Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Another issue is what a single new team does to the scheduling. While I am sure they would figure something out, the current league structure makes for a pretty good scheduling system that enhances divisional rivalry and is pretty equitable w/in the divisional system, but still allows for fans to see every team in the league play their team over the course of four seasons.

32 teams and a 16 game season seems to be a pretty good congruence of numbers. Not sure it would work so well with 33, 34 or 35. Not even sure if 36 would work but that's where I think you would have to go to get the formulaic scheduling we have now. (which I like BTW).

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

IMO, Rak was poised for a breakout season in 2012, but got injured week 2. He dominated the New Orleans game, I remember Keim and others marveling about it. Last year he played very well, but I think this year he is poised for another "breakout" year. Hopefully he stays on the field. If he does, he's going to be worth every penny they pay him in the off season.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Giantone;1075891]Chris Snee will announce his retirement from football tomorrow ,opens up a spot and cap room on the Giants .[/quote]

I was expecting improvement along that line, but Snee retiring leaves a large hole.


JoeRedskin: for what it's worth, in the PFT article that Matty posted it was mentioned that Goodell has previously said that if the league were to expand it would do so by two teams, not just one.

If there is indeed an expansion, I think adding one team to each division would be better than having some divisions with more teams than others, but that would be a [I]huge[/I] expansion. Not sure how well that would work.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Oh wow an eight team expansion....not gonna happen but...

1. Los Angeles

2. Chicago (build the stadium near Joliet)

3. Toronto

4. Portland

5. Salt Lake City

6. Grand Rapids

7. Birmingham.

8. Vancouver

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Of those Toronto, Portland, and LA are the only teams I could see working. Adding a second Chicago team would be a failure due to the Bears dominating that market. Birmingham is only a 2 1/2 hr drive to ATL and isn't that big of a city. That would be like putting a team in charleston Sc. It just wouldn't work.

Salt lake possibly, and if the league was expanding by 8 teams I am sure London and Mexico City would be on that list.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1075901]Oh wow an eight team expansion....not gonna happen but...

1. Los Angeles

2. Chicago (build the stadium near Joliet)

3. Toronto

4. Portland

5. Salt Lake City

6. Grand Rapids

7. Birmingham.

8. Vancouver[/quote]

You left out three markets I've heard mentioned a lot (in order): Oklahoma City, Louisville, Honolulu

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1075889]In fact they (Portland) only had a team for one year (1985) that averaged 19K/game (in fairness, the arena only held 20K max). The were 7th out of 14 in terms of total attendance behind (among others) Birmingham, Orlando, and Memphis.

Thank you google:

[url=http://www.awesome80s.com/Awesome80s/Sports/USFL/Attendance.asp]USFL Attendance: Awesome80s Sports[/url]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Breakers]Portland Breakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]


[Side note: What a wonderful thing the internet is, almost any purely factual question can be answered by the simple inquiry "hmmm, I wonder if I can find it on google?][/quote]

So if their stadium held 20k and they got 19k a game, doesn't that seem like a good loyal fanbase?

On a side note, putting a team in Portland also could develop a rivalry with Seattle if you put them in the NFC West. To me it just makes the most sense, even though it probably would not happen.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1075872]The commissioner wants teams in LA and London. We may think those cities are bad fits for the NFL but it's pretty much a sure thing that one or both of those cities will get a team before any other city.[/quote]

Sadly I do agree but to me it's just a terrible idea. NFL Europe is proof that it won't work in London as it was a money loser and poorly attended. I think San Diego, the Rams or maybe even the Raiders will eventually go to LA.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1075915]Sadly I do agree but to me it's just a terrible idea. NFL Europe is proof that it won't work in London as it was a money loser and poorly attended. I think San Diego, the Rams or maybe even the Raiders will eventually go to LA.[/quote]

And yet NFL Europe games had a higher average attendance than Portland's "record breaking" USFL numbers.

It's not fair to compare to NFL Europe to an NFL team in London. It would be like telling a city that they wouldn't support an NBA team because they didn't support the local NBA D League team. It's a misconception that fans internationally will just accept any football. They know that the best players are in the NFL so that's who they want to see.

To me, the biggest hurdle for a team in London will really be the TV contract. I don't know how that will work because European TV deals are much more complicated than in the US

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1075922]And yet NFL Europe games had a higher average attendance than Portland's "record breaking" USFL numbers.

It's not fair to compare to NFL Europe to an NFL team in London. It would be like telling a city that they wouldn't support an NBA team because they didn't support the local NBA D League team. It's a misconception that fans internationally will just accept any football. They know that the best players are in the NFL so that's who they want to see.

[B]To me, the biggest hurdle for a team in London will really be the TV contract. I don't know how that will work because European TV deals are much more complicated than in the US[/B][/quote]

Wait ... are you saying this all about money??? I am soooooo disillusioned.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1075922]And yet NFL Europe games had a higher average attendance than Portland's "record breaking" USFL numbers.

It's not fair to compare to NFL Europe to an NFL team in London. It would be like telling a city that they wouldn't support an NBA team because they didn't support the local NBA D League team. It's a misconception that fans internationally will just accept any football. They know that the best players are in the NFL so that's who they want to see.

To me, the biggest hurdle for a team in London will really be the TV contract. I don't know how that will work because European TV deals are much more complicated than in the US[/quote]

That's because they were playing in MUCH larger stadiums. I believe a NFL Eurpore game averaged around 25,000. I think London would suppport it at first but the novelty would soon wear off. It's just not part of the culture over there and in my opinion never will be.

IDK the soccer schedules over there. Do the leagues play in the fall on Sunday? I assume they don't. If they do then that's obviously a major issue.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

So I'm wondering why Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have singed Michael Sam because he would be a distraction. Yet when Michael Vick got out of jail he lobbied for him. I'm starting to think Tony isn't for gay people.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1075901]Oh wow an eight team expansion....not gonna happen but...

1. Los Angeles

2. Chicago (build the stadium near Joliet)

3. Toronto

4. Portland

5. Salt Lake City

6. Grand Rapids

7. Birmingham.

8. Vancouver[/quote]

You forgot the expansion Hattiesburg Heretics.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1075928]So I'm wondering why Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have singed Michael Sam because he would be a distraction. Yet when Michael Vick got out of jail he lobbied for him. I'm starting to think Tony isn't for gay people.[/quote]

He's of course entitled to his opinion, but that was a pretty damning statement to make in my opinion.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1075946]He's of course entitled to his opinion, but that was a pretty damning statement to make in my opinion.[/quote]

I agree. You expect to the media to give him a pass today?

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Dungy isn't wrong, he's just an asshole for saying it.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1075928]So I'm wondering why Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have singed Michael Sam because he would be a distraction. Yet when Michael Vick got out of jail he lobbied for him. I'm starting to think Tony isn't for gay people.[/quote]

It's probably because of Dungy's religious beliefs on homosexuality. But, I'll agree that it's a bit hypocritical to say that about Sam and not have the same view about Vick.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsguy;1075950]It's probably because of Dungy's religious beliefs on homosexuality. But, I'll agree that it's a bit hypocritical to say that about Sam and not have the same view about Vick.[/quote]

Yeah, Dan Patrick making that point. Dungy told people to take a chance getting Vick, take Manzeil, take Tebow....some of the most controversial figures of all time in football....but dont take Michael Sam? What did dungy mean by "things will happen?" Too me, its Dungy's religious views coming into his opinion.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1075928]So I'm wondering why Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have singed Michael Sam because he would be a distraction. Yet when Michael Vick got out of jail he lobbied for him. I'm starting to think Tony isn't for gay people.[/quote]

What Tony Dungy is saying is that he couldn't be bothered to control his locker room. For all the self righteous bullshit that Dungy spews, he's just another hypocritical piece of shit douche bag.


"Oh, I'm not going to pick a gay player because then I would have to make an effort to instill discipline in my locker room".


Maybe that's why he's only won ONE super bowl. Lack of discipline.


[url]http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tony-dungy-s-assessment-of-rams-rookie-michael-sam-reflects-stunning-lack-of-courage-195216393.html[/url]

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Chico23231;1075947]I agree. You expect to the media to give him a pass today?[/quote]

Some in the media are defending his right to say what he wants, others think he's being extremely hypocritical

He is portrayed/portrays himself as this all-inclusive, patient father figure that players, coaches, and execs still turn to for advice and guidance. So I think that's why it's so shocking for him to make such a statement. Would have been better off if he just said he didn't think Sam was a very good player so that's why he wouldn't draft him

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1075911]You left out three markets I've heard mentioned a lot (in order): Oklahoma City, Louisville, Honolulu[/quote]

Wow, a Honolulu team would be awesome.
The team name possibilities.
The Honolulu Mondo Surfriders - thumb and pinky gesture on the helmet.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

can you imagine teams in hawaii AND london, good luck with your travel schedule. might as well put a team in moscow and mexico city and put them in the same division. that way the "normal" teams don't need to be bothered with them.


and portland wouldn't be a good place for an NFL team, imho.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Even though I disagree with Dungy and he contradicted himself, I do wish that our society wasn't so sensitive and he could just come out and say what he's really thinking. Bottom line is he wouldn't want a gay guy in his locker room. He should be able to just say it w/out losing his job.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1075954]Wow, a Honolulu team would be awesome.
The team name possibilities.
The Honolulu Mondo Surfriders - thumb and pinky gesture on the helmet.[/quote]

Pineapple Jesus for offensive coordinator!

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1075958]Even though I disagree with Dungy and he contradicted himself, I do wish that our society wasn't so sensitive and he could just come out and say what he's really thinking. Bottom line is he wouldn't want a gay guy in his locker room. He should be able to just say it w/out losing his job.[/quote]


Speaking your mind is one thing. Discriminating against another human being because of their sex/race/religion/sexual orientation is another.


How would Tony Dungy feel is some white coach said he didn't want a black player in his locker room? Yeah, I'd imagine Tony the Hypocrite would have a huge issue with that.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

A real coach would say something like this:

[QUOTE]Lombardi's unprejudiced attitude was not confined to his players' race or ethnicity. Lombardi was aware of tight end Jerry Smith's homosexuality, and upon arriving in Washington, told Smith in confidence that it would never be an issue as long as he was coaching the Redskins. Smith flourished, becoming an integral part of Lombardi's offense, and was voted a First Team All-Pro for the first time in his career, which was also Lombardi's only season as Redskin head coach. Lombardi invited other gay players to training camp, and Lombardi would privately hope they would prove they could earn a spot on the team. At the Washington Redskins training camp in 1969, Ray McDonald was a gay player, with sub-par skills, who was trying to make the Redskin roster again, but this time with Lombardi as the Redskins' new head coach. Lombardi told running back coach, George Dickson, 'I want you to get on McDonald and work on him and work on him – and if I hear one of you people make reference to his manhood, you'll be out of here before your ass hits the ground.'[/QUOTE]

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

did i hear right that training camp opens in 2 days?

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1075960]Speaking your mind is one thing. Discriminating against another human being because of their sex/race/religion/sexual orientation is another.


How would Tony Dungy feel is some white coach said he didn't want a black player in his locker room? Yeah, I'd imagine Tony the Hypocrite would have a huge issue with that.[/quote]

Your example would be different though, because someone saying he didn't want a black player in this era would be straight race discrimination. Dungy didn't say he wouldn't have drafted Sam because he was gay, it's because of the attention he would have brought.

With Vick, that's a different kind of attention. We don't really know how these NFL players accepted Vick's return versus how they'll accept Sam, but I would guess the latter will cause quite a bit more attention, both negative and neutral. Edit: And I believe Sam will certainly have more potential for locker room problems.

Like someone else said, I don't think Dungy is wrong, but he comes across as a jerk for saying those things out loud.


In other news:

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000367108/article/norv-turner-teddy-bridgewater-worth-a-top10-pick]Norv Turner: Teddy Bridgewater worth a top-10 pick - NFL.com[/url]

I hope this dude can become a legit QB. AP deserves better in his last elite years than the likes of Cassell, Freeman, or Ponder.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=over the mountain;1075962]did i hear right that training camp opens in 2 days?[/quote]

lol...Skins name issue and Dungy comments need to be vetted first. Training camp on hold til then

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1075928]So I'm wondering why Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have singed Michael Sam because he would be a distraction. Yet when Michael Vick got out of jail he lobbied for him. [B]I'm starting to think Tony isn't for gay people.[/B][/quote]

Tony Dungy should have just kept his mouth shut.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=Ruhskins;1075966]Tony Dungy should have just kept his mouth shut.[/quote]

Yeah I agree.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=SirLK26;1075963]Your example would be different though, because someone saying he didn't want a black player in this era would be straight race discrimination. Dungy didn't say he wouldn't have drafted Sam because he was gay, it's because of the attention he would have brought.

With Vick, that's a different kind of attention. We don't really know how these NFL players accepted Vick's return versus how they'll accept Sam, but I would guess the latter will cause quite a bit more attention, both negative and neutral. Edit: And I believe Sam will certainly have more potential for locker room problems.

Like someone else said, I don't think Dungy is wrong, but he comes across as a jerk for saying those things out loud.


In other news:

[URL="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000367108/article/norv-turner-teddy-bridgewater-worth-a-top10-pick"]Norv Turner: Teddy Bridgewater worth a top-10 pick - NFL.com[/URL]

I hope this dude can become a legit QB. AP deserves better in his last elite years than the likes of Cassell, Freeman, or Ponder.[/quote]

Really rooting for Bridgewater to have a monster rookie year. You'd think that the scouts would learn that a good or bad pro day really should not hurt or help someone's draft status.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1075969]Really rooting for Bridgewater to have a monster rookie year. You'd think that the scouts would learn that a good or bad pro day really should not hurt or help someone's draft status.[/quote]

Same here. I'm a huge fan of his game.

From what I've heard, pro scouts were never that high on Bridgewater. Supposedly it was merely the media that had a huge crush on Teddy, which evaporated after his less-than-spectacular workout. Who knows if that's true or not. But either way, if Pro Days and Combines were indicative of a player's talents, [URL="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/draft/2007-03-15-russell-pro-day_N.htm"]JaMarcus Russell would be tearing it up in the pros[/URL]. But they're not and he's not, so suck it, Teddy haters.

Honestly, I wasn't impressed with any of the QBs in this year's draft except for Bridgewater, Aaron Murray(who has a [URL="http://gamedayr.com/lifestyle/wags-and-babes/aaron-murray-girlfriend-kacie-mcdonnell-photos-88182/"]smoking hot GF[/URL], by the way), and Johhny Manziel(although to a lesser degree than the other two).

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

It's completely effed up that the perception is a gay guy would cause more problems/distractions than a guy running a dog fighting ring, a guy doing blow in Vegas bathrooms, guys beating their wives, guys MURDERING people (yeah, Ray Ray is guilty, we all know it). It's absurd, to be honest, and Dungy is a total idiot for saying anything at all. Whether you agree with it or not, there are already gay dudes in the NFL. Probably some who've gotten married, what with the laws changing rapidly from state to state.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Derrick Brooks, for the win.

[url=http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11248177/tony-dungy-clarifies-comments-michael-sam-st-louis-rams]Tony Dungy clarifies comments on Michael Sam of St. Louis Rams - ESPN[/url]

[quote]Speaking on a conference call with the national media Tuesday to discuss his entry into the Hall, Brooks was asked about the Dungy comments. He prefaced his answer by saying he would reserve judgment because he hadn't spoken with Dungy.

"I just generally feel that he's probably saying what 31 other teams were probably thinking in that regard," Brooks said. "They didn't draft him, for whatever reason. He was just saying, if he were a head coach, this is how he would have approached the situation, or approached the player's situation."
[/quote]

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Thing is if Sam was a first rd pick none of this would be an issue. The fact he's a marginal player is what makes him not worth the media baggage he brings.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

Dungy's remark, in light of his past statements about other "distraction" players, strikes me as incredibly hypocritical. As SS said, if it is performance based, fine - just say that. To couch it the way he did, however, certainly creates more than a mere inference of gender preference discrimination.

@ SirLK26: If "someone saying he didn't want a black player" is impermissible discrimination, how is someone saying "I don't want a gay player" [I]not[/I] impermissible discrimination.

Based on his statement, juxtaposed against the statements Dungy has made about other "distraction" players, the [I]only[/I] reason Dungy wouldn't draft Sam is b/c of his homosexuality. You can couch it any way you like, but that is the crux of it. Alleging Sam's homosexuality brings "a different kind of attention," is the type of evasive arguments used in racial discrimination for years - football has seen similar disguised discrimination before: intelligent QB's v. athletic QB's, Dungy himself faced similar hidden discrimination - "Sure, he's qualified but I've known Coach X for years."

Jackie Robinson was a huge "distraction" - was Branch Rickey right or wrong to put him on the team? If Rickey was right to put him on the team in that time and place. Isn't Dungy wrong in this time and place to exclude Sam?

[Yes, I know. Sam is not the talent that Robinson was, but, again, the debate here is not whether he had the talent to be drafted but, regardless of talent, and as with Robinson, whether Sam's mere presence would be too disruptive and hinder the team.]

Dungy is free to speak his mind. Others are free to agree or disagree with him. Bottom line, is it okay "in this era" to permit discrimination based on gender preference in a football locker room setting? You (and Dungy) apparently believe it is. Others believe it is not. Quite frankly, I find neither side's argument particularly persuasive of any imperative answer.

Bottom line for me, if he can play with the big boys, all else is moot.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1075977]<snip>

@ SirLK26: If "someone saying he didn't want a black player" is impermissible discrimination, how is someone saying "I don't want a gay player" not impermissible discrimination.

<snip>

Jackie Robinson was a huge "distraction" - was Branch Rickey right or wrong to put him on the team? If Rickey was right to put him on the team in that time and place. Isn't Dungy wrong in this time and place to exclude Sam?

[Yes, I know. Sam is not the talent that Robinson was, but, again, the debate here is not whether he had the talent to be drafted but, regardless of talent, and as with Robinson, whether Sam's mere presence would be too disruptive and hinder the team.]

<snip>

Bottom line for me, if he can play with the big boys, all else is moot.[/quote]

Because if someone were to say they wouldn't draft a black player in this day and age, it would be straight up racial discrimination. What distraction would a straight male black player who played college ball at a high level bring?

If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him. He's not "discriminating" against Sam because he's gay, but because of the distraction he would bring. There's a difference.

Jackie Robinson was worth every bit of distraction he brought, being one of the best major league players ever and all. Sam might not even make the Rams' roster. I think the distraction versus what you get out of the distraction should definitely play a part.

I think if you were an NFL coach, you would have a different view. Football isn't all about talent. It's about teamwork, camaraderie, and all that good stuff. Not saying definitively the Rams won't play well together because of Sam, but Dungy apparently thinks things might not work so well over there. And, according to Derrick Brooks, it's likely that's a near-unanimous consensus among NFL teams.

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[quote=SirLK26;1075978]If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him. He's not "discriminating" against Sam because he's gay, but because of the distraction he would bring. There's a difference.[/quote]

But the "distraction" he would bring is because he is gay, you can't disassociate the two. This is ridiculous for two reasons; one, it implies the most blatant homophobia possible, and two, it implies that talent does not outweigh his being gay.

This is not just on Dungy; it's the entire NFL. DeAndre Hopkins covered his combine hotel room in shit and piss, which to me makes him certifiably insane. Shit and piss!!! He was drafted 27th overall.

The SEC defensive player of the year should've gone higher than he did. Only one other SEC defensive player of the year was drafted outside the top 33, Chad Lavalais from LSU. Absurd.

[url=http://thebiglead.com/2014/02/10/michael-sam-only-one-other-sec-defensive-player-of-the-year-has-been-drafted-outside-the-first-two-rounds/]Michael Sam: Only One Other SEC Defensive Player of the Year Has Been Drafted Outside the First Two Rounds | The Big Lead[/url]

Re: All things offseason discussion part II
 

[IMG]http://ladyinthemancave.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/trashedhotel.jpg[/IMG]