The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

Realt Dearg Sec

Interesting joint statement by the Raiders and Chargers regarding LA.

http://www.chargers.com/news/2015/02/19/joint-statement-raiders-and-chargers

Basically, they are looking at sharing a stadium in LA.

tripperman

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Interesting joint statement by the Raiders and Chargers regarding LA.

http://www.chargers.com/news/2015/02/19/joint-statement-raiders-and-chargers

Basically, they are looking at sharing a stadium in LA.

it would stop any rams plans for moving to LA, but i hope San Diego comes up with a workable stadium plan, but it would make bussiness sense for LA move, but i cant see it with two teams tho,

nerd69

tripperman wrote: »

it would stop any rams plans for moving to LA, but i hope San Diego comes up with a workable stadium plan, but it would make bussiness sense for LA move, but i cant see it with two teams tho,

apparently raiders and chargers are in talks about going halves on a 1.7 billion dollar stadium in carson

tripperman

nerd69 wrote: »

apparently raiders and chargers are in talks about going halves on a 1.7 billion dollar stadium in carson

yeah i read that, was only reading last nite what chargers had said about the latest san diego city task force, chargers have been working on plans in san diego for allmost 14 years, so patience is thin now

tripperman

nerd69 wrote: »

apparently raiders and chargers are in talks about going halves on a 1.7 billion dollar stadium in carson

yeah i read that, was only reading last nite what chargers had said about the latest san diego city task force, chargers have been working on plans in san diego for allmost 14 years, so patience is thin now

Hazys

No team in LA in 20 years, now they want 2?!??!

Do people know why did NFL teams not work out in LA in the first place? and why it would be different this time round?

nerd69

Hazys wrote: »

No team in LA in 20 years, now they want 2?!??!

Do people know why did NFL teams not work out in LA in the first place? and why it would be different this time round?

meh since when does logic dictate what the nfl does

tripperman

i would prefer one team in LA say chargers or raiders, if one cant work out in current city, if both dont one could go to san antonia texas, and rams stay in st louis i dont think they have put in the effort to prove that st louis is dragging there feet like oakland or san diego

Realt Dearg Sec

tripperman wrote: »

i would prefer one team in LA say chargers or raiders, if one cant work out in current city, if both dont one could go to san antonia texas, and rams stay in st louis i dont think they have put in the effort to prove that st louis is dragging there feet like oakland or san diego

I think it's an issue where they feel a stadium went be viable without two teams funding it.

Paully D

Some talk on the Twitter machine from decent people that the Browns are going to make a play for Sam Bradford. IF he can stay fit, he's good enough to win with IMO. Underrated, but understandably all things considered.

tripperman

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I think it's an issue where they feel a stadium went be viable without two teams funding it.

i still think two teams wont work it didnt before but hope im wrong, if chargers raiders move to same stadium how will they rework the divisions?

JaMarcusHustle

He's exactly what Cleveland need. A reliable and dependable established QB under centre who isn't a gamble. Hard to see any scenario where this could backfire.

letowski

Raf32 wrote: »

I really hope the Colts dont try to get out of paying Richardson this way, absolutely horrible if true.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2015/02/17/conduct-detrimental-colts-trent-richardson-odds/23580037/?hootPostID=3c832e34784d0ee96bbcbb8e38734b99

It's turning into a messy situation now, hopefully Grigson can find a resolution that would be best for all parties. With Bradshaw cited with possession of pot and himself and Ballard always injured, our RB's at the moment are sub standard, as we saw last season obviously. I think decisions have to be made soon followed by good deals in the FA / draft.

Shedite27

tripperman wrote: »

i still think two teams wont work it didnt before but hope im wrong, if chargers raiders move to same stadium how will they rework the divisions?

Why would they need to?

helimachoptor

Essentially you be getting half the revenue for home game against the other team. However I'm sure they could live with they if the stadium is half price

Billy86

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

He's exactly what Cleveland need. A reliable and dependable established QB under centre who isn't a gamble. Hard to see any scenario where this could backfire.

I smell sarcasm. :pac:

Mind you I'm posting this from the big so I at least hope it's sarcasm!

matthew8

Not a fan of Bradford at all. Really struggles to move the ball down the field. His highest ever yards per attempt is 6.72 which would be 32nd in the NFL out of 34 qualifying passers.

Realt Dearg Sec

tripperman wrote: »

i still think two teams wont work it didnt before but hope im wrong, if chargers raiders move to same stadium how will they rework the divisions?

They wouldn't.

adrian522

I think in that instance one of those teams would be moved to the NFC. I cant see 2 teams in the same city in the same division.

nerd69

Don't mind as long as it does not change the NFC East pretty solid rivalrys all round there it would be a shame to break it up

JCTO

Thing is though if you move one of them to the NFC which I can't see happening you then have to balance the whole thing out and move another team to the AFC. It's the NFL they will let both teams play in the AFC.

tripperman

i read some were a while back they would move around afc west and nfc west, think the only way not to affect the real rivaleries in the nfc west imo would be to swap rams and raiders (if rams dont get to LA) ill look for the article and share a link

Shedite27

I still don't get the issue, surely leaving Raiders and Chargers in the same division, ensuring a proper cross-city rivalry would be beneficial for all?

heyjude

tripperman wrote: »

i read some were a while back they would move around afc west and nfc west, think the only way not to affect the real rivaleries in the nfc west imo would be to swap rams and raiders (if rams dont get to LA) ill look for the article and share a link

The Seahawks have only been in the NFC West since 2002, having previously played in the AFC West from 1977, so any rivalries in the NFC West involving the Seahawks have only been built up since 2002, whereas the Seahawks shared rivalries with the AFC West teams since the 1970s. So logically if you wanted to preserve rivalries, then the Seahawks traditional rivals were the Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers and Raiders, its rivalries with the other NFC West teams are more shortlived.

As I see it, the Raiders and 49ers could not be placed in the same division, they don't even play preseason games against each other anymore due to crowd problems(though they did play a regular season game last season). I can't see the NFL top brass wanting to take any chances by creating 2 yearly games where there could be problems, so either the Chargers would have to go to the NFC West with the Seahawks, Cardinals or Rams joining the AFC West or the Raiders would join the NFC West with the 49ers going to the AFC West. As the Seahawks have a history in the AFC West, they would be the logical team to go.

Shedite27 wrote: »

I still don't get the issue, surely leaving Raiders and Chargers in the same division, ensuring a proper cross-city rivalry would be beneficial for all?

It doesn't arise with the Giants and Jets sharing the same stadium, as they play in difference conferences and so rarely face each other, but with the Chargers and Raiders playing in the same division, they play each other twice a season, which might be viewed as an extra home game(no travel, same facility) for each team. In a country the size of the USA, away games can typically involve lots of travel, so if one of your 'away' games was in your own stadium, that must be an advantage and with both the Raiders and Chargers benefitting from this, I'm sure that their divisional rivals the Chiefs and Broncos would feel that was unfair.

Shedite27

Finally found the answer to the "why do one of the LA teams need to move division" question. I should have guessed it was to do with TV money rather than football reasons!

In America, CBS shows all the AFC games, Fox show all the NFC games. So if both teams stay in the AFC, then CBS gets both the LA teams (second biggest audience) while Fox get none. Would be a big imbalance in viewing figures and would make the AFC contract worth a lot more to stations than the NFC.

glued

Shedite27 wrote: »

Finally found the answer to the "why do one of the LA teams need to move division" question. I should have guessed it was to do with TV money rather than football reasons!

In America, CBS shows all the AFC games, Fox show all the NFC games. So if both teams stay in the AFC, then CBS gets both the LA teams (second biggest audience) while Fox get none. Would be a big imbalance in viewing figures and would make the AFC contract worth a lot more to stations than the NFC.

That's not true at all, the NFC has always been the more lucrative as it reaches 7/10 top media cities in the US. Bringing a team or four into LA doesn't shift the balance at all.

tripperman

glued wrote: »

That's not true at all, the NFC has always been the more lucrative as it reaches 7/10 top media cities in the US. Bringing a team or four into LA doesn't shift the balance at all.

it may be part of the reason, but i think main reason is the traveling advantage as stated above by someone else,

Paully D

Unsure if this has been mentioned on here, but there was a quite interesting and revealing interview with Mike Shanahan conducted on ESPN radio late last week.

Obviously only one side of things which has to be taken into account, but he stated that RGIII came to him in the offseason and essentially told him what plays were and weren't acceptable to him, which Shanahan says was encouraged by Snyder.

What a mess!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/02/18/mike-shanahan-blames-daniel-snyder-for-rgiiis-infatuation-with-being-an-aaron-rodgers-type-guy/

A good portion of former Redskins coach Mike Shanahan’s hour-plus long interview Wednesday with Thom Loverro and Kevin Sheehan on ESPN 980′s The Sports Fix concerned his relationship with Robert Griffin III and, often by extension, Dan Snyder.

The offseason following Griffin’s rookie year, which ended with the quarterback re-injuring his knee in a wild-card playoff loss to Seattle, featured questions about whether Shanahan and Griffin were on the same page with respect to the team’s use of the read-option. Griffin’s father came out and said he’d like to see more passing in the Redskins’ offense, while Griffin sent a text message to an ESPN anchor that said all parties responsible for his injury “know their responsibilities.”

Shanahan told Sheehan that a report about Griffin coming to him after the season and demanding that certain plays be removed from the playbook was true, and the former coach put the blame on Redskins owner Daniel Snyder.

“It was actually two days after the Super Bowl,” Shanahan said. “He had asked to have a meeting and I really don’t blame that on Robert. I mean, Robert to me, was a young player, he had a heck of a year, he had a serious injury at that time, and it’s me that changed the perception of a person, because I know Dan [Snyder] felt very strongly about Robert being a drop-back quarterback and did not want Robert to take shots. I didn’t want him to take shots, either; all I wanted to do was run an offense that gave him a chance to be successful. I wanted him to get better at throwing the ball away, I wanted him to get better at sliding, but doing the things that I thought gave him the best chance to be successful.

“Yeah, he did ask for a meeting. He did talk about, number one, he wanted change. He mentioned the Baltimore game and the Atlanta game, you know, his injuries. He talked about protection shortening his career. What I tried to share with him is I thought he had probably as good a protection as most rookies do have in their first year because of what he was able to do with the running game. If you compare [Griffin's protection] to Andrew Luck, it’s not even close. He actually [mentioned] what plays were acceptable and unacceptable, and when he started talking about what plays were acceptable and unacceptable, and that he wasn’t a rookie anymore and wanted to voice his opinion, the term unacceptable is used by Dan, the owner, quite often. So [I had] a little bit of a smile when I heard some of these complaints.”

Shanahan said Griffin was determined to throw more and run less, and that he didn’t want to be associated with running quarterbacks.

“He wanted to be more of a drop-back, Aaron Rodgers-type guy,” Shanahan said. “He did a few more things, and basically what I did is I went and talked to Dan, and I said, ‘Hey, Dan, for a quarterback to come to me, a veteran coach, and share these things, number one, he can’t be the sharpest guy to do something like that, or he’s got to feel very good about the owner backing him up. And since you have been telling me from Day One that he’s a drop-back quarterback and we should do more drop-back, and you guys have spent the last couple months together, I would think, or at least the last month, that this is an extension of you.’ He said it wasn’t. I just told him that the only chance that this kid, Robert, has to get to the level that we need him to get to is for him to at least trust us that we’re going to run the offense that gives him the best chance to be successful. And if not, it’s impossible, because he’s not ready for it. I can see it, that he’s not ready for that type of offense. Not that he’s not good enough, he just has never done it before.”

Toward the end of the 2013 season, which ended with Shanahan’s firing, ESPN’s Dan Graziano reported that Shanahan was prepared to quit before the Seattle playoff game because he was frustrated with the way Snyder empowered Griffin. Redskins officials questioned the timing and motivation of the report at the time, with some suggesting that Shanahan was behind the story. Another team official said the Snyder-Shanahan relationship was damaged beyond repair.

Shanahan called Graziano’s report “totally ridiculous” on Wednesday, but didn’t deny that he and Snyder had their differences.

“When I went over and talked to Dan over at his house after I talked to Robert [after Griffin's rookie year], I just told Dan, ‘Hey Dan, I just had a conversation with Robert and I think this conversation is coming from you more so than it is Robert,’” Shanahan said. “I said, ‘If that’s the case, there’s no way, unless your owner, your GM, your head coach and your quarterback are all on the same page you win in the National Football League.’”

Shedite27

glued wrote: »

That's not true at all, the NFC has always been the more lucrative as it reaches 7/10 top media cities in the US. Bringing a team or four into LA doesn't shift the balance at all.

It's the most sensible reason I've heard so far.

You really think if you're head of Fox you're not going to be upset that CBS is being handed the second biggest market, and losing relatively small markets of Oakland and San Diego?

It will definitely impact the contract negotiations if they don't split it.

poldebruin

Browns update their logo apparently. Hope they didn't pay too much for this.
https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/570253961741131776