NFL Offseason Thread

[CanadianChris 0]

ESPN is reporting that Oakland is trading for DeAngelo Hall.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Like the Raiders need another me-first shithead with a bad attitude and questionable work eithic. I don't care if he's a Pro Bowler; he has a bad attitude and the Atlanta organization was dying to get rid of him. The Raiders don't even need the help at corner either.

 

How are the Raiders even under the salary cap right now? Seems like they've been throwing money at everyone this offseason.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I guess they don't plan on signing any of their draft picks, just drafting them as some sort of abstract gesture.

 

Cheech, at this point, I don't understand why you're not entirely a Seahawks fan instead. Even if Hasselbeck and Holmgren go away in the near future, I think they still have a much brighter future ahead of them than the fucking Raiders. `Sides, you're forced to watch their games up here a lot more anyways.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

In all honesty, I probably am more a Seahawks fan than a Raiders fan. I watch all their games on tv, usually head up to Seahawks Stadium once a year for a game and openly cheer for the team when doing so. But I'm one of those guys that's overly loyal to a fault. I won't admit to myself that I've given up on the Raiders and moved on. I'm one of those guys that thinks its sports blasphemy to switch allegiances.

[Brett Favre 0]

I think that's a great move for Oakland. They'll have the best secondary in the league.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

I actually like what the Raiders have done in improving their secondary. DeAngelo Hall and Gibril Wilson are solid players. If his attitude is right, DeAngelo Hall is a shutdown corner the Raiders haven't had since Charles Woodsons bolted. I hope they either get Glenn Dorsey or Sedrick Ellis in the draft, but I'm sure if Darren McFadden is available we will take him.

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm one of those guys that thinks its sports blasphemy to switch allegiances.

 

go blazers

[CanadianChris 0]

I'm one of those guys that thinks its sports blasphemy to switch allegiances.

 

go blazers

You're dead to me.

[jimmy no nose 0]

Not a move that really looks like it will have much impact on anything this season, but I thought the story was interesting.

 

The Steelers released WR Cedrick Wilson today with the given reason being that he got arrested for allegedly hitting his girlfriend last night. Right in the same article

Linebacker James Harrison, voted the Steelers' MVP by his teammates last season, was charged with simple assault and criminal mischief for allegedly hitting his girlfriend on March 8. He faces a preliminary hearing April 3.

 

Harrison remains with the team. Team spokesman Dave Lockett said the Steelers viewed Harrison's situation differently than Wilson's, but would not say why.

So what are the chances that reason could be that one guy was the team MVP and the other caught about 15 balls last year?

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm one of those guys that thinks its sports blasphemy to switch allegiances.

 

go blazers

You're dead to me.

 

I'll actually admit, in hushed tones of course, that I have a bit of a soft spot for wanting to see Kobe win MVP and the Lakers win the title this year, since it's likely that the Blazers won't make the playoffs. A part of me feels dirty for that, though, since I feel really distanced enough from SoCal to not want to see much of anything succeed from there, aside from UCLA athletics (and that might have to do more with my hating of USC and the fact my only stateside-educated family are Bruin alumni). Anyways..

So what are the chances that reason could be that one guy was the team MVP and the other caught about 15 balls last year?

Probably pretty good. But that's common sense; why keep a player who's largely insignificant to the success of your team if he's going to have character issues as well?

 

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Czech will appreciate this:

 

Stolen from the FF Bears forum regarding Mike Brown's offseason-

 

He was injured again w/ lower back spasms while trying to close for the Cubs. Oh wait a second...

 

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I really think it's time to move on without Mike Brown.

[Guest Bullshiterica]

Yeah, I've been advocating moving on without Mike Brown too.

 

The San Francisco 49ers are guilty of tampering with Lance Briggs. They lose a 7th and swap 3rds with the Bears. Sweet.

[Red Baron 0]

Lofa Taputu signed a six year $42 mil with Seattle.

[Agent_Bond34 0]

Yeah, I've been advocating moving on without Mike Brown too.

 

The San Francisco 49ers are guilty of tampering with Lance Briggs. They lose a 7th and swap 3rds with the Bears. Sweet.

 

Actually, they're losing their 5th round pick and as you stated swapping 3rd rounders with Chicago.

 

This is just ridiculous and embarrassing.

 

Leave it up to the 49ers front office to be caught doing something this stupid.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Oh man, the Cowboys are starting to revert back to that fucked up party team. Those are the only Cowboys I like.

[Kinetic 0]

From PFT:

 

In an interview with Reuters, NFL V.P. Mark Waller says that England eventually could have four regular-season games per year.

 

To make it happen, however, the regular season would have to be extended by one full week. This would allow the NFL to play 16 total games per year at neutral sites without forcing any teams to give up one of their eight regular-season homes games. (However, because a move to 17 regular-season games would likely be accompanied by a reduction in the preseason from four games to three, half of the teams would play only one home preseason game each year, cutting in half the windfall that comes from forcing folks who want to buy tickets to the eight “real” games to also purchase the tickets for phony games that cost the owners far less to produce because the players get paid far less money to participate in them.)

 

So what of the other 12 games neutral-site games? The NFL would have great flexibility in that regard. One or two could be sent to Mexico. One or two could be exported to Canada.

 

And, as we’ve previously suggested, several games could be played each year at neutral sites in the United States that have the facilities for big-time football but no local NFL teams.

 

Alternatively, the Los Angeles problem could be solved via a slate of eight neutral-site games played each year in a new or existing venue there. In our view, that approach might be even more intriguing and compelling than giving L.A. its own team.

 

I hate the idea of adding an additional regular season game. The schedules are absolutely perfect the way they're structured right now; the NFL doesn't need to change a thing. I also dislike in principle the idea of taking away home games from teams and their fans. I'm a little warmer towards the idea of playing neutral-site games in L.A. in lieu of either expanding the league or moving an existing franchise, but I think it would ultimately just be delaying the inevitable.

 

I just feel like football is the one sport where you can argue that every game is important, so it's a little more meaningful to alter the normal schedule of a team, take away a home game, etc. than it is in, say, baseball. The Red Sox and A's had to play meaningful games in Japan, sure, but they've got 160 games to get back into the scheme of things. You don't have that luxury in football.

 

 

[sfaJack 0]

NFL Europe failed for a reason.

 

Aside from all the scheduling problems Kinetic mentioned, the most ridiculous thing about the NFL playing overseas is that barely anybody outside of the U.S. really gives a shit about football and, likely, never will. It's going to be, at best, a niche sport or a novelty attraction, very far from being on par with soccer or rugby or any other native game that they play over there. So while there might be a small market for the NFL overseas, I don't see how the dollars involved would ever be enough to justify the scheduling and logistical headaches and all the costs associated with playing 4 or more games a year overseas.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Let 'em try it. When it fails, they'll stop. If it's successful, what's the harm, right?

 

I'm all for shortening the preseason anyway.

[Bruiser_Brody_ 0]

The final Packer from the Super Bowl Years, Rob Davis, retired.

[Guest Bullshiterica]

The NFL has such a cavalier attitude about its Great New Ideas sometimes. Let's take home games away from really popular teams so that we can pretend people in England give a shit. Nobody in Europe gives a shit. They might sort of take a passing interest in it, but it's the same way we sort of take a passing interest in Manchester United. It's not something that people's lives revolve around, which is certainly the case stateside, for better or worse. You can get away with cherry-picking a Cardinals home game here or a Dolphins home game there, but let's see the league tell Packer fans that their team only gets seven home games so that they can try to squeeze a few bucks (or euros, as the case may be) out of Barcelona. That's a lot of fat angry Germans to deal with. As for games in Los Angeles, I don't think they'll care to watch neutral site games. I think they want an actual team. I don't understand why they have to make things so complicated here. The current system is perfect. If you really want the NFL back in Los Angeles, get the Rams to move back. Given that they're in a shitty slapped-together dome and not terribly popular, I think the Rosenbloom kid that inherited the team might be receptive to a move.

[MFer 0]

O-line prospect Heath Benedict dead at 24.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The NFL's primetime schedule for Week 1 was released today.

 

Kickoff Weekend primetime schedule includes Monday doubleheader

 

For the fifth consecutive season, the defending Super Bowl champion will open the season by hosting the NFL Thursday night season kickoff. The 2008 regular season officially opens on Thursday, Sept. 4 when the New York Giants host the Washington Redskins at 7 p.m. ET on NBC.

 

The kickoff will be 90 minutes earlier than the start time of the traditional season opener due to the Republican National Convention.

 

The Week 1 Sunday night primetime contest will feature a rematch of of Super Bowl XLI, with the Chicago Bears at the Indianapolis Colts at 8:15 p.m. ET. It will mark the Colts' first game in their new home, Lucas Oil Stadium.

 

The first Monday night of the 2008 season will feature a doubleheader for the third consecutive season. In two matchups of division rivals on Sept. 8, the Green Bay Packers will host the Minnesota Vikings at 7 p.m. ET, followed by the Denver Broncos at the Oakland Raiders at 10:15 p.m. ET. Both games will be televised on ESPN.

 

The announcement of these national primetime TV games was made by Goodell at the NFL Annual Meeting in Palm Beach, Florida.

 

That's a pretty awful slate of Week 1 games. The only one worth watching is Packers-Vikings, and that's only to me because I'm a Packer fan.

[Kinetic 0]

Thursday night opener is Giants-Redskins. Pretty bold going with an NFC East game like that. The Sunday nighter is the Battle For Tzar Lysergic's Heart and Mind as Indy hosts Chicago. Monday night doubleheader sucks a dick: Vikings-Packers and Broncos-Raiders.

 

EDIT: Man, fuck this shit. You beat me to the punch.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Giants-Cowboys would've been a much better season opener; it was a pretty damn fun game last year.

[Kinetic 0]

I think that the general feeling with season openers is that you don't have to trot out your marquee games, because people are so desperate to see meaningful football that they'll watch anything. Still, Raiders-Broncos is a hard sell.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Well, much like with Packers-Vikings, both teams have a large enough fanbase that it won't really matter anyways, people will tune in and watch. Minnesota-GB usually ends up being a fun game as well, and it'll be cool since they'll probably retire Favre's jersey then and it'll probably be the marquee matchup in the NFC North, unless Detroit finally pulls it shit together (which is doubtful).

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

I know Raiders-Broncos is a big deal to some people, but nobody in my part of the country. Probably how they feel about Vikings-Packers out west. Vikings-Packers is a good opening game, because you have a rising team in Minnesota and the first non-Favre start in years. It'll be good to see the Raiders, but I don't give a shit about the Broncos.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

What? The NFC North will be wide open. Even Detroit or Chicago (with all their woes, they still reeled off a few wins to end the season in 2007 and put themselves out of desirable draft position) could easily win that division.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

1 defensive player to wear "QB helmet":

PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - Taking another technological step forward, NFL owners approved a communication device for defenses Tuesday.

 

One defensive player will wear a helmet similar to what the quarterback is allowed on offense. Should that player leave the game, another player can be designated to also have the device. But only one defender with the device can be on the field at a time.

 

"We want to safeguard against a situation with two players on the field at the same time with the helmet communication," said Atlanta Falcons president and competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay.

 

"We are talking about a three-down player, perhaps a linebacker who doesn't come off the field," added Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher, the other co-chairman of the committee that recommended instituting the device. Fisher has just such a player in Keith Bullock.

 

"In the event he goes down because of an injury, we'd identify our backup player as another three-down player."

 

Fisher noted this change won't eliminate entirely the need for signals from the sideline, something that pretty much has disappeared for offenses.

 

"The defense will still have need to signal in a hurry-up situation, where the ball is snapped very early," he said.

 

The vote was 25-7 in favor — 24 yes votes were required — and all seven negatives came from head coaches with offensive backgrounds.

 

Voting against the measure were Seattle (Mike Holmgren), Tampa Bay (Jon Gruden), Oakland (Lane Kiffin), Philadelphia (Andy Reid), St. Louis (Scott Linehan), Washington (Jim Zorn) and Green Bay (Mike McCarthy).

 

New England coach Bill Belichick, whose involvement in the Spygate scandal that included taping opposing coaches' defensive signals made the communication device a hotter topic, voted for the proposal.

 

"I've been for that ever since the thing with the quarterbacks came out," Belichick said. "The problem is just how to do it. The concept of it is fine, but the logistics of it are a little bit of a different story. You don't always have a quarterback in the game on defense, like you do on offense. It's a little bit of a different setup.

 

"There is a substitution issue. Even the way it's proposed now if you have a middle linebacker like Brian Urlacher or Ray Lewis, or somebody like that who played on every single play on defense as kind of the equivalent of the offensive quarterback, then that's one thing. A lot of teams don't have that, and I'd say we would fall into that category."

 

The owners also tabled discussion of a rule banning a player's hair from flowing over the nameplate and number on the back of the uniform.