Winnbrad wrote:

A guy on reddit redid them in photoshop. He did a better job. http://imgur.com/a/Jx2U6

Here’s the Rams “new” one.

That is the same just different colors.

joemad wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bnw wrote:</div>

<DIV class=d4p-bbt-quote-title>joemad wrote:</DIV>
<P>1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this. </P>

<P>What is there to sort out? One game early other game late. Even if games were scheduled at the same time one of the games could be broadcast locally over another station. No moving of teams needed.</P>

Supporting 2 teams in the same market and conference will not work.

1) the local Network must carry the local NFL market team. (except when black outs apply)
2) each Network gets a doubleheader every other week. 8 doubleheaders per network….(e.g. CBS gets the double header week I, then FOX gets the double header on week II, etc….
2a) this is the problem, when CBS does not have the double header on week II, it will not be able to carry both games 100% of the time, especially when the games will be played in different time zones…..only when the local market team will host a game from the opposing conference… e.g., when the Raiders or Chargers, host an NFC team the game will most likely be shown on FOX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_on_television

Still appears scheduling can handle it. To me it seems like you expect the doubleheader to be both LA teams games? 14 other teams in the AFC alone that can be scheduled.

In the past the owners would have to agree. Bidwill refused repeated attempts to move his team (AZ) from the NFC east because he relied upon the revenue generated from playing Dallas every year. He only agreed after getting preseason game guarantee to play Dallas and getting his new stadium multiple Super Bowls.

TV can want all they want doesn’t mean they get it. Once the Rams left LA there became overlapping AFC West territories with the Raiders and Chargers. So nothing changes except both playing in LA makes it geographically more convenient, well unless most of their fans walk to games? He he.

No need to change divisions around either.

I will believe the Carson project once construction starts. It could end up with a deal that has both the Raiders and Chargers playing in Kroenke’s LA stadium.

Anything to keep the Rams in St. Louis is cool.

I like it. The so called existing horns don’t look like horns to me. Including the Oilers helmet is odd. Perhaps it is meant as a Titans throwback?

• This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by bnw.

INT Peacock! Running it back clear sailing into the end zone. TD St. Louis Rams!

Mackeyser wrote:

Something doesn’t smell right.

Prostitution is a harder game than football.

So, the prostitutes throw a john with money to the po-po and take the citations for a few bumps? I’m not trying to weigh any of the morality of any of this.

Just seems like there’s a part of this story that isn’t being told.

Perhaps though if he assaulted them it trumps all for an employer embroiled in the recent Ray Rice fiasco.

Didn’t he learn any Xs and Os from the cheapskate Secret Service agent scandal in Columbia a few years back?

Dak wrote:

Well, if you ask me, Wilson certainly telegraphed the throw. That corner saw his eyes and jumped the pass. Plus, I don’t know if I’d trust that Seattle WR to make the catch, honestly. I don’t remember the ‘Hawks trying a pass like that all game.

I do feel like Lynch should have been an equation in that play, because you have the option of Wilson faking to Lynch and getting to the outside, where he’s so dangerous. Then, if it doesn’t work, he can safely throw the ball away, and if not, you still have a timeout.

I don’t put everything on the play call, but I still think it was the wrong call.

I agree. Lynch and Wilson running are the strength of their offense and they abandoned their game. Terribly stupid call.

nittany ram wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dak wrote:</div>
One interesting point that Long makes is that the referees handle the footballs the most, implying that maybe they should have noticed. But, the refs don’t play the game, squeeze the ball, throw the ball, catch the ball, hold on to the ball while someone’s trying to strip it, etc.

Right. And the refs didn’t deflate the balls either. The Patriots did that. So let’s not blame the refs for any of this. That just deflects blame from where it truly belongs…with the Patriots.

Refs cheating for the Patriots is their history. We witnessed it in SB36! Refs hold that ball before each play. It took the Colts player demanding action that put the officials on the spot making them address the issue.

zn wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bnw wrote:</div>

zn wrote:

Rams were robbed in Super Bowl 36. I cringe every time I hear someone claim Belichick figured the officials would “let them play”. What head coach prepares his team to not follow the rules?

Well on that one…most did, frankly. The Vikes made the same complaint about the Rams following the 99 playoff game. In fact, since it was clear throughout the league in those years that refs would just “let em play,” my big complaint is that the Rams defense didn’t do the same thing to the Patz offense.

Really, it wasn’t just that game, and it wasn’t just the Patz. The coach who says get physical with receivers in the playoffs is the one who notices that league-wide, that’s how it was going to be in the post-season.

Of course that was then. They tightened all that up after…in part because of complaints from the Rams.

No, I don’t believe it. How does the Tuck rule fall under that let them play? Between the Patriots taping Rams plays and the officials taking away the Rams passing attack by not calling the penalties the Rams were robbed.

I was just thinking of the aggressive defensive banging on receivers and on Faulk. That stuff was all over the place. Until the changed it a couple of times, including recently, by getting stricter each time. I was only referring to that kind of thing–basically, the physical style of defensive backs. The tuck rule was just a bad call or a bad rule or both.

Or how about a blatant intentional grounding not called against Brady in the closing minutes of Super Bowl 36? Rams were robbed.

zn wrote:

Rams were robbed in Super Bowl 36. I cringe every time I hear someone claim Belichick figured the officials would “let them play”. What head coach prepares his team to not follow the rules?

Well on that one…most did, frankly. The Vikes made the same complaint about the Rams following the 99 playoff game. In fact, since it was clear throughout the league in those years that refs would just “let em play,” my big complaint is that the Rams defense didn’t do the same thing to the Patz offense.

Really, it wasn’t just that game, and it wasn’t just the Patz. The coach who says get physical with receivers in the playoffs is the one who notices that league-wide, that’s how it was going to be in the post-season.

Of course that was then. They tightened all that up after…in part because of complaints from the Rams.

No, I don’t believe it. How does the Tuck rule fall under that let them play? Between the Patriots taping Rams plays and the officials taking away the Rams passing attack by not calling the penalties the Rams were robbed.

No it should be a choice of the player not the press.

I read or heard somewhere that this deflate gate might end up being within the rules as written though outside of the intent. The two scenarios I heard about are,

1. Another gas was placed into the balls at room temperature to be inspected by the officials but when taken outside into the cold the gas contracts lowering the pressure.

2. The balls were filled to pressure within the teams sauna and inspected then when taken outside the cold temperature causes the air inside to cool and thus contract lowering the air pressure.

Both scenarios would be within the rules as written although in a slimy way.

The retractable roof is big with St. Louis fans yet the true utility and high cost don’t justify it. Perhaps a compromise of a heated seat option?