Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
znModeratorWell, apart from the question of whether any Ram OL in the last decade has been any good (probably not) the issue of injuries has to be faced. It isn’t just a factor that can be dismissed as an aberration.
As I’ve said before, THIS TEAM HAS REPEATEDLY BET ON GUYS WITH INJURY HISTORIES! Those bets have gone bad again and again. Jones is a classic example. They drafted him hurt, he’s still hurt, and the BEST we can say is that we don’t know if he can play. THEY DRAFTED THAT PACKAGE! They own the injury.
And you can’t just set injuries aside as if they don’t count” “Well, in the 6 games our OL was healthy, we were able to …” It doesn’t work that way.
This team has not played with a good OL through a year in at least a decade.
Why one would think it would be easy to suddenly do it this next year I can’t imagine.
Injuries matter. And poor talent pools matter. And we’ve had both for a long time.
I guess we have very different ideas of what an “easy fix” would be.
They did sign guys with injury histories, but that is not the same as saying they repeatedly bet on it.
There was no reason to suppose Long would have other injuries. The question he raised when he was signed was whether he was still the same player. To say someone could have anticipated a knee? Well no one did. No one at the poster level or the national level said Long would get different injuries…the question was whether he was the same player after the arm surgeries.
Wells had no history of injuries before the Rams and his long list of injuries with the Rams (plus the infection) are just bizarre.
A lis franc fracture in the foot is not supposed to cause you to wonder about a Jones’s back.
Saffold is a bet, that’s true.
But then also there is no way on earth any team can anticipate having 4 injured centers the same year. That’s just weird.
And yes if you want a full and complete assessment of an OL, whether it has crossed the threshold into multiple injuries to the point where it is no longer effective raises very specific questions, but they don’t include questions about the coaches and the strategy. That’s just luck. Yet if they perform well when relatively healthy THAT is the clue you need to determine if these guys can fix it. Because the default setting is good…that is always a positive sign.
I know why I think they can fix it in a year. Because they are on the right track, as evidenced by how they play in the stretches where they were relatively healthy (and I never just say “healthy.”) And because I have looked at how other teams did it. In 2013 both the Baltimore and Giants lines were wrecks. It was so bad in Baltimore they were trading away starters during the season. Both lines got fixed in one off-season…both lines are now rightfully considered good. Why was it fixed in one off-season? Because in both cases they didn’t have to go find a left OT. In both cases they had players to build around. And in both cases they found ways to repair OC and OG without straining resources.
We’ve seen it with the Rams. In 98, the OL was
Pace Miller Flannery Wiegert Gandy
And it was not considered a particularly good one.
In 99 it was
Pace Nutten Gruttadauria Timmerman Miller
and it was considered much better. That;s without using 98 or 99 draft picks higher than the 5th round on OL. (They drafted 2 guards in those 2 years but they were both non-entities: Roundtree and Spikes.)
Anyway.
None of this is set in stone, it’s just how I see this one.
.
January 25, 2015 at 7:13 pm in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17369znModeratorWell I do see a difference in the two. To me Eastwood doesn’t make movies with a political agenda and Stone most certainly does. As an example I don’t see any political message in Sniper unless the absence of such can be seen as political. To me (ad nauseum) it was about the emotional trauma of one soldier-hence the singular “sniper” as opposed to sending some sort of political message. The movie was about loneliness, pain, suffering and loss. It was NOT about the morality of that war. Possibly a 10 year old might see the movie and believe we were in a justifiable war. But for most thinking people that curtain came down long ago. As PA wrote whether you believe we should have invaded Iraq or not a movie about the emotional trauma to a soldier ain’t gonna change your view. Moreover, everyone knows there were never any WMD found. As in a Leonard Cohen song: “everyone knows that the dice are loaded…”
I didn’t say he did make movies with an overt political agenda. We’re talking about different things. I say all films (in fact all narratives) have political messages–and that’s whether they’re intended or not. They’re just there. They are just there because human beings made them.
And in Sniper, what they let get into the film was a message “confirming” that Iraq was directly related to 9/11. Now they could have let that in there because they’re lazy, or stupid, or negligent, or uncaring, or just don’t know how to think about what that means. But it IS there.
Visions of what history is and how it happened and why and what’s a good society and what isn’t and so on are in everything ever written. They’re just there…all you have to do is look. They’re there because that kind of stuff colors peoples thoughts and shows up in their stories about life.
So anyway, to me telling a big lie about american history is a bad thing.
To you it’s not as important as having a good time at the movies. Shrug.
And to me the lie is central. They want to show the burden and the stress of the I am a sheepdog thing. Well, Someone fighting in Iraq isn’t a sheepdog, they don’t protect us from anything…the war in Iraq just never had a justification. It’s hard to make a guy the tormented hero of sacrifice if the war that is his stage turns out to have served no purpose and have been founded on a lie. They can’t tell the story they tell unless they just plain never question the war. Because otherwise they start adding irony and questions to what they want to be a story that excludes those things. (Joke coming)…it would become Major Payne.
znModeratorThe film hints at a reason for the murder
Haven;t seen it yet and I don’t mind spoilers. What is the hint.
znModeratorfrom off the net
—
alyoshamucciIve done this three years in a row now, and am getting used to being surprised by a few guys each year, while usually pretty darn close on my “position overall” guesses.
Now, first off, FIVE targets of mine didn;t show for the Interior Line, Scherff, Grasu, Matias, Erving, and Gallik. STILL, it was by far the strongest unit, with only a couple guys getting any penetration whatsoever.
The talking heads were all gooey about Shelton, and that’s fine, I have thought, and still think Carl Davis is the best DT. Glad to see they gave him some love by the end of the week.
So I’ll go section by section.
QBs
Grayson had the best week, though Carden is still my favorite QB. Petty looks like he’d fit in Philly, or need a year on the bench to get used to the pre snap reads.Sims was a gamer, maybe he’ll get a practice squad nod somewhere. Bennett looked like he had some tools for that also . .
I know I’m going to be questioned about my Cardin focus, but the kid is a gamer, a leader, and he’s tougher than any other QB this draft. His psychology checks out. Everything else is good enough.
RBs
What a year for this group, there will be talented kids going undrafted. the kid I hadn;t seen was Johnson, who was ridiculously impressive. Id move him just out of the top 5 in this class . . . and what a class it is. Wow. Abdullah is a beast and has second round talent but may not go until round 5.WRs
Not a fan of this class. Average guys against average CBs. A couple guys made some plays. Coates looked more polished than I expected, could creep into round 1.TEs
Really like this class for #2 TEs. Walford was showing off and is likely to be the second or third TE taken, but the deeper cuts like Uzomah and Boyle and Mahina and Koyack are all guys Ive liked all year. 6-6 260 style kids. Grabbing a solid TE in round 5 or 6 should replace Kendricks.OT
Donovan Smith was the only OLT I loved. Clemmings is too raw right now, and he lost money, got exposed. La’el Collins is an ORT or OG, don;t like him on the left. Havenstein looks like a backup. Sambrailo looks like an OG. Really it was an entire line of Interior linemen. Clausell got there late, but I really have liked that kid for some time.OG/OC
Tre Jackson was the most dominant. I think he may be a top 20 player. Tomlinson was a boss, and Kuandjio really handled himself well. The Shaq kid from GTech really impressed me learning how to pass block in one day. I liked him already, but had to move him up into the round 2-3 area. If he could play center his lack of height and length wouldn’t hurt him as bad. Garcia surprised my, from UF, in one on ones. He could be a late swing backup with starter potential. Im still really bummed about the 5 guys that didn’t show. La’el Collins will be a great guard, could also be top 20 potential. Dismukes was average looking, he’s still a later round guy for me.DT
Carl Davis has been my guy all year there. great initial burst and moves, and can finish in the backfield. Danny Shelton is a NT beast, but I am higher on Davis honestly. The other mentionable was Henry Anderson who is a natural 5 tech, but seems to be able to play anywhere. Everyone had trouble blcoking him and I can;t ignore that. Id have him round 3 and with an extra bonus for versatility.DE
Great unit. Orchard and Kikaha and Smith and Flowers and my boy Z Smith (who is no longer under the radar, Doh) just overwhelmed the rest most of the time. Superior group. If Orchard is there in round 2 I’d be hard pressed not to take him. I doubt he gets there though.LBs
eh. They didnt get much pon screen time, so Ill just say that Hayes Pullard showed up like I know him to.CBs
I am not a fan of this group, don’t believe there’s a starter in the bunch, maybe a couple nickels.S
Rowe, Prewitt and Geathers are all way higher on my lists than everyone else’s, why? I don’t know. I have them all top 50, and possible first rounders depending on how they run.znModeratorGood pic CL.
Sometime when you have a chance, though, ask me how to post pics. I fixed it though.
znModeratorThis FO has been here for 3 years, spent serious money and draft picks on the OL. And the results have been abysmal. These facts we do know.
I disagree. When this line has been healthy, it has performed. The results are far from abysmal.
In the 2nd half of 2012, after they got over the injuries from the first half, they had a 5.4% sack percentage (pretty good), Jackson was getting 4.3 a carry, and they were going toe to toe with top ten defenses, including that year’s SF team.
After they got in a running threat in 2013, they were a good run blocking/play-action line, good enough to challenge Seattle, even with Clemens at qb, and good enough to take on top 10 defenses. Barksdale was getting good reviews at ROT and Saffold was a rising star at ROG. If you take Stacy’s numbers across 16 games the Rams would have been 8th in rushing in 2013, and again, that’s even with Clemens at qb.
In 2014 injuries in the off-season and summer kept them from playing together. When in sync they performed decently, even with Robinson at guard. It was the Chiefs game and multiple injuries that tore that down.
The big thing with this OL has always been injuries. When relatively healthy it has performed well.
This was as true of 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 as it is now. Demoff said it. The Rams achilles heel has always been OL injuries.
Both Boudreau and Fisher have put together good lines in the past, and in fact they have a cumulative 40 years of experience doing it. If you account for the injuries, you can see the basis for assuming they will do it again.
znModeratorI don’t see Fisher starting a rookie at center.
That’s a real consideration, yeah. We don’t know yet for sure but that’s a thought.
And he’s less likely to start 2 rookies.
And, does he want to have a rookie LOG next to Robinson?
And, how long do they want to keep RS from playing ROG, his best position?
So, lots of things to consider.
January 25, 2015 at 2:03 am in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17329znModerator“Or reasons independent of any attempt to repeat a lie about a war we opposed?”
It was about a real person in real Iraq. It was not about the pretext for the war. Should it have been? Tell that to Eastwood. He most certainly did not want to make a movie justifying the war in Iraq. He opposed it. If the movie resonates well with right wingers-so be it. If the movie is to some justification for being in Iraq-so be it. Stupidity cannot be reformed by the arts nor should they try. Eastwood is not Michael Moore and doesn’t look for movies to sell a political viewpoint. He likes to tell a story and does a good job of it. He is not a hx teacher nor does he have any responsibility to be one. The movie was about a man’s emotional and physical trauma due to war. Simple. Eastwood also made a movie which was very sympathetic to Japanese soldiers in the war in the Pacific. (Letters from Iwo Jima) That movie was about people not about who was on the right side of the war. Again, that is what he does best. I say leave the salesmanship to movie makers like Moore.
And in the course of telling its story, the film upheld the lie that 9/11 was connected to the invasion of Iraq.
Yeah I saw the film about Iwo Jima. The 2nd one, Letters from Iwo Jima. It didn’t uphold the lie that the Japanese were merely defending themselves against American imperialism and that they attacked Pearl Harbor as a response to a previous American attack.
But let;s pretend it did. Not that a character or 2 or in fact the whole Japanese garrison believed that lie, but the film itself upheld and advanced that lie as the primary explanation for the war taking place. Pretend the film was based on that belief. How would that go over? Would most people just go “yeah well it’s a movie not history”?
That’s a pretty big lie, as lies go, the one in Sniper.
January 25, 2015 at 1:41 am in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17327znModerator“It’s like talking to the dog, even though you the the dog doesn’t understand. But you get pleasure from talking to it anyway.”
Now you’ve gone too far with your dog analogy. My dog Pepper has what we call in special education “receptive language”. If I say “ball” he goes and finds a ball. If I say “toy” he goes and finds a toy cat. If I say “dinner” he sits by his bowl. If I say “poop” he….well not quite yet.
Yeah dogs can understand particular words as prompts and can have huge vocabularies. Mine does, and he can even understand combined words that he knows individually but has never heard TOGETHER before. He gets what the COMNINATION means. He gets “Sheila” (means my daughter is around, look for her), he gets “outside” (means I will be letting him out), but he got it the first time I ever said “Sheila outside,” and knew that it meant he should go outside and find her.
But that’s not what the analogy means. It was not about dog’s getting words they’re trained to get. It was about conversing. Sitting there talking in whole sentences. Dogs get your tone but then don’t understand spontaneous conversational sentences. But I do it anyway. “Hey there he is, what a scruffy happy dog, boy you sure do need a trip to the groomer.”
January 25, 2015 at 1:29 am in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17326znModeratorOk-I get that. And I understand how some might feel the movie perpetrates the lie about 9/11. But so did the movie JFK and so did the movie the Da Vinci Code and hundreds of others. Nevertheless, knowing this I thoroughly enjoyed both movies for reasons independent of any purported attempt to portray truth.
Or reasons independent of any attempt to repeat a lie about a war we opposed?
That either means something to you or it doesn’t.
If it doesn;t…it really is at the level of “just flicks” movies like JFK.
Meanwhile this is much more like the first wave of Vietnam films after Vietnam. The interpretation of the war in those films absolutely mattered. That was the point. As opposed to yeah we had this war, and it was divisive, and it was a significant part of our national experience, but, hey…popcorn!
And some people still believe the lie that 9/11 was tied to Iraq in some way.
That film can’t lionize the guy into the KIND of hero he is in the film without sustaining the lie. He believes he is protecting sheep from wolves. That makes no sense if there is no particularly good, defensible reason to invade Iraq.
And let’s not confuse “being historically accurate” (cause no film IS, the medium doesn’t allow it) with deliberately upholding a lie that helped justify an overseas war. A film about WW2 doesn’t have to have every frame be perfectly historically accurate, but…it shouldn’t claim the war was about keeping communism out of mexico.
January 24, 2015 at 11:32 pm in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17321znModeratorThe way I do this, I can have a critique like that of a film and still like it. I just counter-balance all the different stuff. You can’t look for movies to be always mirroring your own views. So I am always doing all the things at once — ideological critique, wasn’t that scene cool, great film, it’s still a commercial for mainstream beliefs, what a great film, etc. It’s like talking to the dog, even though you the the dog doesn’t understand. But you get pleasure from talking to it anyway.
January 24, 2015 at 9:53 pm in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17316znModeratorWhatever “political” messages were in the movie I didn’t get (accept).
The film makes it a tragic story that a man who contributed so much is prosecuted for being gay. You and I take that story in stride. If people are anti-gay, which many still are, they don’t take that part of the story in stride.
So yes that’s part of the film.
You can’t slam the truth in the middle of that film and expect Kyle to ignore it.
HE as a character doesn’t have to get that it’s a lie (ie. he never has to get that 9/11 and Iraq were not connected). But there are many ways for the film to not SIDE WITH the lie…if it wanted to do it that way, it could. (For example, just have someone say about him, in a scene that he’s not in, that he buys this whole 9/11 thing.) But I think it DOES go along because it takes seriously his whole sheepdog thing. It doesn’t want that to get punctured. Ironically, it doing it that way, it invited controversy.
And, while controversial, yes, taken in its own terms, it’s a good film, just in terms of aesthetic quality.
znModeratorJeesh, their teaching him things.
That can only help.
Given that, they should send more players to the pro bowl.
January 24, 2015 at 5:30 pm in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17305znModerator’m not sure about that-at all. But assuming that’s true the question becomes whether one accepts the message
Well actually that has nothing to do with it, more often than not. I simply do not accept the political messages in Shakespeare plays because they endorse the Elizabethan class hierarchy. But while I know that’s there, it doesn’t interfere with aesthetic pleasure. I don’t need to agree with the politics of a novel play or film.
And it’s not that I do or do not accept the message of Sniper. I didn’t comment on that one way or another.
All I said was that the film contains a lie.
It’s a really big lie, too. One that bulldozed a lot of people back in that decade.
…
January 24, 2015 at 4:08 pm in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17302znModeratorI mean, an honest biopic about Chris Kyle that was anti war? A film that made him question all of this? A film that made him struggle with the how and why of this particular war? It
Well in terms of this discussion, I didn’t ask that the film be anti-war. Just that it not uphold that one particular lie.
That’s the one and only thing I’ve been saying. It doesn’t have to support THAT particular lie. And it was not necessary to support that lie. After all, you could make a film where the central character has that illusion even if it is made clear it’s not true.
But then…all that aside…on another level, the questions you ask can lead to a very specific question. Given everything you say, why make the film at all…unless you support all the things you say the film “has to be?” There are a million different films that could be made about Iraq. Why that one?
The answer can’t be “because people want to see that story.” Because all that means is that you can only imagine films that support dominant ideological fantasies. Well actually not only is art always political in one way shape or form, it doesn’t always have to support dominant ideological fantasies. The fact that movies often do do that is not a defense of doing so, it’s just a description of how dominant ideological fantasies get reinforced.
January 24, 2015 at 3:39 pm in reply to: Grayson, Hundley, Petty, Carden etc. … the qbs this year #17299znModeratorNFP Prospect Focus: Garrett Grayson
Colorado State’s QB is getting higher on draft boards.
Greg Gabrielhttp://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP-Prospect-Focus-Garrett-Grayson.html
One of the more interesting players in this year’s NFL Draft is quarterback Garrett Grayson form Colorado State. After watching Garrett at the Senior Bowl this week and viewing tape, I’m convinced that he will be a good NFL quarterback. Yes, he still needs some seasoning and technique work, but he has a lot going for him, and I highly doubt he gets past the second round.
Grayson is a fourth-year senior and started a total of 36 games while at Colorado State. He showed improvement every year with 2014 being his best year statistically. For the season, he completed 270 of 420 passes for 4006 yards, 32 touchdowns and only seven interceptions. For his career, he completed 609 of 980 throws for 7930 yards, 54 touchdowns and 25 interceptions. His completion percentage went up every year with Garrett completing 66% of his throws this year and a little over 62% for his career.Grayson has good size at 6022 – 215. He has the frame to easily carry another 5 to 10 pounds. He is very athletic with quick feet, good change of direction, and good speed. I would estimate that he will run the 40 in the 4.70 range and maybe even a little faster.
I feel he needs a little work on his throwing mechanics. While he has a quick release, he has a tendency to drop the ball down before he goes through his throwing motion. His delivery is also a bit wide instead of straight over the top. Still, once he makes a decision, he gets the ball out of his hand very quickly. He has good-to-very-good arm strength and, for the most part, throws a tight ball. Part of that can be attributed to his very big hands. His hands measured 10 ¼ at the senior bowl.
At Colorado State, Grayson usually played from a spread offense, but there were some plays when he took snaps and threw while playing from under center. With his quick feet, he can set up quickly and shows poise and patience in the pocket. In the Colorado State offense, he shows he can go through a full progression. While there are some half field plays, he shows he can be productive when having to see the whole field.Mostly, he is a good decision maker who does a good job finding the open receiver. He shows he can look off one receiver and come back to another. He is not the type to force many throws into traffic. The Colorado State offense is a quickly paced offense, and many of his throws are of the shorter variety with bubble screens and short crossing routes being a staple of the offense. Still, when given the opportunity, he is a good downfield passer who shows both good accuracy and ball placement. He has the arm strength to easily complete a 50 yard plus throw.
I really like Grayson’s athleticism. He can buy time in the pocket with his feet and is capable if he has to take off and run. He has good run skills, and with his speed and agility is capable of getting some long runs. He has a good feel for pass rushers and shows good escape pass rusher. Still, he takes his fair share of sacks.
Grayson is an intriguing prospect. I liked the way he handled himself at the senior bowl practices. He showed he had the intangibles to lead. From what I have seen, it wouldn’t surprise me if a team drafted Grayson in the first round, but I would feel more comfortable taking him in the second. Derek Carr from Fresno was a second round pick a year ago and was the best rookie quarterback in this past class. If Grayson had played at a football power like Oregon, USC or Alabama, he would have a lot more notoriety than he has now.
January 24, 2015 at 2:32 pm in reply to: Super Agent Lee Steinberg addresses the LA Rams fans today Jan 18th #17296znModerator
Fans could hold key to new stadium puzzle
By David HunnST. LOUIS • The costs of National Football League stadiums are rising. The portion covered by taxpayers is dipping.
And that leaves team owners looking to an old source to fill the gap:
Their fans.
Across the country, owners are selling personal seat licenses to help fund new billion-dollar glass-and-steel arenas. The seat licenses aren’t game-day tickets. Instead, they give fans their own spot in a new facility, and the right to buy season tickets every year.
Seat licenses have long been used. St. Louis sold about $80 million worth when enticing the Rams from Los Angeles.
But now they’re providing nine-figure stadium funding — a source planners here will lean on again.
San Francisco 49ers officials said last week that their seat-license program, which charged $80,000 for a high-end seat, raised $530 million toward the team’s $1.3 billion arena in Santa Clara, which opened last year.
The Atlanta Falcons, now working on a $1.4 billion stadium to replace the Georgia Dome, recently revealed that top seat license prices will rise to $45,000.
And the Minnesota Vikings surpassed goals toward $125 million in seat licenses for the team’s $1.1 billion downtown stadium, set to open next year.
Lester Bagley, the Vikings’ executive vice president for public affairs and stadium development, said the team didn’t have much of a choice. It had to replace the Metrodome. “We were at the bottom of the league in virtually every revenue category,” he said. “We built the stadium because we could not have survived in this market in that stadium, long-term.”
Here, in St. Louis, seat licenses are a pillar in the nearly $1 billion proposal to build a new football stadium rising along the Mississippi River downtown.
Early this month, a two-man team appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon revealed preliminary details of a plan to build a new football stadium here, and, perhaps, keep the Rams in St. Louis.
The two, former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock and current Edward Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz, pitched a riverfront arena on largely vacant land north of downtown.
Peacock and Blitz leaned on financing in other facilities when they crafted their plan. They incorporated $200 million in NFL loans — as has each recent new building. They included a $200 million match from Rams owner Stan Kroenke, as is required by the NFL loan. They estimated that extending payments on debt for the 20-year-old Edward Jones Dome, where the Rams now play, could provide another $350 million or so.
And the last major contribution? The sale of as much as $130 million in seat licenses.
Peacock has declined to discuss the seat licenses. Will Jones Dome seat license holders get preferential treatment? Will they get discounts? How much will the new seat licenses cost? Can the team sell enough to raise that kind of cash?
“We don’t know yet,” Peacock said after the initial announcement. “We have an understanding of what the value could be. Teams have done a lot of things. I think we have to acknowledge existing seat license holders.”
It’s an uncertain proposition for some fans.
“I wouldn’t buy another one,” said Larry Austell, a current Rams season-ticket holder. “I can see why it benefits the city and everything. But the bottom line is — what are you getting out of this?”
SKYROCKETING STADIUMS
In the 1990s, the decisions of two teams had a profound impact on stadium financing, say league observers.
The Rams left Los Angeles for St. Louis. And the New England Patriots tried to leave Boston for Connecticut.
The moves made the NFL rethink stadium financing. “The league said, ‘We’ve got to find a way to help teams stay in larger markets, so they’re not enticed by smaller markets that would give them free stadiums, or a significant public subsidy,’” said Marc Ganis, a stadium consultant and president of Chicago-based SportsCorp.
In 1999, NFL officials built a new loan program. It has since provided millions of dollars to stadium upgrades and rebuilds, and allowed owners to pay them off with ticket revenue and club seat premiums that would have gone back to the league anyway.
At the same time, stadium prices began to rise.
In 2009, owner Jerry Jones opened a $1.2 billion stadium for the Cowboys in Arlington, Texas. The next year, the $1.6 billion MetLife Stadium opened in New Jersey, home to two teams — the New York Giants and Jets.
To cover the cost, the Cowboys sold about $500 million in seat licenses; the Giants and Jets, selling separately, raised more than $600 million between the two of them.
It’s a new world, said Mark Lamping, the former Anheuser-Busch and St. Louis Cardinals executive who spearheaded construction of MetLife and is now president of the NFL’s Jacksonville Jaguars. Fans don’t want a beer and a hot dog alone. They want to check their fantasy football teams online. They want instant replays — and not one, but several, from different angles. They want fine dining.
At its core, it’s about filling stands, he said.
“It makes the TV product better,” Lamping said. “Players tend to perform better in front of a packed house. And full stadiums also mean a reasonable amount of local revenue is being generated.”
Because so much of the NFL’s national television revenue is shared, dollars that aren’t shared — parking, beer, food, stadium sponsorships, premium seating — are really important to owners, Lamping said.
“The key to the Jaguars becoming a very stable, sustainable franchise in Jacksonville is growing our local revenue,” Lamping said. “So everything we do — stadium improvements, relationships with media, who handles food and beverage — all of our decisions are measured against the metric of what it’s going to do to local revenue.
“The more local revenue you generate, the more stable your franchise is going to be, the more valuable your franchise is going to be, the more profitable your franchise is going to be.”
The St. Louis plan, Lamping said, is reasonable. It includes a nice mix of funding.
But as a smaller market, he warned, it will take more public funding than New York or San Francisco or Los Angeles.
And a stadium in Los Angeles — where Kroenke has promised to build — could handle two teams, get twice the NFL loan and sell double the number of seat licenses for, perhaps, twice as much.
for comparison
Minnesota may provide a comparable example for St. Louis.
And Vikings officials fought for years to line up public money.
“We spent 12 years at the Capitol battling to try to solve the issue of financing a new stadium,” said Bagley, the vice president for stadium development.
Bagley and others argued that public support would keep the Vikings in Minneapolis.
“There are only so many NFL teams,” Bagley said, “and many cities that would like to have one.”
Team officials also lobbied the Legislature that a new stadium downtown would benefit the state and spur development.
After a fight, the state agreed to pay $348 million toward a new stadium, adding to $150 million from the city.
Bagley said last week that stadium supporters already have proved their point. The new stadium is still in construction, and the neighborhood around it is already booming. City staff told him companies have taken out $2 billion in construction permits in the area, of which only half represent the stadium itself.
Moreover, he said, the new stadium already has secured the 2018 Super Bowl, and is in the running for collegiate basketball’s Final Four, college football’s Bowl Championship Series and even a Major League Soccer franchise.
During the debate over funding in the Legislature, opponents trotted out studies and experts showing no economic benefit to football stadiums.
“That’s simply not true,” Bagley said. “In fact, everything we said is coming true.”
There’s a long way to go in St. Louis. Stadium opponents are already voicing heated opposition, talking to legislators and issuing press releases. Legislators are arguing that they won’t extend state payments.
But even if all of that works out, the future of the NFL in St. Louis may rest with fans like Austell, the season ticket holder.
Austell, a retired sheriff’s deputy who lives in East St. Louis, said he paid $2,500 per seat for two seats before the Edward Jones Dome even opened. To get equivalent seats this time, he guesses he’ll have to pay an extra $1,000 — when he could just buy tickets online for each game.
“Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy being a season ticket holder,” he said. “I love football. Football is my No. 1 sport.”
Then Austell paused for a minute. If the stadium actually happens, he said, and he then begins to see progress on the riverfront — well, he just might change his mind.
Especially, he said, if the planned open-air stadium would add one more luxury: a retractable roof.
He’s 61. He doesn’t like the cold much anymore.
January 24, 2015 at 1:00 pm in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17293znModeratorI suppose I look upon movies differently. To me they are art. I don’t see them for historical accuracy or political lessons or even social commentary. Just art. I can appreciate a beautiful sculpture of Christ w/o a belief in the resurrection. As art the movie deserves consideration as one of the best films of the year.
Art always contains political messages. It just does. Humans make art. Are reflects people’s values and perceptions.
I mean would you say a japanese movie about WW2 which included the premise that the japanese attacked pearl harbor to retaliate for an american strike on japanese forces had no political message and should be seen only as art? Of course it would have a political message. It would also be art. The 2 things just aren’t mutually exclusive.
Simple example from the past about a classic. In Shakespeare’s macbeth, macbeth is portrayed as an ambitious wrong-doer who usurps the throne from the rightful heir, Malcolm, the son of Duncan. Macbeth murders Duncan to be king.
But the histories Shakespeare based that play on say that Duncan was an ineffective king, macbeth was a popular king, and the 11th century scots elected kings from a handful of eligible nobles, of which macbeth was one. There was no such thing as a rightful king by succession.
Yet at the same time the real king in Shakespeare’s time, James I, was scottish, and for propaganda purposes traced his lineage back to banquo, a scottish noble macbeth murders in the play. James I also claimed the english throne on the basis of succession.
So Shakespeare alters history to represent the current king, James I, in a flattering light, makes it clear that succession is based on lineage not election, and erases the fact that macbeth was for a long time an effective and popular king.
That’s politics.
It’s in everything. People can’t help it.
It is a lie that the USA went to war in iraq because of 9/11. It’s one of the lies that helped drive the war effort.
That means the movie took sides.
People who choose not to ignore that fact have a very strong point. They’re not just “failing to appreciate art.” They just approach all art as human and full of cross-purposes. Which it always is.
For example, to some, a statue of christ is by its very nature idolatrous. The protestant christ appears very different from the medieval catholic christ. And so on. That kind of thing is always part of it.
Birth of a Nation is a great film aesthetically. It also endorses the rise of the KKK.
znModeratorPeter King
Deflategate: The Pressure is Building
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/21/patriots-tom-brady-bill-belichick-deflategate-ball-controversy/
Don’t expect discipline before Super Bowl Sunday—the NFL desperately needs to get this one right. But if anyone in the Patriots organization is found to have tampered with a game ball, the punishment will be severe
Unless the NFL can find incontrovertible evidence that someone with the Patriots ordered air taken out of footballs Sunday in Foxboro, it’s more likely than not that commissioner Roger Goodell will defer ruling on the case until after the Super Bowl. Absent clear proof in the next few days that the Patriots cheated, there’s a simple reason: There is no rush. If Goodell decides that part of the sanction would be taking draft picks from the Patriots, the draft comes 12-and-a-half weeks after the Super Bowl, giving the league time after the season to investigate more thoroughly, particularly if that investigation does not have a clear conclusion by, say, this Friday. And it’s hugely important to the league to make the right decision here, not a more expeditious one.
Regarding the off-with-their-heads reaction: It’s too early to say what the league might do in this case. But I do know this: This has set off alarm bells inside the NFL’s Park Avenue offices in Manhattan. All hands are on deck, and there is an urgency about doing this investigation right, for the obvious right reasons about the integrity of the rules and a secondary reason: The NFL doesn’t want to risk botching this investigation and issuing a ruling it later has to amend, as happened in the Ray Rice case.
Plus, teams are allowed to put up a defense when charged with an offense affecting the competitive balance of the game. The NFL constitution and bylaws mandate that the commissioner give the team in question a proper hearing so that the team can contest the charges if it chooses. Remember the Saints’ Bountygate charges? There were actually two investigations, covering several months; the first found insufficient evidence to charge the Saints with any football offenses, but the second look—after the league used forensic methods to analyze emails and text messages and communications inside the Saints organization—resulted in heavy sanctions against coach Sean Payton and GM Mickey Loomis, and the loss of two draft picks.
That is why the NFL will be—and should be—deliberate in the investigation of whether someone connected with the New England Patriots doctored the footballs either before or during the AFC Championship Game.
Three points are important to keep in mind as this story develops:
1. I think it’s fair to assume—though it hasn’t been confirmed by the league—that the Patriots’ footballs that were tested at halftime Sunday had less air, and the Colts’ footballs were all found to be legal. Connect the dots. Chris Mortensen reported Tuesday that 11 of 12 Patriots football had approximately two pounds less pressure per square inch than the mandated 12.5 psi required by the NFL. In other words, the Patriots’ footballs were softer than allowed by rule. The obvious deduction is that all the balls, for both teams, were measured at halftime, and that New England’s footballs were found to be softer—or else the league would be investigating Indianapolis as well, and the league is clearly not doing that. This is important because it would render moot the theory going around that the cold weather could have caused the air pressure in the balls to decrease. It was the same weather on both sidelines.
2. There’s a difference that all these ex-quarterbacks are not taking into account when they say, “Every team doctors the footballs.” Former quarterback Matt Leinart tweeted something Wednesday that many quarterbacks were saying in different ways: “Every team tampers with the football. Ask any QB in the league, this is ridiculous!!”Every quarterback can tamper with the 12 footballs assigned to his team in the days before the game. In the NFL, each team is allowed weekly to break in 12 new footballs as it sees fit, according to the quarterback’s preference. That includes taking the shine and slipperiness off the new balls, and compressing them and working them in to soften the leather. By rule, those 12 footballs are then delivered to the officiating crew on site 2 hours and 15 minutes before the game begins.
At that point the head linesman inspects each football with one or more members of his crew. If need be, the officials will clean off the balls. Then they will insert a needle into the balls, one by one, to ensure the balls are inflated to the proper pressure: between 12.5 and 13.5 psi. If a ball is underinflated, an electric pump is used to fill it to the requisite level. Then all 12 balls are marked by silver Sharpie with a referee’s personal preference of a mark—Gene Steratore’s crew uses the letter “L,” for Steratore’s fiancée, Lisa—and put back into the bag, and zipped. The bags are handed to the ballboys minutes before the opening kickoff. If it’s raining, or bad weather is on the way, the officials might tell the ballboys to change the ball on every play, whether it hits the ground on the previous play or not.
To sum up: Yes, the quarterback or his equipment staff can break in the balls in whatever way they want a couple of days before the game. But no, the quarterback cannot dictate the level of air pressure in the ball. Or at least he cannot do it legally. And the low air pressure in the Patriots’ footballs is why this is a story.
3. If Belichick is found to be culpable, I think Goodell will come down hard on him. It’s early. We don’t yet know where the trail on this investigation will lead. So this is presuming a lot. But in reporting a Goodell story four years ago, this anecdote stuck out to me. You’ll recall that after the 2007 Spygate investigation into the Patriots’ videotaping of opposing coaches’ signals that Goodell fined Belichick $500,000 and the franchise an additional $250,000, and he docked New England a first-round draft pick. As part of the discipline, Belichick would have to make a verbal apology in front of the press that week. Instead, the coach issued a printed statement and refused to answer any questions on the topic. “I was given assurances that [Belichick] would tell his side of the story,” Goodell said at the time. “He went out and stonewalled the press. I feel like I was deceived.”
Belichick said at the time, “I did not make any assurances about thoroughly discussing the subject publicly. I said I would address it following the league’s review. I then did that in a way I thought was appropriate. I don’t think that was deceptive.’’
Goodell did. I doubt there’s much benefit-of-the-doubt here if Goodell finds that Belichick was involved in the deflating.
As to what difference it made in a 45-7 game that the balls were deflated, seeing that the Patriots exploded for 21 third-quarter points with the balls evidently at proper inflation: irrelevant. Rules are rules, and if the Patriots broke a clear and indisputable rule, they must be sanctioned for it. The fact that the footballs made no apparent difference in the Patriots’ offensive performance doesn’t matter.
As to what would be a proper punishment if the Patriots are found guilty, I think it’s too early to say, because we don’t know everything about the story yet. But I believe if Belichick is found to be behind it, he should be suspended for some period of 2015. It’s hard to say for how long without knowing the full story, and there will be time to find that out.
And going forward, what should the league do differently in the future? Two things, I believe. One: Make the ballboys league employees, the same way clock operators and other ancillary game-day employees with influence on the game are. Put the ballboys through background checks—perhaps not as thorough as the checks game officials must go through, but just enough to ensure that their performance will not be compromised. Two: Tighten the chain-of-command between the officiating crew and the ballboys. I would suggest in the future that two of the game officials be assigned to personally deliver the bag of 12 footballs to each sideline, say, two minutes before the opening kickoff. I would also say that each ballboy should pass through a metal detector before the game and after halftime, to be sure he is not carrying any device that could be used to tamper with the air pressure of the footballs.
That all sounds pretty cloak-and-dagger. But the league should use this lapse in football protocol to do everything it can to see this is never an issue again.
znModeratorfrom off the net
—
PaulButcher59You can find starting guards in round 3 every year.
The more I look at this draft for the Rams, the more I am begging for a trade down or out of round 1. If they cannot trade down, they should go BPA, which could end up becoming a surprise pick (A DE to replace Long in the near future, a CB, etc) .
For them to get a good enough trade down offer, there will obviously have to be someone on the board worthwhile and a player the Rams may have to decide if he is worth passing on. Not saying he is going to be there, but maybe someone like Amari Cooper.
znModeratorYeah, I have my share of friends who ain’t candidates for scholarships to Cambridge, but are spooky gifted smart in an area or 2, like let’s say electronics. I believe there’s something like “football smart.”
I don’t know what that would be if there weren’t football.
Maybe, in classical times, they would be great archers or something. Or great hunters. Or lacrosse champions.
znModeratorAll I want for my birthday is a Rams post season appearance in 2015/16
Absolutely. All of us want that for your birthday, in fact.
January 24, 2015 at 4:01 am in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17273znModeratorIt was a movie like most movies-designed to make dough.
Yeah, they all are. And also every single movie has a political view of life inside it. It can’t be helped. Humans make movies, humans see the world through their own political perspectives.
And in this one, one part of the political view is that 9/11 was tied to the war in iraq.
But it wasn’t. That was one of the lies used to get support for the war.
znModeratorRams give offensive linemen extra look
By Jim Thomas
MOBILE, ALA. • Fifteen minutes into the first Senior Bowl practice of the week, Rams general manager Les Snead stood maybe 10 feet from the North squad offensive linemen, watching intently as they went through drill work.
It is a telling indication of how important the offensive line is to the Rams in 2015. Yes, the quarterback situation is the No. 1 priority, but the Rams need blockers. And possibly more than one.
At a minimum we’re talking about a starting guard to replace Davin Joseph. At center, Scott Wells’ future in St. Louis may depend on what the new offensive coordinator thinks.
And then there’s right tackle Joseph Barksdale, a pending free agent. If he signs elsewhere, that’s another void.
So the Rams could be looking for as many as three starters on the offensive line for next season. Snead and others among the Rams’ contingent of coaches and scouts at the Senior Bowl are looking for potential answers in Mobile.
Although the practices are the most important part of the week for coaches and scouts, the game itself takes place today at Ladd-Peebles Stadium. Kickoff is 3 p.m.
As is usually the case, there were a couple of well-known no-shows this week in Iowa tackle Brandon Scherff and Florida State center Cameron Erving.
Scherff is considered the best offensive lineman in the draft, and many feel Erving is the top center. But there was still plenty to look at in a still-muddled offensive line picture.
“There’s a good bunch of guys here,” said Russ Lande, former NFL scout and current football analyst for multiple outlets. “It’s a great class in terms of depth. If you’re in that second to third round, and you want to find a starting tackle who can start as a rookie, I think you can find that guy.”
Near the top of the list in Mobile, with both regarded as potential first-rounders, are tackles T.J. Clemmings of Pittsburgh and La’el Collins of LSU. And keep in mind, more and more college tackles seem to be getting converted to guards in the NFL these days.
Clemmings, 6-5, 305, was a defensive lineman his first three seasons at Pitt (including a redshirt season), then switched to offense, where he started in 2013 and ’14 at right tackle.
“I just wasn’t having success on the defensive line, or playing as much as I wanted to,” Clemmings said.
Paul Chryst, Pitt’s coach at the time, broached the subject by telling Clemmings his jersey wasn’t getting dirty on defense — because he wasn’t playing.
“He said we can’t waste your talent,” recalled Clemmings, who at first glance looks like the Rams’ Barksdale. “So why don’t you try the offensive line?”
Clemmings told the coach he needed a little time to think it over. About 15 minutes later, Clemmings was back in the coach’s office. He was ready to try offensive line.
Things didn’t go smoothly at first, particularly when you consider that Clemmings went against Aaron Donald every day in practice in 2013.
Donald, of course, went on to earn a Pro Bowl berth and Defensive Rookie of the Year laurels (by the Pro Football Writers) in 2014 for the Rams.
“Aaron made you want to play better — up to the next level,” Clemmings said. “He just brought intensity out all the times. Sometimes we’d get him; sometimes we wouldn’t.”
The two have stayed in contact, and Clemmings said Donald has given him some info and tips on the Senior Bowl and the overall pre-draft process.
“That was actually very helpful,” Clemmings said. “He just talked me through the whole process and what to expect for the next couple, three months.”
Despite playing right tackle in college, Clemmings got some work at left tackle this week in Mobile. According to some accounts, he still looks a little raw as a blocker.
Although Rams defensive tackle Michael Brockers is three years removed from his time at LSU, Collins remembers going against him in practice as well back in the day. Collins said he held his own in those sessions in Baton Rouge.
“Absolutely. There was always a high level of competition at LSU,” Collins said. “That’s why being here (at the Senior Bowl) kind of reminds me of home. Going against great quality players all the time.”
According to Collins, he was named La’el by his mother and grandmother, and it means “Belonging to God.”
Collins, 6-5, 321, worked at both left and right tackle during the practice week. In today’s college game, many tackles operate out of 2-point stance, and Collins looked a little uncomfortable operating out of the traditional 3-point stance.
Overall, it looked like the South squad had the better talent among offensive line prospects.
Although it’s not considered a great year in the draft for centers, Dillon Day of Mississippi State and Shaq Mason of Georgia Tech had their moments.
At guard, Alabama’s Arie Kouandjio isn’t considered as athletic as twin brother Cyrus — now with the Buffalo Bills — but is a physical blocker at 6-5, 315.
Donovan Smith of Penn State has been compared to D.J. Fluker. Although he still had a year of college eligibility remaining, Smith was allowed to compete at the Senior Bowl because he already has his college degree. He’s considered a prospect at both guard and tackle.
Jamal Douglas of Arizona State started two years at guard and one season at tackle, and is known for his quick feet and mobility.
Some consider Colorado State tackle Ty Sambrailo the most athletic offensive lineman at the Senior Bowl, but some question his physicality.
znModeratorInside Manziel’s rocky rookie season
Browns sources reveal that celebrity quarterback was a turbulent presence in ’14
By Jeremy Fowler and Pat McManamon | ESPN.com
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1…struggled-commitment-preparation-sources-saidBEREA, Ohio — The name on the card that night in May seemed to draw as much anxiety as it did excitement.
Johnny Manziel, Quarterback, Texas A&M.
The former Heisman Trophy winner had been passed over 21 times, prompting a text from Manziel to then-Browns quarterbacks coach Dowell Loggains that he wanted to “wreck this league” in Cleveland. The words were actually more R-rated, but the implication was clear.
Twitter erupted at the selection. A Cleveland radio host cheered and screamed openly on air. Manziel gave his “money” sign as he walked onstage to greet Roger Goodell.
By season’s end, cheering had turned to frustration and anger as Manziel struggled mightily in almost six quarters as a starter, then was fined for being AWOL the final Saturday of the season. Offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan resigned with two years left on his contract. Loggains was fired. The Browns openly discussed Manziel’s viability as the franchise’s quarterback at a wide-ranging postseason staff meeting about the roster. And at least a couple of Manziel’s teammates were joking his text should have read “wreck this team.”
Now the Browns point to 2015 with a talented but misguided quarterback who must repair the wreckage done in his own locker room.
Interviews by ESPN.com with nearly 20 Browns sources, both on the record and on condition of anonymity, along with several NFL personnel sources reveal the Manziel-related problems run deep.
Those who spoke talked of a year-long pattern that showed a lack of commitment and preparation, a failure to be ready when given a chance in his first start against Cincinnati and a continued commitment to nightlife, which affected his preparation and work while in the team facility.
As one player put it, Manziel throughout the entire 2014 season was a “100 percent joke.”
Some said it should not have been a surprise, that the Browns were well aware what they were getting.
“During the draft process, not one person interviewed by the team said he was going to grow up,” said one source directly involved in the drafting of Manziel. “You can’t blame Johnny. This is who he is. The team knew that.”
ESPN.com requested to interview coach Mike Pettine or general manager Ray Farmer about Manziel, and made several attempts to reach Manziel through intermediaries. The Browns and a Manziel rep from LRMR Management referred specific questions about the quarterback to the interviews all parties gave after the season.
“I need to start doing every single thing and everything the right way and if I don’t I’m going to be exposed,” Manziel said shortly after the season.
The theme from Pettine and Farmer in postseason news conferences was blunt: It’s time for Manziel’s actions to back up his words. Farmer did not mention anything from 2014 when asked what made him believe Manziel can succeed. His belief, he said, is based on “everything he did in three years when he was in college.”
People close to Manziel say he’s a well-intentioned 22-year-old who wants to be great but needed an NFL season to realize natural ability isn’t enough.
Some teammates doubt he can ever change. Others are hopeful.
“People make mistakes,” cornerback Joe Haden said. “I’m all about giving second chances.”
Words and actions
The sequence reeked of contradiction during the last week of the season.
On that Tuesday, Manziel stood in front of about 20 media members and outlined his plan to become the Browns’ answer at quarterback. He wanted to be “the guy” for Cleveland, he said, and would do so by taking his job more seriously. He was more animated than he’d been all year, eager to declare his intentions.
Four days later, stories in the Browns’ facility began to circulate. Manziel was not present the morning before the season finale. Team security drove to Manziel’s downtown home to check on him. The Browns were packing up for the season finale at Baltimore on Dec. 28.
Two team sources said security found a player who they felt clearly had partied hard the night before. One source used the words “drunk off his a–.”
The official word was that Manziel was “late,” but players said they didn’t see Manziel until the Browns’ chartered airplane prepared to take off in the afternoon, that he was not present all morning. The team fined Manziel for missing treatment on his injured hamstring, then had him sit in the locker room during the season finale in Baltimore.
“Johnny’s his own worst enemy,” one source said.
Monday after the season, Manziel had another news conference, saying many of the same things from six days earlier — actions must support words. That night he was featured in Instagram photos on Miami Beach, a few days later at a club in Houston and a few days after that on a mountain in Aspen, Colorado.
“I brought this on myself,” Manziel said the day after the Baltimore game. “I brought these cameras and all these people that are in this locker room right now and I don’t think it’s fair to myself, I don’t think it’s fair to anybody in this locker room the distractions I’ve brought at points in time.”
None of his teammates talked about disliking Manziel personally. In fact, a “good guy” theme is prevalent with him. Some players vouch for his work ethic. Left guard Joel Bitonio said “you can tell” Manziel wants to be good and “works his tail off” in the weight room.
But several Browns sources say privately Manziel’s words to the media — he’s not the same Johnny Football, he’s learned how to be a pro — simply didn’t always match his work.
“He’s competitive,” said tight end Jordan Cameron, a free agent. “So I’m hoping that competitive nature will get him past all the other stuff. Hopefully he does, and hopefully he figures it out.
Results matched preparation
The Browns have an honor system with fining players for tardiness to team activities — $250 for first offense, $500 for second, etc. The money can go to charity.
It’s uncertain how much coaches collected from Manziel, but one source said Manziel was late often enough that it was never a surprise when he was.
One Browns staffer said he believed Manziel didn’t get tough love when attention to detail wasn’t there, that the team did not always hold him accountable when he was late.
“He’s a kid that I think wants to do well but needs to be shown how, and he didn’t always get that help, in my opinion,” one Browns staffer said.
Manziel’s on-field results were, at best, mixed.
In his first game, in Buffalo in relief of a struggling Brian Hoyer, he led a touchdown drive on his first possession.
But readiness became an issue once Manziel got the starting job the following week. Several sources said Manziel either didn’t know the plays in the huddle or didn’t call them correctly. The Browns tried to get him comfortable by using shotgun and pistol formations on about 80 percent of his downs and by simplifying the offense.
But more than once, teammates corrected the play-call in the huddle, or headed to the line hoping things would work because the call was wrong. Sometimes, the offense would get lined up wrong because Manziel forgot to read the whole play or got the verbiage wrong (saying “left” instead of “right,” for example).
Manziel’s stat line from his first start: 10-of-18 passing for 80 yards, two interceptions and a 1.0 QBR.
It’s not easy for rookies to learn plays, and some struggle. Shanahan’s system was by no means simple. Some Browns coaches felt Manziel would have transitioned better with a redshirt season.
When asked recently about rookies transitioning to the NFL, Titans coach Ken Whisenhunt said taking snaps under center and learning new terminology takes time for many rookies, though he noted his former quarterback in Pittsburgh, Ben Roethlisberger, adjusted quickly.
Players said the problems they saw in the huddle and on the field against the Bengals were similar to what they saw in practice. Several sources said he did not practice well leading up to his first start, completing fewer than 50 percent of his passes during the week.
Also that week’s practices were not full-speed as Pettine tried to rest veterans, which further compounded uncertainty.
Manziel’s preparation was marginally better for his second start, at Carolina, although the numbers didn’t reflect much of an improvement with a 4.8 QBR.
Some veterans “clearly didn’t want to play for [Manziel]” because of the lack of readiness, and they responded better to undrafted rookie Connor Shaw in part because he knew the plays, sources said. It wasn’t lost on players that Shaw played through a dislocated finger on his left hand and a rib injury that had him passing blood after the season finale, while Manziel played six quarters before hurting his hamstring, then missed treatment on the injury on the final Saturday because he was still in bed.
One source stressed Manziel worked much harder in his two weeks as a starter than in the previous three months, but it was more like cramming for a test and he could not make up for his lack of work before the starts.
Farmer said Manziel thought he was ready, but once he encountered the speed of the game he realized in a hurry he wasn’t.
“He had a positive notion going in, but then it was turned around on him,” Farmer said.
Did Farmer believe he was ready? “Sure,” Farmer said.
Pettine said he played Manziel hoping for a spark, that Hoyer was struggling to the point he felt he had to make the move.
“We knew that Johnny, for us, was the big unknown,” Pettine said the day after the season ended. “It obviously didn’t work out.”
Shouldn’t have been a surprise
The biggest on-field concern with Manziel as he moved into the NFL was whether he could master the nuances of a pro system. At Texas A&M, the emphasis was on tempo, calling plays in a hurry and getting to the line to run plays quickly. In the NFL, pre-snap reads, protections and coverages matter more than tempo.
At A&M, the center made protection calls and Manziel’s job was, in part, to find mismatches, often throwing to dominant 6-foot-5 receiver Mike Evans or scrambling when plays broke down.
“The way we talked about him in meetings, the kid never put in the time he needed to — studying film, organizing workouts, 7-on-7 workouts — he didn’t do it,” said one NFC scout with a Southeastern Conference focus. “His thing would be he’s going to show up on Saturdays, ‘I’m a gamer.’ He’d show up for practices and games but that’s about it. Johnny thought he was an NFL superstar before he came [into the league].”
One A&M source said Manziel’s attitude is catching up to him. Manziel was lax in preparation unless the Aggies were playing a top-tier opponent, such as Alabama or Auburn, when “you couldn’t get him out of the film room,” the source said. Against Rice or Sam Houston State, not so much.
Neither owner Jimmy Haslam nor new offensive coordinator John DeFilippo has committed to starting Manziel in 2015, and with Brian Hoyer an impending free agent, the future of the Browns’ quarterback position is in doubt.
Farmer will not reveal where any player is ranked on the team’s draft board. Sources, though, said Shanahan liked Jimmy Garappolo, now with New England, or Tom Savage, now with Houston. Debate existed among assistant coaches about Manziel’s draft ratings, with some not giving him a first-round grade.
One personnel exec said Manziel is a “talented, unconventional quarterback” whose skill set is wasted when used in traditional NFL sets.
Another exec likened him to a young Brett Favre — he’ll go out and have fun and is confident enough in his ability to offset the nightlife. In one particular draft room, the exec recalls a discussion that Manziel might be a “model citizen” in year one but could revert to partying in year two.
“It takes focus and commitment [to succeed in NFL], which he clearly didn’t have,” the exec said.
Can Manziel become a franchise cornerstone?
John DeFilippo, who succeeded Shanahan as the Browns’ offensive coordinator, did not commit to Manziel during his introductory conference call on Thursday.
“We’re not sure if our starting quarterback is in the building or not,” DeFilippo said. “If he is, great. If he isn’t, great too.”
Later that evening, owner Jimmy Haslam echoed those remarks while speaking to reporters at an awards banquet.
“We’ve got to get a quarterback and got to get it fixed,” he said.
The Browns stand behind their statement that “actions speak louder than words.”
“To me, there should be no sense of entitlement [that] because he was drafted where he was drafted, therefore he is the starter,” Pettine said shortly after the season. “We’re not going to connect those dots.”
The Browns held wide-ranging staff meetings in early January, and coaches and personnel staffers openly discussed Manziel. The meetings did not produce a strong push to cancel the Johnny Football project.
“I think there’s an opportunity for the guy to make changes,” Farmer told media in late December, believing Manziel can be a “solid starter” in this league. “It’s up to him if he’s going to make those changes.”
One former NFL assistant coach familiar with developing quarterbacks said it was a mistake to draft Manziel, but it would be a bigger mistake to let him go.
Others, though, maintain the problems balloon when a team sticks with an uncommitted player. At least one candidate to replace Shanahan believed Manziel was not the answer, according to a source.
Opinions on Manziel are so varied — one league insider says “think Steve Young,” while ESPN analyst Merril Hoge says think “sixth-round talent” — that making judgments on his long-term value is still difficult.
Manziel still has support in the building, particularly on the business side because of the attention he commands in stadiums and merchandise lanes. Though the team said football decisions were made without influence or pressure, some coaches and many players had the clear perception the business and marketing end of the team favored the guy whose jerseys would sell.
Manziel led the NFL in jersey sales in July, before taking a training camp snap. His off-field star power is uncommon for most rookies: His super-friends include Drake and LeBron and Bieber.
“What Johnny has to understand is [if] he has another year like he just had, he’s not going to be famous anymore,” one NFL team exec said. “LeBron James is going to lose his number.”
znModeratorw
vWilson better than young Brady
Why Russell Wilson looks like a better version of the early Tom BradyBy Scott Kacsmar
Tom Brady and Russell WilsonGetty Images, AP ImagesTom Brady and Russell Wilson are both trying to add to their legacies in Super Bowl XLIX.
There was a time when Tom Brady’s statistics were indistinguishable from the likes of Marc Bulger and Trent Green, let alone Peyton Manning and Brett Favre. This was years before an MVP season with 50 touchdown passes. If you saw an accolade for Brady back then, it was probably related to the Patriots winning games, independent of his performance.
New England carved out a dynasty built on defense, timely special teams and gutting out close wins against teams deemed to have more talent. Before shifting gears to an offense-heavy approach in 2007, the Patriots’ unparalleled success in close games established a reputation for Brady as the most “clutch” quarterback in the league.
Fast-forward to the present day, and the Seattle Seahawks and Russell Wilson have the chance to sail the same waters the Patriots did as the last team to repeat as Super Bowl champion. Every decade has had a different dynasty in the NFL, so it is only fitting that Super Bowl XLIX features the Seahawks trying to take down the old guard that basically wrote the blueprint for them.
Wilson is an odd character in the sense that he actually desires moments such as overtime. He is one of the very few quarterbacks who talks about being clutch as a goal and as part of being a really good quarterback. Before last postseason started, Wilson relayed that point about his next opponent. “You think about the Tom Bradys of the world, and that’s what makes him one of the best quarterbacks of all time, just because he’s been clutch in the playoffs.”
While that may sound naive, those close playoff wins were actually the foundation for Brady’s rise to stardom. Wilson is headed down a Brady-like path, but if we analyze the other parts of his game, Wilson actually looks like a better version of a young Brady.
Let’s take a deeper look at why.
Following the early Tom Brady blueprint
Two of the most common traits in dynasties are a young quarterback and a large amount of talent procured in a short period of time. Having the quarterback play on his smaller rookie salary is a major luxury in building the rest of the roster, which the 2001-04 Patriots and current Seahawks have enjoyed in the salary-cap era. Seattle has copied a few more ideas from the Patriots.
Start with head coaches like Bill Belichick and Pete Carroll who were seeking a second (or in Carroll’s case third) shot at glory in this league. Enter the quarterback who passed up a pro baseball career after some success in a Big Ten football program, only to wait his turn on draft day.
znModeratora continuous conversation, with people wondering about all sorts of things over time. Fun stuff, in other words.
High-caliber football discussion is not about “fun.”
It’s a life or death struggle to see who is right, and who in contrast must be consigned to the dustbin of evolutionary extinction.
Which, come to think of it…IS fun…
January 23, 2015 at 6:40 pm in reply to: Some clarification on Chudzinski & other coordinator search news #17250znModeratorAlex Marvez @alexmarvez
I’m told Rob Chudzinski’s @colts contract expires Monday. Expect @49ers & @STLouisRams to interview him for OC jobs @NFLonFOXznModeratorPro Bowl Draft Recap
Listen to defensive monsters Aaron Donald and Robert Quinn breakdown the 2015 Pro Bowl Draft.
http://www.stlouisrams.com/videos/videos/Pro-Bowl-Draft-Recap/3f19a7d0-742a-44db-9396-b1ccbc35cbae
-
AuthorPosts
