Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
znModeratorHope everything is okay for you, zn.
It’s fine. We do have the predicted 12-18 inches. No one can drive anywhere. But that’s fine. The wind is kind of spooky. Dog went out, dog-hopped through chest deep snow, came right back in. An hour later you couldn’t find his tracks.
znModeratorIn that vid he talks about the fearsome foursome
at the nine min mark.When he was traded to the Raiders
from the Rams he played on an Oline
with — FOUR hall of famers: Art Schell,
Jim Otto, Gene Upshaw.w
vBrown was traded by the Rams to the Oakland Raiders, along with two draft picks, in exchange for offensive tackle Harry Schuh and cornerback Kent McCloughan on June 23, 1971
Bob Brown’s enormous impact / Oakland’s outspoken former lineman Hall of Fame-boundIra Miller
http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Bob-Brown-s-enormous-impact-Oakland-s-outspoken-2703931.php
Bob Brown is hard to miss, but in the NFL today, he might hardly get noticed.
It was different when Brown, an offensive tackle, played in the 1960s and ’70s. Back then, NFL players were supposed to play football only. They generally kept their mouths shut. They certainly did not have dance routines or other shticks, and they didn’t keep popping up on ESPN or the Internet.
In that era, it didn’t take much for players to stand out and get a label, and Brown got one. He was different. He was smart, maybe too smart. Some people thought he was a clubhouse lawyer. He was a 300-pounder when that size was unusual. He was one of the best offensive linemen in NFL history, but he was traded twice in his prime. He ended his career in Oakland, where more than 30 years later, he still lives in the same building, but he was that rare Raiders player who wouldn’t kiss Al Davis’ ring.
We’ll never know if that personality was responsible for the long wait that ensued, but it finally will end Sunday when Brown is inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame at Canton, Ohio, along with John Elway, Barry Sanders and Carl Eller.
“If I needed a song that would kind of background me as I was making my (induction) speech,” Brown said the other day, “I would play, ‘My Way.’ ”
Which is exactly how he did it.
And in his day, that made him different.
“Athletes at that point weren’t supposed to be outspoken, and I was always a pretty outspoken guy,” Brown said.
Yet, measured against today’s players, Brown said, “I’d be Little Miss Muffet, sitting somewhere in the corner.”
Said John Madden, Brown’s coach with the Raiders: “He’d be like a choir boy.”
Stories get embellished through the years, but the stories about Brown really happened.
Such as his first day with the Raiders in training camp at Santa Rosa in 1971, when he emerged from the locker room and, with his new teammates trying to figure out what to make of this huge man, stalked the length of the field like a big bear, got down in his stance and, with one mighty thwack of his forearm, knocked down the wooden goalposts. Sheered them off right at field level.
“Then he walked back in the locker room, and that was it (for the day),” Madden said.
Quite an intimidating debut.
“His biceps and forearm were bigger than your leg,” said Willie Brown, a Hall of Fame cornerback teammate who is now on the Raiders’ coaching staff.
Defensive end Deacon Jones, another Hall of Famer, was known for his vicious head slaps against offensive tackles before the head slap was legislated out of the game. Jones could whack an opponent so that he’d still hear ringing in his ears on Monday.
Brown had a plan to prevent that.
Before a game between the Eagles, his team at the time, and Jones’ Rams, Brown took the face mask off his helmet and re-attached it, reversing the screws and sharpening the ends so that there was a sharp point on the outside.
Jones used the head slap and let out a howl. His hand met the sharpened screw on top of Brown’s helmet. Tore a hole clear through his left hand.
“He ran like a girl to the refs,” Brown said. “Ripped his hand to shreds. I loved it.”
No dummy, Brown had squirreled away a backup helmet on the sideline to show the officials when they checked. But that was the last time Jones head- slapped him so viciously, and later they actually became pals as teammates with the Rams. Today, Jones says that Brown was the “fiercest” tackle he faced.
Brown played his first five years with the Eagles, then played two years with the Rams before finishing with three seasons in Oakland. He asked to be traded the first time to protest the firing of coach Joe Kuharich and the second time he was dealt over contract issues. But there was not a hint of a problem between Brown and Madden.
“I guess he wasn’t the easiest guy to get along with, for coaches, although I don’t know what he did because I never saw it,” Madden said.
It wasn’t that way with Brown and Boss Raider, and today, Brown says that any issues he had with Davis were largely his own fault.
“I probably could have done more and said less to have effected a better relationship between Al and myself,” Brown said. “In that instance, I shot my mouth off about a couple of things that I was out of line about, and I shouldn’t have.”
We know the game today is different. Money rules. Team is out, individuality is in. That doesn’t mean it’s good, but that’s the way it is in many places. And that’s not Brown’s kind of thing. He also says he never smoked or took a drink or an illicit drug. Aside from a pronounced limp and assorted other ailments, he still looks fit enough to play at 62.
Madden credits Brown’s influence on Gene Upshaw and Art Shell with making the Raiders’ offensive line one of the most aggressive in the league, a style that was passed through generations of the team’s players, most recently to retired guard Steve Wisniewski, once labeled the NFL’s dirtiest player.
“I was so aggressive and attack-oriented, I was really trying to physically hurt (my opponents),” Brown said. “I was never cute about how I did what I did.”
He did it well enough to earn six Pro Bowl selections in a 10-year career cut short by a knee problem. Today, Brown has three titanium plates in his left leg and a pacemaker. But he says he would not have changed a thing about his career.
“The tank was dry,” he said. “I never felt like I could have done more. I just did it in a way that I felt like, if I was paying my money to watch somebody do this, I’d pay to watch (me).”
znModeratorfrom off the net
—
Phil AnselmoEven in the Pro Bowl Quinn gets held.
znModeratorFor me, Long counts as a personnel mistake.
Yeah it’s open to debate, so you rightly stress he does for you (count as a mistake).
But see how all these subjective judgements lead to other things?
Some decide Long is a mistake. Therefore the coaching has erred putting a line together. That evokes for some issues of doubt.
Some don’t see him as a mistake. In fact, in spite of the obvious shortcomings as a pure athletic pass-blocking LOT, when he was in gear, he was a very good play action/run blocking LOT. There is no mistake, from the point of view, in signing a player who then gets hit by a freak knee injury. (I don’t buy the idea that if your arms had surgery that means you are a walking injury time-bomb waiting to happen. To me that’s just superstition. Nothing in arm surgery rationally equals “and there will be other injuries, not to the arms.”)
So there was no coaching mistake, and the whole doubts thing when it comes to coaches and personnel decisions is just not there.
None of this is hardcore “reveal level” evidence, it’s all just mutually exclusive value judgements. Interpretation. Opinions.
So no one is in a position to say “why do you ignore the truth.” (As much as I would like to do it that way …
). It’s suppositions and inferences either way.So, you’re dead wrong…but I have to qualify that with “in my opinion.” Which is unfair, but that’s life.
znModeratorNaw. It’s a bad analysis.
znModeratorEven though they screwed up with some of
the earlier personnel decisions.Even that’s open to debate.
I don’t see them as having screwed up with decisions, plural.
I don;t think the results are good for 2014, but then, I always stress that the Rams OL history includes massive doses of bad luck.
Who injures 4 centers in one year?
And I promise you, the issue with Long when they signed him was whether he could still play at a high level. No one said “he will have other injuries.” The fear was that the arms weren’t fixed, not that he would start working on injuring the legs.
In terms of fixing it, they clearly are. So I agree with you there.
And as I said, to me, the stand-out thing is that the PB/JF axis has a combined 40 years of fielding good OLs. Odds favor them doing it again.
znModeratorplaceholder (it’s technical)
January 26, 2015 at 12:33 am in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17389znModerator“So anyway, to me telling a big lie about american history is a bad thing.”
But Eastwood didn’t “tell” “the big lie”.
Yeah he did. The film advances that view (the lie), never undercuts it, and lets it stand. It is also reflected in the enemies they fight in the film.
The article above puts it best: And when Kyle gets to Iraq, his commander explains that they are hunting the leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The inference we’re supposed to gather is clear: that Kyle is fighting the same people who attacked America in 1998 and 2001. By contrast, the actual reasons for the Iraq war go unmentioned. The words “Saddam Hussein” are never uttered in the movie. Nor are “George Bush,” “Sunni,” “Shia,” or “weapons of mass destruction.”
znModeratorGetting two solid-to-good OL (and a qb) is easy. That’s 3 guys.
Needless to say, finding a guard is not the same as a qb. Though yes finding a good guard…not just a guard…is not that hard, compared to other positions. It’s not so easy that in fact every team has 2 good guards. But it’s not like finding a good CB, qb, LOT, or #1 WR etc.
But one reason it’s relatively less difficult is because you can find them so many different ways. Draft a guard, or draft a tackle and convert him. Sign a FA guard, or sign a young FA tackle and convert him. There;s more of them than good CBs or LOTs.
Heck between 98 and 99 the Rams changed every single OL position except LOT. Gruttaduaria had been the center, but was injured in 98. Miller was inherited. The only 2 good linemen the Vermeil Rams ever actually drafted were Pace and Turner. They scrounged up Nutten and McCollum as bargain FAs. The signed Timmerman as a high market FA. In the process, they dumped a 1st and a 2nd round draft pick (Gandy and Wiegert).
znModeratorDunno if this has been posted:
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/101699/no-one-gets-more-help-than-russell-wilson“…Seattle’s defense has a knack for playing its best when Wilson and the offense are at their worst. Since the start of 2012, Wilson has had 22 games with a QBR below 50, including 15 wins. In those games, Seattle has held its opponents to an average QBR of 34.0 and has had a per-game defensive efficiency of +7.3. In Wilson’s games with an above-average QBR, the Seahawks have allowed a 45.7 average QBR and have had a +2.4 defensive efficiency rating.
No one can take away Wilson’s NFL-leading 42 wins since the start of the 2012 season, the most by any player in his first three seasons (including playoffs) in the Super Bowl era. But much of his success has been a result of his teammates; he has had the benefit of playing with the most dominant defense in the NFL and the league’s leading rusher, Marshawn Lynch, in the past three years.
… see link…”w
vNo one gets more help than Russell Wilson
By Hank Gargiulo and Sharon Katz, ESPN Stats & Information | ESPN.com
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/101699/no-one-gets-more-help-than-russell-wilson
The Seattle Seahawks advanced to the Super Bowl in one of the most improbable comebacks in playoff history. Russell Wilson completed his final five passes, including a game-winning 35-yard touchdown in overtime to Jermaine Kearse.
Before the final five minutes and overtime, however, Wilson was abysmal. He threw a career-high four interceptions and became the second player in the Super Bowl era to win a postseason game with that many picks. Through three quarters, Wilson had a 0.2 Total QBR, and although he increased that number to 13.6 with his late-game heroics, Wilson finished the game with the lowest Total QBR in a postseason win since 2006.
This is not the first time that Seattle has won despite Wilson’s inefficiency. In fact, since 2012, Wilson’s first year in the league, the Seahawks have 15 wins in which their quarterback posted a below-average Total QBR, five more than any other team in the NFL. That includes both of Seattle’s NFC Championship wins during that time.
How unlikely is Seattle’s three-year run given Wilson’s QBR?
Expected wins for quarterback
In 2011, Alok Pattani, a senior analytics specialist in ESPN’s Stats & Information Group, outlined a concept of expected wins for a quarterback based on his QBR in a game. The basic premise is that a player’s QBR in game can be interpreted as the expected win percentage for the team given that level of QB play. So a team whose starting quarterback has a QBR of 20 in a game would be expected to win about 20 percent of the time; a player with a QBR of 80 should win about 80 percent of the time, on average.Wilson’s 13.6 QBR against the Packers equates to .136 expected wins, meaning the Seahawks won .864 more games than expected, given their quarterback play. By aggregating the difference between a player’s actual wins and expected wins over a given period of time, we can determine which quarterbacks are winning or losing more than expected based on their play alone.
Since Wilson entered the league, he has a 63.7 Total QBR in the regular season and playoffs, which ranks eighth among 31 qualified quarterbacks. Wilson deserves credit for his above-average QBR during that time, but does that equate to a 42-13 (.764 win percentage) career record?
Based on Wilson’s game-level QBRs in the last three seasons, he has almost 10 more wins than expected. No other player has six more wins than expected during that time.
Largest difference, wins and expected wins, last three seasons (including playoffs)
Expected wins Actual wins Diff
Russell Wilson 32.4 42* +9.6
Andy Dalton 25.7 31 +5.3
Andrew Luck 31.8 36 +4.2
Alex Smith 21.3 25 +3.7
Tom Brady 36.7 40 +3.3
*Most in the NFL
Expanding the data set back to 2006, no quarterback has been aided more by his teammates over a three-year span than Wilson. Joe Flacco from 2010 to 2012 was the next closest in terms of added wins (8.4) during any three-year period.So how have Wilson and the Seahawks been able to defy the odds? One word: defense.
In the last three seasons, the Seahawks have contributed 4.4 points per game to their net scoring margin on defense, by far the best defensive efficiency in the NFL. Only Alex Smith (2.1) and Andy Dalton (2.1) have had defenses that contributed more than two expected points per game in their starts during that time.
Seattle’s defense has a knack for playing its best when Wilson and the offense are at their worst. Since the start of 2012, Wilson has had 22 games with a QBR below 50, including 15 wins. In those games, Seattle has held its opponents to an average QBR of 34.0 and has had a per-game defensive efficiency of +7.3. In Wilson’s games with an above-average QBR, the Seahawks have allowed a 45.7 average QBR and have had a +2.4 defensive efficiency rating.
No one can take away Wilson’s NFL-leading 42 wins since the start of the 2012 season, the most by any player in his first three seasons (including playoffs) in the Super Bowl era. But much of his success has been a result of his teammates; he has had the benefit of playing with the most dominant defense in the NFL and the league’s leading rusher, Marshawn Lynch, in the past three years.
Should the Seahawks beat the Patriots, Wilson could become the youngest player in NFL history to win multiple Super Bowls. As he is on the verge of making history, remember, no other quarterback has received more help from his teammates over the last three years than Wilson.
So the Seahawks’ current run of success hasn’t come about despite him, but it hasn’t come about solely because of him either.
znModeratorRams Quinn, Donald set for the Pro Bowl
By Joe Lyons
To be completely honest, Rams defensive end Robert Quinn would rather be in Hawaii.
“I’m a guy who loves the water and the beach, so obviously, I miss that part of it,’’ said Quinn, who’ll join rookie teammate and defensive tackle Aaron Donald with Team Irvin when the NFL’s best square off in the Pro Bowl Sunday at the University of Phoenix in Glendale, Ariz., which also happens to be the site of Super Bowl XLIX on Sunday, Feb. 1. The Pro Bowl, on ESPN, kicks off at 7 p.m.
With the exception of one season, the NFL all-star game from 1980 through 2014 was held at Aloha Stadium in Hawaii. The exception: in 2010, the game was played in Miami, site of that year’s Super Bowl.
The 2015 and 2016 Pro Bowls have been scheduled for Hawaii.
“It’s a nice vacation, especially at this time of year,’’ said Quinn, a team captain last year in his first Pro Bowl. “But I’m just proud to be here. To be voted to the Pro Bowl is a huge honor and a blessing. Being here and getting a chance to practice with and play against the best of the best, it’s something special.’’
Players are voted to the Pro Bowl by fellow players, coaches and fans. Before last year’s game, the league ditched the NFC vs. AFC format in favor of a televised player draft. On Wednesday, both Quinn and Donald were drafted by the team headed by ex-Cowboys star receiver Michael Irvin. The opposing squad is led by former Vikings’ standout receiver Cris Carter.
Thanks to the new format, the 2014 contest drew 11.4 million viewers, making it the most-watched all-star game in all sports during the last four years.
The game also features a number of rule changes to “spice’’ things up. A few of the more notable ones are:
• No kickoffs. Possessions will begin at the 25-yard line.
• Narrower uprights for extra points. In addition to moving conversions back to the 15-yard line, as was the case during some preseason games last summer, the uprights on extra points will be moved from 18 feet 6 inches to 14 feet.
• More timeouts. Teams will have two per quarter and they will be allowed to carry them over within that half.
• More two-minute warnings. There will be a two-minute warning at the end of each quarter. In addition, possession will be switched at the end of each period.
“It’s definitely different, but I think they’re just trying to add a little for the fans,’’ Quinn said.
Selected 14th overall by the Rams in the first round of the 2011 NFL draft, Quinn said nothing will ever top his first Pro Bowl but noted that this one figures to be similarly special.
“That first time, you’re so excited, just getting a chance to meet and get to know the guys you’ve played against,’’ he said. “It’s been a lot of fun this year, too, seeing those guys again and having a little more appreciation for what an honor like this means. The practices here are pretty low-key, but once we get to Sunday, I think everybody wants to make sure that they’re able to show why they’re here.’’
In 2013, Quinn was a no-doubt Pro Bowl selection after setting a franchise record with an NFC-leading 19 sacks and being named defensive player of the year by the Pro Football Writers Association of America.
But 2014 started slowly for the 24-year-old from the University of North Carolina. However, after failing to record a sack in the Rams’ first five games, the 6-foot-4, 264-pound Quinn came on strong to lead the Rams with 10 ½ sacks, marking his third straight season with double-digit sacks.
“It’s funny how rushing the passer works sometimes,’’ said Quinn, who led the Rams in quarterback hits (24), was second in pressures (37) and more than likely led the league in being held during 2014. “I was working hard, doing the same things I’d done in the past. The numbers weren’t there early, which was definitely frustrating for me, but I kept working at it and eventually they started coming again.’’
The Rams selected Donald with the 13th pick of the opening round last May and ended up with one of the league’s most productive first-year players. The 6-foot-1, 285-pounder from the University of Pittsburgh was voted the PFWAA defensive rookie of the year and joined a pair of teammates, running back Tre Mason and ex-Mizzou defensive back E.J. Gaines, on the all-rookie squad. Donald was a force inside, pacing all rookies with nine sacks and adding 17 tackles for loss, the most by an NFL interior lineman since the league started keeping track in 1997.
Donald is the first Rams rookie to earn a spot in the Pro Bowl since Jerome Bettis in 1993 and the first Rams rookie defender since Isiah Robertson in 1971.
“This was definitely one of my goals, but to accomplish it as a rookie, it’s like, ‘Wow.’’’ the 23-year-old Donald said. “These are the guys I grew up watching, so to be here with them, it’s really a blessing. It’s a been a fun trip, but at the same time, I’m also trying to make it a learning experience.’’
Donald said that getting a chance to experience the Pro Bowl with Quinn is a bonus.
“It just helps make everything that much more comfortable,’’ Donald said. “But it’s been that way all season. The guys on the team, especially the defensive linemen, they made me feel welcome as soon as I got here. They pushed me and helped me, but they also made things a lot of fun.’’
Donald said he is excited about the game.
“Football’s a fun sport, but it’s also a competition,’’ he said. “Any time I play, I’m looking to show out, to fly around and hopefully make plays. And I know I’m going to have fun doing it.’’
January 25, 2015 at 8:13 pm in reply to: What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history #17375znModerator“I would jump in, but i agree with every word
zn has said.”Captain Renault in Casablanca: “I’m shocked, shocked I tell you…”
Your views are not exactly a big surprise
either, right?Unlike the previous huddle, this one is moderated. I remember the “make it about the poster” thing was one of the little acorns that grew into forests of hell on that board.
Maybe I am a tad premature here, and a little preemptive, n such, but this isn’t about the posters.
znModerator2015 Senior Bowl: North vs. South
Khaled Elsayed | January 25, 2015https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/01/25/refocused-2015-senior-bowl/
While it is the practice that has the bigger impact, game time represents an opportunity for players to showcase to a large watching audience what they can do. In that regard, this Senior Bowl saw some players stand out for good reasons, and others bad.
The game itself was largely decided up front. Where the North team really won the line of scrimmage, with their defense especially impressive. Let’s take a look at some of the key performances.
North — Performances of Note
Carl Davis, DT: +4.2
Breakdown: Coming off a good week of practice, Davis continued his strong end to the year to help build his draft momentum. He’s not the best when you get two bodies on him, with him often unable to anchor and pushed back, but he has a knack for getting upfield, destroying cutback and playside lines on outside zone runs while really having his way with Shaquille Mason when left one-on-one.
Signature Play: Gets upfield on the block of Dillon Day with 3.50 to go in Q1, getting a big tackle for a loss in the process.
T.J. Clemmings, OT: -6.0
Breakdown: By all accounts this week hasn’t gone well for Clemmings. Touted by some as having the skillset to succeed on the left side of the line, he only showed that for all his physical prowess he remains raw with a long way to go on his developmental journey. Flipping between left and right tackle didn’t help, but too often he had too much trouble with speed off the edge. While he got beat for five hurries, there was also a hit on a play nullified by penalty and four other occasions he was beat only for the QB to get rid of the ball quickly.
Signature Stat: Including the Shrine game, only Cameron Clemmons allowed more pressure from the offensive tackle spot.
Tyler Varga, HB: +3.4
Breakdown: A nice cameo from Varga who showed the kind of versatility running routes out of the backfield, makes plays rushing the ball and lead blocking to catch the attention over some more illustrious backs. Didn’t need an awful lot of help from his blocking to fully maximize the yardage he got.
Signature Play: His second touchdown run was a real nice one. With 1.53 to go in the game, he aims off left guard but cuts to avoid a tackle, bursts through the right B gap before cutting inside defenders to get to the end zone.
South — Performances of Note
Markus Golden, DE: +2.6
Breakdown: All season long has demonstrated an ability to generate pressure without selling out in the run game, and the Senior Bowl was no different. Made T.J. Clemmings look anything but a first-round pick, with too much speed to the edge. Helped his stock in this game.
Signature Stat: Finished sixth of all 4-3 defensive ends in the Power 5 with 46 combined sacks, hits and hurries during the regular season.
Shaquille Mason, RG: -5.9
Breakdown: Taken from the comfort of Georgia Tech’s triple-option-based attack, Mason produced the kind of display that ensures any team picking him up will likely not be expecting an immediate contribution. He was quiet initially but it all went wrong in the fourth quarter with a horrible drive that saw him lose his battle on nearly every passing play, culminating with him giving up five hurries.
Signature Stat: Only pass blocked on 246 occasions during the 2014 NCAA season.
Geneo Grissom, LB: +0.7
Breakdown: Grissom looked out of place as a conventional linebacker, struggling to find his place in zone and not having the kind of closing speed to make plays when given an angle on a receiver out of the backfield. But he looked a lot more comfortable with his hand down and had a good sequence of plays against T.J. Clemmings who couldn’t stop him turning the corner.
Signature Plays: Watch the last three offensive plays of the third quarter as he gets the better of Clemmings on all of them.
PFF Game Ball
There were some nice efforts from the running backs and no performance stood out to any degree that it overshadowed the rest, but Carl Davis gets the nod for his efforts.
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.
-
AuthorPosts
