Other NFL News

[Adam White]

Ennis, you're not remembering that play accurately. I'd love for you find some video that shows the ground causing ANY kind of shift. First, the ball never hit the ground but second, and most importantly, it hitting the ground is irrelevant in that situation where the catch was eventually completed without the ball touching the ground at the point of completion of the play.

The refs though otherwise. They probably saw the same thing I saw 0:22 seconds into that video and decided the evidence of a completely clear catch wasn't strong enough to overcome the call on the field.

You can laugh all you want but there's a very clear reason why the overwhelming majority of the country saw a catch *and* so did the retired ref used by CBS *and* so did the broadcasters. It was an absolutely crazy call.

No laughing on my part. I have no vested interest either way. That's what I noticed during the game and why I wasn't surprised the call was not overturned.

To me, you had to *want* to not see a catch on that play for it not to be a catch.

Interesting. I didn't give a damn about the game, the teams or the individual players, but I did see why the call wasn't overturned.

Isn't it that if the video is inconclusive, the call on the field stands? I think the very fact that we can't be certain - as evidenced by this discussion - shows that the correct option was to not overturn the ruling on the field.

[thelakelander]

^Yeah, it looked pretty inconclusive to me. Thus, I'm not surprised the ruling on the field was not overturned.  I've seen some pretty bad calls before but I would not consider this to be one of them.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

... *and* so did the retired ref used by CBS *and*...

Slow your roll, RG.... 

You mean this retired ref used by CBS: 

Even if you've been under a rock, you've heard about all the bad calls on replay he's made in the booth.  Hell, he even goofed on Twitter trying to support himself.

Feel free to disaree with my opinion.

[spuwho]

The link below recalls in detail the blow by blow account of the recent team relocation process.

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/14752649/the-real-story-nfl-owners-battle-bring-football-back-los-angeles

I can't say I am impressed by it all but it did align the "new money" owners against the "old money" owners pretty well.

While Shad Khan is not mentioned, I assume he would fall into the new money group.  Some owners were said to have not attended and had functionaries go instead, which makes me wonder if Lamping covered it for him.

After reading it, it makes me think about Pete Rozelle more than ever. The man was flawed, but I would like to think he could run a better resolution than what this turned out to be.

Not only was the city of St Louis screwed over, but so was Spanos from San Diego.  Mark Davis (Raiders) was treated like an aging free agent who wanted a bigger contract, only to be sent to the sidelines and treated like some local bumpkin.

The recruitment of Bob Iger from Disney, originally seen to be a huge plus, turned out to be a huge bomb. Talk about totally misreading your audience.  He found out that NFL owners are not the same as his Disney Board of Directors. Complete deer in the headlights.

[RattlerGator]

Slow your roll, RG.... 

Feel free to disaree with my opinion.

Oh no, I know what you mean and I'm not going to revisit it. It's damn near unanimous from my admittedly biased perch that it was a clear catch and the reliance on the nose moving presumes ground contact, none is shown because none happened. His elbow happened. But hell, people see the craziest shiznit. Every player (I know, I know: overstatement alert!), current or former, that I've seen comment on it said it was a clear catch. That's enough for me.

spuwho -- thanks for that link! It seems like the League managed this about as well as it could have possibly been managed. Tremendous competing interests are supremely difficult to manage. I highly doubt if Rozelle would have been up to the challenge. These owners (Jerry Jones, etc.) are a completely different breed from his day. That was the problem, IMHO, with Davis and Spanos this time around. They tried to force an old-school Los Angeles solution while bringing in a new big boy that the current big boys had not signed off on. Nope, nope, nope. Those days are over and I suspect Shad correctly read the tea leaves & didn't get out of his lane. Think about it; he wanted the St. Louis team but the big boys (apparently) told him to wait his turn because they had a Kroenke to L.A. plan all along but also knew Jax needed an owner with Shad's heft. His big, big plus was that he also has a love for London. We in Jacksonville are the beneficiaries of this (probable) orchestration, envious rubes in Jax have (and will certainly continue) unknowingly and presumptively screaming at the partnership Khan has established with the city, while the big boys (with Shad's significant help) continue their international creep into Europe & elsewhere while smug soccer fans insist the game will never catch on overseas. American businessmen are often seriously underestimated in Europe and told what will never fly right up to the day that it incontrovertibly does fly. Frankly, I ain't mad at the big boys and I'm not about to bet against the NFL.

Plus, the NFL complex the big boys envision in Los Angeles is impressive as hell to me and appears to be a brilliant step forward in re-imagining the 21st century NFL.

[I-10east]

It's very interesting that the Rams unloaded a good chunk of notable players; Chris Long, James Laurinaitis and Jared Cook. Should the Jags take interest with any of these players?? What do you think?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/19/rams-release-chris-long-james-laurinaitis-and-jared-cook/

[spuwho]

It's very interesting that the Rams unloaded a good chunk of notable players; Chris Long, James Laurinaitis and Jared Cook. Should the Jags take interest with any of these players?? What do you think?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/19/rams-release-chris-long-james-laurinaitis-and-jared-cook/

Laurenaitis still has gas in his tank and is relatively young.  Jared Cook is on the long end of his career. Chris Long's production has declined annually since his rookie season.

Cook will probably land somewhere with a reduced contract. Long needs a better surrounding team, he will probably land in SF.

Laurenaitis will go depending who has cap space for his expected contract, but I doubt it will be here.

[I-10east]

Here's a nice short video featuring the LA Rams new stadium. It's funny how the say 'LA's original team' being that they started out in Cleveland. The LA Kings are LA's only original team (in the big four sports).

http://www.therams.com/videos/videos/Inglewood-Stadium-Renderings/3322dd48-97cd-419e-908a-1bd39f5fe6b9

[I-10east]

Laurenaitis still has gas in his tank and is relatively young.  Jared Cook is on the long end of his career. Chris Long's production has declined annually since his rookie season.

Cook will probably land somewhere with a reduced contract. Long needs a better surrounding team, he will probably land in SF.

Laurenaitis will go depending who has cap space for his expected contract, but I doubt it will be here.

Yeah I tend to agree that Jax aren't gonna sign any of these three.

[spuwho]

Here's a nice short video featuring the LA Rams new stadium. It's funny how the say 'LA's original team' being that they started out in Cleveland. The LA Kings are LA's only original team (in the big four sports).

http://www.therams.com/videos/videos/Inglewood-Stadium-Renderings/3322dd48-97cd-419e-908a-1bd39f5fe6b9

That move of the Rams from Cleveland to LA wasnt without contraversy either.

The Rams had just won the 1946 title and the owner wanted to move to LA but they kept getting voted down. (Sound familiar?)

But the NFL was getting ready to merge with the AAFL (All American, not AFL) and so the deal was that the AAFL team would stay, Paul Brown's Cleveland Browns and the Rams would move to LA.

But it wasnt easy. The LA Sports Commission told the Rams they couldnt play there unless they had black players.

But when the Rams signed a black player, the other NFL owners went bazerk over it.

So it seems where ever the Rams go, lots of attention is right behind.

They are still the only NFL team to leave town after winning the title.

[Tacachale]

Here's a nice short video featuring the LA Rams new stadium. It's funny how the say 'LA's original team' being that they started out in Cleveland. The LA Kings are LA's only original team (in the big four sports).

http://www.therams.com/videos/videos/Inglewood-Stadium-Renderings/3322dd48-97cd-419e-908a-1bd39f5fe6b9

That move of the Rams from Cleveland to LA wasnt without contraversy either.

The Rams had just won the 1946 title and the owner wanted to move to LA but they kept getting voted down. (Sound familiar?)

But the NFL was getting ready to merge with the AAFL (All American, not AFL) and so the deal was that the AAFL team would stay, Paul Brown's Cleveland Browns and the Rams would move to LA.

But it wasnt easy. The LA Sports Commission told the Rams they couldnt play there unless they had black players.

But when the Rams signed a black player, the other NFL owners went bazerk over it.

So it seems where ever the Rams go, lots of attention is right behind.

They are still the only NFL team to leave town after winning the title.

It was the "All-American Football Conference". I believe they were planning on having the Browns in Cleveland whether or not the Rams had moved; they also had a competing team in LA as well as in New York and Chicago.

Incidentally, this is also the league that gave us the 49ers and an earlier version of the (Baltimore) Colts. Of local interest, they also had a team in Florida with the Miami Seahawks in 1946, the first ever big league team in this state.

[spuwho]

Here's a nice short video featuring the LA Rams new stadium. It's funny how the say 'LA's original team' being that they started out in Cleveland. The LA Kings are LA's only original team (in the big four sports).

http://www.therams.com/videos/videos/Inglewood-Stadium-Renderings/3322dd48-97cd-419e-908a-1bd39f5fe6b9

That move of the Rams from Cleveland to LA wasnt without contraversy either.

The Rams had just won the 1946 title and the owner wanted to move to LA but they kept getting voted down. (Sound familiar?)

But the NFL was getting ready to merge with the AAFL (All American, not AFL) and so the deal was that the AAFL team would stay, Paul Brown's Cleveland Browns and the Rams would move to LA.

But it wasnt easy. The LA Sports Commission told the Rams they couldnt play there unless they had black players.

But when the Rams signed a black player, the other NFL owners went bazerk over it.

So it seems where ever the Rams go, lots of attention is right behind.

They are still the only NFL team to leave town after winning the title.

It was the "All-American Football Conference". I believe they were planning on having the Browns in Cleveland whether or not the Rams had moved; they also had a competing team in LA as well as in New York and Chicago.

Incidentally, this is also the league that gave us the 49ers and an earlier version of the (Baltimore) Colts. Of local interest, they also had a team in Florida with the Miami Seahawks in 1946, the first ever big league team in this state.

Thanks for the correction Tach.  I think it was the LA Dons (or something like that) that played LA pre-Rams.

Thinking of today's stadium craze, the LA Coliseum was already some 23 years old before the Rams came along in 1948. Today a stadium can barely reach 25 years before its obsolete.  I think the Rams also still have the all time NFL attendance record for a single game.  102,000 came and saw them play the 49'ers.

Not many people know that the Arizona Cardinals actually started in Chicago before they moved to St Louis (1959). The Bears played at Wrigley Field and the Cardinals played at Comiskey Park. (Both later went to Soldier Field) The Bidwells, who still own the Cardinals today used to run a horse track in Cicero (used to be Al Capone's, they failed at turning it to a NASCAR track). I remember the big news in 1977, because it was the 30th anniversary of the Chicago Cardinals 1947 NFL Championship. Charley Bidwell got ticked at the AAFC and outbid them all for Trippi. He died just before the championship game. But it wasn't as big as the 30th anniversary of the 1985 Bears Super Bowl win in 2015.

[I-10east]

The Chargers are looking to downtown for a future multi-use stadium. I really hate the Chargers, but I want them to stay in SD. If they get the DT stadium built, it would be an instant SB location along with LA.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/23/chargers-plan-to-target-downtown-multi-use-stadium-site/

[spuwho]

The Chargers are looking to downtown for a future multi-use stadium. I really hate the Chargers, but I want them to stay in SD. If they get the DT stadium built, it would be an instant SB location along with LA.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/23/chargers-plan-to-target-downtown-multi-use-stadium-site/

My understanding is that the Chargers have always wanted to be downtown, but the last referendum to support that didnt pass. People resented the fact that the Chargers were not putting in enough of their own skin to have such prime real estate.  Thats why SD kept pushing the Mission Valley proposal.

Yet the Chargers resent the Padres getting prime real estate for Petco Park. The difference in peoples mind is, the Padres play 80+ games a year, whereas the Chargers will play 10 at the most.

Cant have it both ways. If you want the prime real estate and you cant pay for it, then you have to bend and allow it to be multi purpose.

[Tacachale]

Well, I hope the Chargers stay in San Diego, a stadium/convention center sounds like a pretty strange use.