Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ZooeyModeratorToo bad they don’t have a webcam in the weight room so we could stream it.
Then we could have some posts about their technique and so on.
There is just no such thing as unimportant football information.
ZooeyModeratorI just want everyone to know that I haven’t sent any PMs to you.
ZooeyModeratorRules are made to be broken, I guess.
Deion Sanders was not a tackler.
April 4, 2015 at 4:07 pm in reply to: in your opinion what would it take for SK to fire Fisher? #22117ZooeyModeratorA losing season in 2016.
IMO, SK considered Fisher’s experience with the Houston/Tennessee transition as part of his value when he hired him.
April 1, 2015 at 6:50 pm in reply to: OL in free agency … Barksdale, Blalock, Wisniewski, etc. #21945ZooeyModeratorWisniewski starting to make the rounds once again, w/reports of visits to New England & Jax this week. But no word yet on any Rams visit.
And conspicuously absent…The Rams…who need a center.
I’m starting to think maybe the Rams aren’t terribly interested in Wiz.
April 1, 2015 at 6:49 pm in reply to: Alabama WR Amari Cooper paying pre-draft visit to Rams today and other tweets #21944ZooeyModerator
I’m guessing he didn’t snap this photo in Fisher’s office.
ZooeyModeratorThere’s a big envelope in the mail on its way to you, but you don’t have to worry about anthrax or anything crazy like that.
ZooeyModerator..
Big overstuffed chat with only a few highlights (though zooey got a question in, maybe other huddle folk too).
..
Which he made up an answer for. Which is fine. I wouldn’t expect the question to interest him, or anyone else but me. And he didn’t know.
March 30, 2015 at 8:26 pm in reply to: NFL teams think this draft is a crapshoot — and it's going to make draft night f #21820ZooeyModeratorhttp://www.si.com/nfl/2015/02/23/2015-nfl-mock-draft-jameis-winston-tampa-bay-buccaneers
Don Banks: “The consensus has formed that no one will ever do the RG3, Stl – Wash, deal again. It is just too much given up. Too much of a windfall for the Rams. And it has made teams gun shy.”
For sure that will never happen again. Ever.
At least not until another Can’t Miss QB comes along, and a team without a QB need sits in the catbird seat.
ZooeyModeratorJust listened to it. They had a pre-recorded section and a recent one. A bit hard to figure nout what they think now.
In terms of predictions, I think they are too optimistic about …
1. The problem Kroenke will have with Spanos & Davis and the Old Boys Club among the owners.
2. The league’s necessity of solving the problems at OAK and SD before accommodating Stan.
3. The league’s likely commitment to honoring the StL willingness to build 2 stadia in 20 years.
What Stan is offering in Inglewood, IMO, just bowls over those sorts of principles. Every owner will see what a crown jewel the site will be for the league. Maybe a couple will vote no on principle, but only if the vote is sure otherwise. Then it can be a free, protest vote which won’t stop the train gathering steam.
Ever since I heard about Stan’s vision for the Inglewood site, I figured the Rams would be playing in there. No way to stop it, is my guess.
Of course, this is all speculative prediction. I express no opinion about what SHOULD happen.
Although I’ve written quite a bit about this topic, I have refrained from making any predictions because there are just so many moving parts, and so many ways new injections can change things, that it isn’t worth bothering predicting outcomes. Like…who saw the Carson project coming?
And, of course, it’s complicated. There are all those by-laws, the Peacock proposal, now the Carson proposal, the politics of owner votes, legacies and brands, potential litigation, three current municipalities with teams, and two LA sites.
But I think I keep circling around to what you just said: what Stan is proposing in Inglewood just bowls over everybody’s principles.
I think there will be a lot of arguing, and a lot of genuine conflict both internal and external among the owners, but I just don’t know how – in the end – the owners don’t just look at the Inglewood project – a football palace like Jerry Jones’ – with a billboard roof, and a entirely new surrounding upscale community (as opposed to both the literal and figurative dump that is Carson), and say no to that. His proposal exceeds their dreams for “doing it right in LA” both because it’s a palace, and because it’s privately owned. If it weren’t for the Peacock proposal, there would be nothing to do but wait for the inevitable rubber stamp.
As it is, Stan’s way solves everybody’s problems in the best possible manner. Stan’s stadium holds the Rams and Chargers. Spanos keeps his San Diego fans/market. Raiders move to St. Louis and get renamed, and have an in state rivalry with the Chiefs. Everybody’s problem is solved, and while there is short term pain in SD, OAK, and STL, in the long run really only the Raiders fans get screwed, and no tears will get shed over them anyway.
I’ve been surprised by a few twists and turns already in this saga, but I don’t expect the outcome(s) to change unless somebody quickly introduces another sweet (and viable) stadium plan in the next 5 months.
ZooeyModeratorI have this deep fear that ALL of us are going to die someday.
March 28, 2015 at 1:33 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21689ZooeyModeratori just remember how fisher kept telling thomas there was no way the rams were trading sam. flat out denied it. we all know what happened.
so do i think the league can pull the rug out from under st. louis while saying in public that they will not abandon them? absolutely.
They absolutely can.
Remember that as this story unfolds, and we encounter twists and turns that change what the landscape looks like from one week to the next, the one thing never to lose sight of is the fact that this is a business.
And in the end, the NFL is going to make the decision they think is best for the business.
Not for any one city. Not for any one owner. But for the business as a whole.
ZooeyModeratorJim – When the Oakland Raiders move here after all the dust has settled (I know – unlikely) would it be with Davis as owner or do you think NFL would guide the franchise here to a St. Louis based owner? And, if so, could St. Louis rebrand the franchise as the Stallions?
by EJ Junior 2:30 PMCall me crazy. Call both of us crazy. I’ve actually thought about that. Rebranding the Raiders franchise as the Stallions in St. Louis. For those of you who may not remember, Stallions was supposed to be the name of the expansion team here in the early ’90s. Overall, as I mentioned before, I’m not ruling out anything when it comes to franchise free agency.
by jthomas 2:33 PMWould the league go for rebranding such a storied franchise as the Raiders (and can they stop it if they wanted to)? The Oilers were rebranded but they didn’t have a legacy like the Raiders and the original Browns were rebranded when they went to Baltimore but that was contingent on Cleveland’s new team retaining the Browns name and history. If the Raiders leave Oakland, will Oakland be awarded another franchise to call the Raiders? Seems unlikely to me.
Hard to imagine an NFL without the Raiders.
St. Louis Stallions is appealing to the ear but hasn’t the horse genre been done to death? Broncos, Colts, Chargers…
Besides, isn’t it a little sexist? Why not the St. Louis Mares?
That comment about the Stallions has been sloshing around my brain, too. And the Cleveland scenario does make sense to me.
First of all, there is bound to be a little distaste in St. Louis for another carpetbagger team. St. Louis has to be more than a tad weary of getting hosed by the NFL. That’s a good sports town, a very good sports town. And to be given a second hand-me-down franchise would evoke the same response that you get from your kids when you serve leftovers for dinner the third night in a row.
You get somebody else’s team, and you get somebody else’s story. Somebody else’s history. They did that with the Rams fans, kind of groping their way through sharing a team with people who cared about the Fearsome Foursome and so on, and had no connection to the Cardiac Cardinals. It may not have been hell, but I doubt they want to do that again with another team, and another set of jilted fans, especially when those fans are the Raiders. St. Louis isn’t going to embrace that identity.
You give St. Louis a new brand. A Brand New identity of their own. A team without a former lover who still works at the same office.
Secondly, the NFL mitigates damage by leaving the franchise history in Oakland. If you kill the Raiders, the league has indeed lost something. At the same time, I’m pretty sure the corporate NFL world finds the Raiders’ bad boy image a bit over the line. They are the Grand Theft Auto of the NFL. It is literally dangerous to attend a Raiders game. If they put the Raiders in storage for a little while, if/when they come out again, they can re-brand them.
However, like you, I can’t see Oakland getting an expansion franchise. So kind of like an obnoxious toy you tell your kid you are putting in storage for a little while so he can play with other toys, you have no real plan for bringing it back out. And maybe the Raiders do die here. It looks to me like another possibility among the dozens of scenarios that could unfold.
ZooeyModeratorYou’re not supposed to be able to move a franchise just to enrich yourself. Stan was awarded a franchise in the St. Louis market. Why doesn’t he use that money _ and it would take less than half of what he’s spending in LA _ to build a stadium in the St. Louis market? Oh right. He wants to enrich himself.
My thought when I read that?
A lot of owners will see it as enriching the league. Kind of different if there’s something in it for everybody.
And while I don’t think it increases the day-to-day operational revenue significantly, that stadium and the surrounding area looks like a gorgeous made-for-TV Super Bowl site. Not to mention a weekly studio site. Los Angeles is a fashionable street in this here town of USA.
Does the NFL want a team in LA in a great stadium? Yes, it does.
Is that going to be an expansion team? Nobody’s in the mood for expansion.
So, a current team? Yes.
Meaning…some city is going to get screwed and lose a team? Well…yes.
Can the NFL live with that? Yes.
ZooeyModeratorEven though you starred in “Good Morning Vietnam”, I think your posting of the above letter for the sole purpose of rubbing our collective noses in the fact that you are on a first name basis with Al Franken demonstrates you are a person of low quality.
That’s funny because he was telling me over lunch that all his friends are razzing him about being on a first name basis with me.
ZooeyModeratorDoubts are forming re: Wisniewski. I thought he is supposed to be pretty good, and there are a few teams in need of a center.
March 27, 2015 at 1:43 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21629ZooeyModeratorMy prediction at this point is that the NFL will find that St. Louis deserves a franchise, but not as much as L.A., and it’s SK’s team, so sorry, St. Louis fans, hope you find something in the future.
That is pretty much the way I see it, too.
You are right about the Development. The fact that Stan – who is a developer – has plans for a massive Los Angeles development, and no plans for a St. Louis development…. I mean, you’re right. He could have found a place to build a massive retail/commercial/residential/office stadium complex in St. Louis, and made another fortune.
This isn’t just a leverage play against St. Louis. This is no “Build me a stadium, or I’ll leave” threat. Compared to the LA project, getting an absolutely free $1 billion stadium in St. Louis STILL isn’t as attractive. And it won’t be absolutely free. And he wouldn’t own it.
At this point, I think the only hope for St. Louis Rams fans is a franchise swap between Kroenke and Davis in which the Rams stay in St. Louis, and Kroenke takes the Raiders to LA. But while I think Kroenke probably doesn’t care about the Rams per se, I’d be willing to bet that the NFL doesn’t want the Raiders to be the team elevated to Glory Status in NFL West. The Raiders are not a good poster child for the NFL.
I think it comes down to what you said when the dust settles. “St. Louis is a great city, and we want the NFL there, and we are really sorry it isn’t going to be the Rams, but we will take care of you somehow.”
That is what the tea leaves look like now.
But then…there is still the possibility of a wild card that changes everything. Such as….Dodgers Stadium.
**********************
I don’t see very much there that has substance, and I can’t imagine anybody wanting to work with McCourt. But. Who knows?
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/03/dodgers_nfl_stadium_chavez_ravine.php#moreCould Dodgers Owners Swoop in With NFL Stadium Proposal?
Thursday, March 19, 2015, by Adrian Glick KudlerGuggenheim Partners, the group that bought the Dodgers a few years back, knows its Los Angeles history: wait around long enough and every last NFL stadium plan will die off. Plus, the NFL has always coveted Chavez Ravine, home of Dodger Stadium. With all that in mind, they seem to be biding their time, holding their cards close to the chest, and quietly considering the idea of putting a football stadium on the copious amounts of land that surround their baseball stadium. Much-hated former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt still owns most of that land, and he tells the LA Business Journal (via LAObserved) in an interview this week—as coyly as possible—that the idea is still very much in play for him and Guggenheim.
Years ago, when McCourt still owned the team and stadium, he proposed a massive multi-use campus surrounding the stadium, but now he says there are no firm development plans: ” think that Guggenheim has some ideas in terms of what they’d like to develop by Dodger Stadium, so we’ll be having conversations with them in the future.”
When the LABJ asked about potential proposals, he gets sly: “There’s a lot swirling around regarding the NFL and all that, so I think we’ll see what plays out in various locations and then we’ll see what they want to do.” He’s referring to the latest most-promising plan, in Inglewood (from St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke) and the latest second-place player, a joint Chargers/Raiders proposal for Carson. But the Inglewood plan now has its first official legal challenge in the works, and the most promising plan of the last half-decade, Downtown LA’s Farmers Field, just got killed off last week. LA is like a Hunger Games for NFL stadiums.
Guggenheim has also reportedly had talks with the NFL in the past about bringing football to the Dodger land—were those talks secretly massively successful and they’re all just waiting for the right moment to say something? Or have they already failed and McCourt is just being typically douchey? Or maybe he’s burnishing his rep, since in the past the NFL has not seemed too thrilled to work with him.
McCourt adds a commonly-held truth: “I think that Chavez Ravine has always been a preferred location for the NFL.” But the more persistent truth is that the NFL loves not having a team in LA, because it loves all these battles, it loves developers competing for its affections, and it loves having the threat of a move to hold over other cities’ heads.
*************************
ZooeyModeratorAnyway a lot of this is all confusion-ville.
They may not be simplifying the offense, but they ARE changing it—tweaking it, more like.
From another article (from today):
===
Fisher Talks Offensive Roster Moves
Myles Simmons
Fisher didn’t divulge much about those offensive changes, other than saying that the team would like to get rid of the ball quicker.
…
“One factor to consider is the offensive change,” Fisher said. “We’re going to be doing different things.”
I think long drives that end in TDs is better than just getting rid of the ball.
ZooeyModeratorTraded to an Eagles board for a poster to be named later.
March 26, 2015 at 3:09 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21549ZooeyModeratorI don’t think I would go so far as to say the fix is in. There is still the matter of an owners vote.
I have said from the beginning of this that I didn’t think the by-laws would dictate the outcome(s), but I do not think the vote of the owners can be dismissed as easily.
What is happening is that the NFL is setting the table to cover all of their options. And I don’t think they are “fixing” the studies by deliberately harvesting skewed results. They probably want accurate market assessments, so if some PSL holder got left out, it was either an accident, or he wasn’t a necessary part of market analysis. Not conspiracy. Because they want an accurate study. They don’t need an inaccurate study to say what they want; they can take an accurate study and spin it to say what they want, anyway. It is better to have accurate information (that can be twisted to say whatever they want) than it is to have faulty information. There is a lot of money at stake here, and a lot of greedy/ambitious people. They want the best deal. And successful billionaires don’t go around lying to themselves. They lie to other people.
So what we have here is that Kroenke has one hell of a sexy project designed for Los Angeles, has all the private financing, and has his engine warmed up just waiting for the light to turn green. Furthermore, the Rams are the most popular team in LA, so they win the check mark in that column, too. They are out in front.
The problem is that they aren’t the only team that has interest in LA, and St. Louis is ahead of the other municipalities in solving their local stadium “problem.” The by-laws would dictate that the Rams do not have sufficient grounds to leave their community. So the NFL is considering – it isn’t DONE yet – moving up the timeline for relocation applications. That does two things: one, it probably really IS necessary since a team moving to LA is going to have to lease facilities to play in, and practice in, etc. And these places book their engagements well in advance. You can’t just schedule 8 home games in someone else’s stadium whenever you feel like it. Second, it shortens the race by moving the finish line up. That hurts St. Louis’ chances of having an “actionable” plan in place when decision time comes. It makes it easier for the NFL to say, “Too late.” If they decide to go that way.
Bear in mind, though, that it also makes it nearly impossible for San Diego and/or Oakland to come up with anything in time. What it does is cover the NFL’s ass regardless of what they do, and it may possibly make something shake loose in other cities.
I will add that Bernie’s last couple of columns (both on this subject) have been as clear-eyed as I can recall Bernie ever being. I just thought I would throw that in here because usually I roll my eyes at his various tantrums.
ZooeyModeratorUnbelievable.
And totally Evil Genius.
They just moved the goalposts. They have just inoculated themselves against their own by-laws. Perfect.
That doesn’t mean that the Rams ARE moving. It just means that if they do, the NFL can make an excuse.
ZooeyModeratorThis is clearly an issue of sage.
In 99, we correctly diagnosed that the Rams were cursed, although there remained dispute as to where the curse came from. We also correctly identified the cure. There was a lot of burning with sage. The Rams won, and everyone became complacent.
The curse has returned. It is most obviously manifested in the OL. And the cure is probably sage.
It’s worth a try.
Someone go find Old Hacker.
March 25, 2015 at 12:05 am in reply to: If the State of the Union Address Were Written by a High-School Sophomore #21404ZooeyModeratorOh, boy.
I just had to share that with everybody I know.
That’s about what I read for a living, only with worse spelling and punctuation. But with about that level of insight, and organizational rigor.
March 24, 2015 at 12:22 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21374ZooeyModeratorInteresting board glitch.
Sorry. What is?
The last post on page one.
ZooeyModeratorI am very sorry to hear this, Herzog. I wish there was something I could do or say to help. Hopefully you can take some solace in knowing that you are among friends here, and we all are saddened at your pain. I hope the best for you, your nephew, and the family as you struggle through this, hopefully to a positive outcome.
Keep us posted.
Be well, my friend.
March 23, 2015 at 5:16 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21327ZooeyModeratorInteresting board glitch.
March 23, 2015 at 5:15 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21326ZooeyModeratorOn the bright side, this will NEVER happen again.
On the bright side, this will NEVER happen again.
Actually. Everything was right about that except the final score.
March 23, 2015 at 5:14 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21325ZooeyModeratorOn the bright side, this will NEVER happen again.
ZooeyModeratorMore on health care than defense?
I don’t remember ever seeing a budget graph in which defense was much under half the overall budget.
March 22, 2015 at 6:47 pm in reply to: Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things #21255ZooeyModeratorIan Rapoport @RapSheet 56s56 seconds ago
Giants owner John Mara says he thinks there will be one or two teams in LA next year. Which teams? Not sure.I’m not sure that’s NEWS but whatever.
The time is now.
I don’t think anybody thinks otherwise. LA is getting a team or two.
-
AuthorPosts
