The NFL 2011 Thread

[Talisker]

The Los Angeles Implants could work.

[Sarkus]

I don't know, seems to fit right in with LA "Lakers" for some reason. And the LA "[Trolley]Dodgers", for that matter. LA seems incapable of naming a team on their own.

That's true to some extent. But the Kings (NHL) were an expansion team, not a relocation. As were the Angels (MLB), who used the name used by LA's longtime PCL baseball team. And of course the Ducks are not a transplant either.

LA and San Francisco both ended up with a bunch of relocations, though, which is the side effect of the major pro sports leagues not being able to include the west coast for a long time for transportation reasons even when those two cities (and Seattle to lesser degree) were big enough in population and other factors. Once that changed with cheaper and safer air travel, the rush was on and relocating was faster then the leagues ability to expand instead to fill the markets.

[mdowdle]

That's true to some extent. But the Kings (NHL) were an expansion team, not a relocation. As were the Angels (MLB), who used the name used by LA's longtime PCL baseball team. And of course the Ducks are not a transplant either.

It is true. I misspoke. And when you think of it, any municipality that chooses out of its own imagination to name one of its hockey teams "The Mighty Ducks" (yea, I know it's from a Disney movie -- doesn't make it right, tho) is probably better off just keeping a transplanted team's earlier name anyway if they can.

[John E. Motion]

The Ducks were founded in 1993 by The Walt Disney Company as the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, a name based on the 1992 Disney film The Mighty Ducks. It wasn't a municipal decision, but rather a corporate one. I doubt that LA ever had much of a choice in the matter.

[Blackadar]

In legal news...

The players are looking for $707 million from the TV contract war chest provision that the owners negotiated. I think under anti-trust statutes, that damage number would be trebled to...$2.1 BILLION dollars? Ouch!

I think they're going to have a hard time justifying that much. Of the $4B, about $3.6B of it had to be repaid with a low interest rate. $400M of that would have been guaranteed without repayment. Now there's no doubt that the NFL took less money to get the provision:

NBC felt the NFL was "hosing" the network by its demands. To "bridge the gap," the league agreed to award NBC an additional regular-season game for the 2010-2013 seasons. The NFL did not seek additional rights fees for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons, and NBC agreed to pay increased rights fees for the 2012 and 2013 seasons.

Although ESPN's contract was not set to expire until 2013, the work-stoppage provision was amended. In the negotiations, ESPN requested that the rights fee not be payable if there is a work stoppage, but the NFL rejected the request. Doty wrote: "The NFL stated that the digital deal and the work-stoppage provisions were 'linked,' ... To secure ESPN's agreement to the work-stoppage provision, the NFL granted the right to a Monday Night Football simulator via the wireless partner."

The question is, how much more money could the NFL have netted by charging for these rights they gave away to get the provision? $100M? The $400M that didn't have to be repaid? Or can the players provide proof that it cost them $707M (which means the rights were worth $1.5B, which seems rather far fetched). Then take that number and divide it in half because that would be the players' share. The triple it because it's an anti-trust issue. Of course, Judge Doty could award just $1 like in the old USFL case, but I doubt it.

Still, it's not going to be easy to get around that the $400M non-payback guarantee is the direct revenue forfeited by the owners for the war chest provision. If that's the case, the league could be looking at coughing up somewhere around $600M, or around $20M per owner...

[Sarkus]

The inevitable Leinart to the Seahawks talk has popped up again, with reports that Carroll talked to Leinart at some point about coming to Seattle. It's hard to say how serious Seattle is, but the GM did say after the draft that they have a "plan A, B, C, and D" at quarterback. We can logically assume that starting Charlie Whitehurst is plan D, and resigning Matt Hasselbeck is somewhere in there as well. But Leinart probably fits in as an option if Hasselbeck is wooed elsewhere by more money/years then the Seahawks are willing to offer him.

I find Leinart an interesting and logical option to at least consider for Seattle as I don't think he played enough with the Cardinals to really make a full decision about him. And Seattle giving him a shot as an inexpensive and incentive driven free agent (similar to Mike Williams last year) is not a big risk.

[Mark Asher]

I think he had his chances in Arizona and he just never showed much. He had trouble completing 60% of his passes with a team that had Fitzgerald and Boldin. He was in 29 games and had about 600 attempts, which I know isn't a lot for 29 games but his results weren't good. That doesn't include all his preseason work, either.

As I recall with Arizona last year in preseason he was the leading candidate to start but he couldn't move the team. The little I saw of him he kept checking down and dumping the ball off. It was like he didn't have the confidence to throw it downfield.

He might be better than Whitehurst -- that wouldn't take much -- but he doesn't look like a starter.

[Blackadar]

I think he had his chances in Arizona and he just never showed much. He had trouble completing 60% of his passes with a team that had Fitzgerald and Boldin. He was in 29 games and had about 600 attempts, which I know isn't a lot for 29 games but his results weren't good. That doesn't include all his preseason work, either.

As I recall with Arizona last year in preseason he was the leading candidate to start but he couldn't move the team. The little I saw of him he kept checking down and dumping the ball off. It was like he didn't have the confidence to throw it downfield.

He might be better than Whitehurst -- that wouldn't take much -- but he doesn't look like a starter.

I tend to agree. I'm a bit surprised at the lack of success Leinart has had in the NFL, but the guy doesn't seem to get it.

I'm not too worried about his completion percentage, since he racked up most of his 57% when he was first starting out, but his 14tds in 600 passes isn't acceptable, especially on a team with WRs like that. He doesn't get the ball down the field at all (career 11.5 YPC). He threw 77 passes last season - the majority against STL (19th in total defense), GB (5th) and TEN (27th) - and didn't throw one touchdown.

I thought he looked ok in preseason last year - better than Derek Anderson - but if you can't beat out Anderson in training camp, there's something seriously wrong there. Maybe a fresh start will help him out, but at this stage he's a camp body who will have to show that he can play or he'll be an early cut. I think he's worth looking at for Seattle, but don't count on him for much. But he couldn't unseat Dan Orlovsky for the #2 job in Houston last year, so what does that say about him? Not to mention the constant whispers about his attitude, his relationship with his teammates and his lack of effort.

[Sarkus]

Well Pete wasn't afraid to cut Lendale White two weeks after trading for him, so if Leinart shows up and isn't making an effort he'll cut him.

TD percentage seems an odd thing to focus on, especially since 63% of Leinarts career attempts came his rookie season. When Dennis Green was the head coach, and they went 5-11. His career numbers are actually similar to what Sam Bradford put up last year in St. Louis in one season - Bradford had five fewer attempts but the TD percentage was the same. Though I grant that the Cardinals have had a more talented receiving corps then what Bradford had last year.

My main thing is just that Leinart has had the equivalent of one season to play in the NFL and most of that was his rookie season, when even the most talented QBs tend to struggle. It seems like an awfully small sample to base anything on. And while there have been rumors about his committment, the fact is that he was an inherited first round QB for a coach in Whisenhunt that isn't really all that QB oriented and is also more comfortable with veterans who don't make mistakes. Hardly a good situation to be in.

And I don't know where you are getting the idea that Leinart played in 2010 Blackadar. I've checked two sources (one being NFL.com) and neither shows any game action for Leinart at all in 2010. Schaub took every snap for the Texans last year from what I see. Leinart did attempt 77 passes in 2009 as the backup to Warner, though, so that's what I assume you are looking at.

[Mark Asher]

You have to factor in Leinart's preseason work too, though. And his years in the league. He should be further along by now.

There's enough tape of him that other teams can see his strengths and weaknesses and they must be seeing mostly weaknesses. Kevin Kolb has been in 19 games and has had a little over 300 passing attempts and there's a lot more interest in him than in Leinart.

[Woolen Horde]

Chad 86 got thrown off the bull in 1.5 seconds.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...n-1-5-seconds/

The comments are hilarious.

He’s now known as “Chad Un Segundo y Medio”

[Thongsy]

It's easy to hate on him, but I do have to admire him a bit for just going out there and doing this. Instead of just being all talk he actually goes out there and does things most of us wouldn't dare do.

[SuperAdventurer]

He’s now known as “Chad Un Segundo y Medio”

Considering the level of Spanish knowledge he displays by calling himself ochocinco, he'd probably go with something like "unocinco secondo".

[SuperAdventurer]

It's easy to hate on him, but I do have to admire him a bit for just going out there and doing this. Instead of just being all talk he actually goes out there and does things most of us wouldn't dare do.

You're right about the last part. No way in hell would I try bullriding (or pro football even if I had the skills for it). But I don't see what's so admirable about it either. If he'd gotten himself seriously hurt and could no longer play football would your reaction be anything other than "what a dumbass"?

[Omniscia]

Chad 86 got thrown off the bull in 1.5 seconds.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...n-1-5-seconds/

The comments are hilarious.

That would make him Chad Ochoseis.

[Omniscia]

On another note, man, Randy Moss has fallen in popularity around here. He used to be considered almost a demi-god up here in northern New England. Anyway, I went over to the Reebok Store this afternoon to pick up some socks, and they had replica Moss jerseys from his Patriots days on clearance for $5.98, marked down from an original sale price of $54.99.

I don't care if the guy doesn't play for the team anymore. Replica Pats jersey for $5.98? Sold!

[sluggo]

This story makes me both sad and mad. I haven't decided which one I feel more.

ALAMEDA, Calif. (AP)—With no minicamps, offseason workouts or other football activities during the NFL lockout, every member of the Oakland Raiders organization is now part of the ticket staff.

Instead of forcing employees to take pay cuts or unpaid furloughs during the lockout as several teams are doing, the Raiders have implemented a plan that allows people to keep their full salary if they sell a certain number of season tickets.

“Different teams are taking different approaches,” Raiders chief executive officer Amy Trask said Wednesday. “Certainly some teams are taking one approach: How do we decrease expenses during a work stoppage. We looked at this from the opposite approach. Let’s all work together as an organization, every single department, to increase our ticket revenues.”

To avoid a pay cut, employees must sell season tickets worth 10 percent of their salary during the lockout. For example, an employee making $60,000 a year would have to sell $500 worth of season tickets for each month of the lockout, which began March 12.

It annoyed me right off the bat that certain owners, who've seen no pay cut whatsoever, as their megabucks payments from the networks haven't been affected in the least, started laying off staff the day the lockout started. You couldn't afford to carry these people for a few months?

But this strikes me as a new low. Fans are angry with the NFL, they think the owners are greedy and they have no idea if there will be football this fall, and you're going to force your rank-and-file staff to play telemarketers and cold-call these angry fans to keep from taking pay cuts?

This quote really annoyed me:

“It’s a privilege to work for the Raiders and to work for a National Football League team,” Trask said. “Frankly work stoppage or no work stoppage, going out in the community and representing this organization and working to fill the stadium is something all of us should be doing anyway.”

What a goddamned disgrace. These owners are making billions, and in their pursuit of more billions, they're acting like they need to put out tip jars to stay afloat. Just a total joke.

[Sarkus]

Not all teams have done that, to be fair. I saw a piece that said about five or six had either laid people off or done something like the Raiders are doing above. So lets not blame every owner.

But seeing Al Davis do this doesn't surprise me. While he deserves some historical praise, the guy has been a complete joke for at least 20 years now as an owner.

[sluggo]

Not all teams have done that, to be fair. I saw a piece that said about five or six had either laid people off or done something like the Raiders are doing above. So lets not blame every owner.

Yes, that's why I said "certain owners" and not "all."

[Omniscia]

Maybe they could hold a bake sale?

[Matt Bowyer]

I just wonder if the Redskins have any employees right now. Dan Snyder's always looking for an excuse!

[dwolfe]

Raiders employees: buy the damn season tickets yourself. (I'm sure this loophole is closed, even if you get friends and family to do so, right?)

you still get 90% of your salary, and can resale the tickets later. win-win.

[Shmtur]

This story makes me both sad and mad. I haven't decided which one I feel more.



It annoyed me right off the bat that certain owners, who've seen no pay cut whatsoever, as their megabucks payments from the networks haven't been affected in the least, started laying off staff the day the lockout started. You couldn't afford to carry these people for a few months?

But this strikes me as a new low. Fans are angry with the NFL, they think the owners are greedy and they have no idea if there will be football this fall, and you're going to force your rank-and-file staff to play telemarketers and cold-call these angry fans to keep from taking pay cuts?

This quote really annoyed me:



What a goddamned disgrace. These owners are making billions, and in their pursuit of more billions, they're acting like they need to put out tip jars to stay afloat. Just a total joke.

Did you know the employees celebrated this because they aren't getting laid off or having pay cut? It'd be nice if they could get paid to do next to nothing, but in their place I'd feel the same way - a bit of work for the opportunity to get paid as normal? Sign me up.

[Sarkus]

It's also a pretty low bar. In the example given, having to sell $600 worth of tickets in a month isn't all that much - basically one season ticket package will cover that. I'm guessing they simply go work in the ticket call center for a few hours (or whatever) and they're done.

[Mark Asher]

It's also a pretty low bar. In the example given, having to sell $600 worth of tickets in a month isn't all that much - basically one season ticket package will cover that. I'm guessing they simply go work in the ticket call center for a few hours (or whatever) and they're done.

I doubt it's an easy sell right now, though. We don't even know if there will be a full season, and think of the hassle of going to get a refund from an Al Davis business.

I don't see it as a bad thing for the employees, though. As was said, I'm sure they'd rather do this than be unemployed.

[Sarkus]

I doubt it's an easy sell right now, though. We don't even know if there will be a full season, and think of the hassle of going to get a refund from an Al Davis business.

It obviously varies by team and the Raiders might be a hard sell regardless, but according to this article at NFL.com, the Saints are already sold out for next season.

[sluggo]

Did you know the employees celebrated this because they aren't getting laid off or having pay cut?

I saw that in the story, and took it with a grain of salt. I'm sure people were relieved they weren't being laid off outright, but at the same time, I doubt balloons came down from the ceiling and they were all cheering "hip hip hooray!" after hearing the news.

I maintain my two original points from that story that really annoy me:

- Why do the owners need to lay people off or enforce pay cuts at all? Their megabucks network payments haven't been cut off. They're still making ridiculous amounts of money and could easily afford to keep paying their employees through the lockout. The fact that some of these owners are forcing their employees to suffer because they want to make hundreds of millions instead of tens of millions is beyond despicable.

- The line about it being a privilege to work for the Raiders, how employees should be out there selling tickets even if there wasn't a lockout, actually made me a little nauseous. You're rolling in cash, and you're going to tell the guy who cleans the toilets at the training facility and can barely make ends meet, "you know, you should probably sell tickets in your spare time, because it's such an honor to work here." Talk about evil.

Make no mistake: this lockout is happening because the owners are unbelievably greedy. It's not about the $1 billion they want the players to give back this year, it's that they know revenue is going to continue increasing and they don't want to be giving away $3 or 4 billion a few years from now. They're not satisfied being super-rich, they want to be obnoxiously uber-rich. Which is fine, but pissing on their own employees to get there is infuriating to me.

[Ryan A]

I heard on the radio the other day that every judge to have ruled in favor of the owners has been a Bush administration appointee while every judge to have ruled favor of the players has been a Clinton or Obama appointee.

[Matt Bowyer]

I heard on the radio the other day that every judge to have ruled in favor of the owners has been a Bush administration appointee while every judge to have ruled favor of the players has been a Clinton or Obama appointee.

What a shocker.

[RepoMan]

Wait a second. The last I paid attention to this situation was like three or four weeks ago, when there had just been some kind of court decision that looked like it was going to end the lockout. Now I just ran across a random story that says the lockout is still going on? W T F?