.
i will be interested to see what the Browns and 49ers do with the the QBs in the draft. There have already been rumors doing the rounds that the Panthers want to trade for the 49ers second pick. Kansas were supposedly very interested in Watson at least their coach was. It looks like a good draft for running backs and defense, not so good for QBs. Mixon wasn't even invited to the Combine but some people think he will go in the second round. I think that is very optimistic and several teams won't be interested in him at all for obvious reasons. I think he will probably go in the fourth round as some teams do need a good RB and he is one of the best in the draft if they want to take a calculated risk on his character that is.

I think the obvious pick for Seattle is O Line. Rams will probably go RB or WR because of their poor offense. Falcons will go defense I assume after that SB result ! I wonder if the Cardinals or Steelers will look at the QBs with two aging QBs not far from retirement. Panthers will go defense I'm pretty sure. Cowboys and Texans will probably both go offense although the Cowboys secondary needs an upgrade. Green Bay will go RB or O Line. The Jets will be tempted to go for a QB not that it will matter much ! Washington should go defense I think. Romo, RGIII, Kaep and Cutler still waiting. Gabbert and Ponder now applying the second coat of paint to Ponder's house ! Chip playing Madden with Baalke and thinking of college jobs maybe ?
 
Re:

movingtarget said:
Romo retiring and will look for broadcast offers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmv0aMFTuUA&t=16s

The wise decision I think at age 37 with physical issues. Ben R I think will probably only last one more season as well maybe Palmer also and I can't see Brady lasting the reported five more seasons he hopes for either.
No time to say much but he will be replacing Phil Sims & paired with Nantz
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2701751-tony-romo-reportedly-joining-cbs-to-be-paired-with-jim-nantz-after-retirement
Good for Romo.
 
Re:

movingtarget said:
Didn't get to watch the whole video. Just the QBs. Have to agree with everything Merril Hoge said about the QBs. Few key points he said:
- none of the QB are first-round quality
- all could use an extra year or two in school
- the huge learning curve they all have coming from spread schemes trying to learn Pro schemes
- Trubisky's lack of accuracy
- Deshone Kizer the best passer
But here is the worst slam. Kizer's Notre Dame coach says Deshone is not ready ON or OFF the field.
OUCH!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS