NFL 2017/18
- Thread starter JustAFan
- Start date
- Status
Antonio Valencia would make a great shutdown Corner
He is too stiff to be a corner.
Strong safety, outside WR, or, bulked up, a downhill RB sorta in the mould of AD.
If he was heavier, maybe running back.
Guys I edited my post to make a fat Rooney joke, can we also acknowledge that?
I thought about RB too, I could see that.
I thought about RB too, I could see that.
Mitchell Trubisky. How much should his lack of experience, only one season as a starter in college, cause concern for NFL teams looking at him? You don't have to be a 3 or 4 year starter to make in the NFL (Brady was a two year starter and I think he was 7th on depth chart his freshman year), but it does mean a season less practice reps and less actual game experience for him. Big concern? No concern? Little bit?
I think if someone drafts him and expects him to start next season...he is going to get destroyed and might never recover. Lack of game reps is a big deal to me.
Raiders given approval to move to Vegas.
Their cheerleaders will all be hired from the Bunny Ranch.
So do Oakland fans follow or do they have to support 49ers now? That'd be unfortunate.
The Most Hated Players in each franchises history.
http://www.goliath.com/sports/rogue...bdafd472a8a59f46&utm_content=nfl_premium_2017
St Louis/Arizona Cardinals - Conrad Dobler, a very dirty player
Denver Broncos - Bill Romanowski, roid rage!
Patriots - Brady and The Gronk edge out a murderer. Go figure.
Oakland Raiders - If you followed the NFL in the 70's and early 80's you either loved the Raiders or hated them, so lots to chose from. Jack Tatum gets a nod.
Pittsburgh Steelers - Big Ben makes the list. No shock.
Guess who made it for the Buffalo Bills......
http://www.goliath.com/sports/rogue...bdafd472a8a59f46&utm_content=nfl_premium_2017
St Louis/Arizona Cardinals - Conrad Dobler, a very dirty player
Denver Broncos - Bill Romanowski, roid rage!
Patriots - Brady and The Gronk edge out a murderer. Go figure.
Oakland Raiders - If you followed the NFL in the 70's and early 80's you either loved the Raiders or hated them, so lots to chose from. Jack Tatum gets a nod.
Pittsburgh Steelers - Big Ben makes the list. No shock.
Guess who made it for the Buffalo Bills......
If you really have to look here to see if you are right, you have no business in this thread
Really sad.
I really dont see why Local Government are expected to pay for the construction of business premises for multi million dollar businesses.
Jim Kelly, of course. Smug charlatan.
Genuinely talented players in that list.
I don't understand this at all, why are teams given the option to move? What happens to the fans of the team? It just seems very alien to me. Surely the NFL must consider the people who pay to see?
How the NFL fleeces taxpayers.
The way American sports is structured and run is all very foreign to me. I love watching basketball more than I do watching football, but when it comes to anything about trades, contracts etc, I tune out.
Supply and demand. Though there have been cases of cities refusing, they often then lose their team.
It really needs to get to where the cities and states involved, just say no. When enough of them do, then the sports leagues will lose their leverage. But an elected official risks his/her job if he/she does something that leads to a sports team moving away, though most of us know to blame the owners.
Basically the leagues can ask for the local and state government to help because they have the power to do so. There are probably a few franchises that it would be impossible to move, but then they hold such sway in the city/state they can demand what they want.
I am not saying this is right, just explaining why it is.
Teams are given the option to move because they are not owned by the community, with a few exceptions. They are a franchise, the owners own the team, but are in no way tied to the community the team is in.
The fans are left out in the cold to either give up on the sport, still follow their own club or support a new club.
The NFL gets the lion share of its money from TV. But even when it comes to game day revenue, what does it matter to them if it is 60,000 fans paying for the tickets in Oakland or 60,000 in Las Vegas? If they can get a better stadium, deal in Las Vegas (ie keep parking and food/drink revenue, share in revenue from other events at the stadium) then they can chase the money.
The easiest explanation is that professional sports did not develop in the same way in the US that they did in other countries where the teams grew out of locally owned/run sports clubs. There was some of that but when say the NFL was formed it was a group of men who already owned teams in regional leagues or were independent teams that played whatever games they could schedule. The teams are basically business owned for the most part by individuals.
In the US we did not end up with an American Football Association like the FA to over see the game on a national level. The answer to why we did not, is because the sports just did not evolve that way.
There have been several instances where the leagues have fought teams moving, some have been successful, others have resulted in court cases that have established the legal rights of teams to move.
If you want a guarantee your team isn't going to move town in the middle of the night....support college sports!
Anything else is fair game
Anything else is fair game
If you want a guarantee your team isn't going to move town in the middle of the night....support college sports!
Anything else is fair game
About it.
The bolded bit is far too simplistic.
You would hope that Vegas\Nevada has done some sort of analysis showing that they get the stadium money back over time through inceased tax revenue etc but i find that a bit of a stretch.
Not really. There are 32 NFL teams. There are more than 32 cities that want them. This makes it very easy for an owner to find a willing city to give him a sweetheart deal on a stadium.
For the cites seeking an NFL team, well sure it is nice if they can add something to the local economy, some extra taxes (though whether those taxes really pay for the stadium or not can be debated). But it is also the prestige of having an NFL team, and how happy it will make many voters.
For a city like Las Vegas, yeah it is well known for gambling, but this is a signal that it is ready to grow beyond that also. Though it will also fit in well with being a vacation destination for people who are into casino gambling, one other perk to throw in with your trip to the city.
It will be interesting to see how many of the seats are filled each week with diehard Las Vegas Raider fans and how many will be gamblers with comp tickets from the casinos, or gamblers who are tying in a trip to Vegas with seeing an NFL game (ie some guys from Buffalo follow the Bills there the weekend the Bills play the Raiders in Las Vegas).
Last edited:
Wow thanks mate, that explains a lot!
It's a shame that the teams have a disconnect from the fans, and that basically the owners can do damn near what they want!
Maybe that was a reason why football/soccer faded the first time.
Or the Packers.If you want a guarantee your team isn't going to move town in the middle of the night....support college sports!
Anything else is fair game
Lol. The main thing the owners of the old NASL did wrong was try to grow too big too fast at a time the interest was not there. They did not have the power of NFL or the other major sports owners.
The Juice
Still weird that Brady and Gronk were the most hated Patriots, not Aaron Hernandez.
Hernandez would have probably been public enemy no 1 if he got off on a technicality.
Looks like All or Nothing will be on the Rams this time. Meh.
$53M is what each of the 29 franchises (of 32 overall) received for the three relocations, hence why it's almost 100% approved each time.
Chargers and Rams paid a combined $1.3B in fees while the Raiders will pay $350M. The Chargers used a loan to pay the mandated fees.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...re-the-biggest-boondoggle-in-sports/99721520/
Note: An NFL insider type appearing on a Mike & Mike (ESPN) segment recently said the amount is closer to 47.5M per club.
Chargers and Rams paid a combined $1.3B in fees while the Raiders will pay $350M. The Chargers used a loan to pay the mandated fees.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...re-the-biggest-boondoggle-in-sports/99721520/
Note: An NFL insider type appearing on a Mike & Mike (ESPN) segment recently said the amount is closer to 47.5M per club.
Last edited:
Fecking Von Miller.
Anyone seen Rado since?
- Status