Go have some fun checking out the Rams' Madden09 ratings here.
Highlights:
Steven Jackson is ranked the team's best player with a 97, followed by Torry Holt and - Jason Bell (!) at 94. Brandon Williams, who I guess is currently a Ram, is the lowest-ranked returning player at 66. Marc Bulger (89) is apparently not as good a player as Donnie Jones (90).
Claude Wroten is close to the bottom at 69, and is tied with Leonard Little for the team's lowest morale at 65. How'd they come up with Little for that? Next-lowest morales - *Steven Jackson* and Richie Incognito at 70.
Tye Hill (98) is rated the Rams' fastest player, just ahead of rookie Justin King. The slowest? Josh Brown (46) and Trent Green (48). At 55, Bulger is considered no faster than Nick Leckey.
Hill (44) is considered one of the Rams' physically-weakest players, though; he's ahead of only Williams and Josh Brown (25). Orlando Pace's 94 is the Rams' highest strength rating - really? - followed by Adam Carriker and Alex Barron at 92.
Some of Fakhir Brown's ratings are baffling. Morale seems to weigh off-the-field problems heavily; how the hell can a guy one strike away from a year-long league ban be a 95? And how does Fakhir get one of the team's highest "awareness" ratings? You know, the guy who NEVER TURNS HIS HEAD on passes thrown his direction? Madden09 does seem to rate all of the Ram DBs better at man coverage than zone coverage, not that Jim Haslett agrees.
Lastly, because I could probably do this all day, La'Roi Glover - really? - is the team's toughest player (97), followed by Jackson. Jackson's out injured a lot to be the team's second-toughest player. And in stark illustration of the defense's lack of big hitters, the highest hitting power rating on the team is Todd Johnson's (start him!) at 93. Pisa Tinoisamoa is 3rd at 84, beaten out by rookie free agent Vince Hall at 85.
Another reason to root for Hall to make the team.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Dan Kreider
In other ex-Steeler news, the Rams have invited Dan Kreider to training camp. Kreider blew out a knee last year with the Steelers and wasn't re-signed, as HC Mike Tomlin appears to prefer a multi-purpose player at the position, with Kreider regarded as "just" a blocker.
Kreider's one of the best at what he does, though, and Steelers fans at MVN.com have had nothing bad to say about him. See below, all copied from MVN. I tend to believe Steeler fans know their stuff, and at age 31, I think Kreider would be a very nice pickup for the Rams. At least make a very low-risk pickup and give him a shot to prove he's 100% healed from the blown knee. If Scott Linehan can bear to bring the Richard Owens Era to an end, of course.
Best of all, Kreider's hometown is Manheim, PA, which should lead to one of the more obvious nickname choices, though one I haven't seen bestowed upon him: The Manheim Steamroller.
* I watched Dan come threw the ranks of the game starting with the midget program in his home town of Manheim,Pa. Right to the high school level where he was a very tough player helping to lead us into playoffs year in and year out. We were proud as a town when he went to New Hampshire for college in fact we would even go down to the University of Delaware to see him play against his former High School Quarterback Matt Nagy. Then he walked on in Pittsburgh and without looking back had a terrific career. Needless to say everyone in his home town is so very proud to have watched is career on a Friday night, Then a Saturday Afternoon right into a Sunday Afternoon. Tough as Nails and one of the nicest guys you will ever find.
* I think that Dan Kreider is a much better player then Carey Davis. Dan is a good power runner, and a better blocker, and should be allowed to run with the ball more often in a season.
* The Steelers were never the same without Dan Kreider leading the way for whoever was running behind him. I hope the coaching staff watches past years to see Dan is needed in the backfield. The end of the season showed what can happen if the Steelers can not play power football. Coach Tomlin, you need Kreider in your backfield
* Dan is one hell of a football player and a class act. Pittsburgh wake up!
Kreider's one of the best at what he does, though, and Steelers fans at MVN.com have had nothing bad to say about him. See below, all copied from MVN. I tend to believe Steeler fans know their stuff, and at age 31, I think Kreider would be a very nice pickup for the Rams. At least make a very low-risk pickup and give him a shot to prove he's 100% healed from the blown knee. If Scott Linehan can bear to bring the Richard Owens Era to an end, of course.
Best of all, Kreider's hometown is Manheim, PA, which should lead to one of the more obvious nickname choices, though one I haven't seen bestowed upon him: The Manheim Steamroller.
Report Card: Dan Kreider
Grade: B
Dan Kreider barely made the cut with a bare-minimum four starts in 2007, but when he played, he played well.
The numbers don’t do him justice: a single carry for a mere two yards, and one catch for 15 yards. But, prior to a season-ending injury, Kreider was clearly the best lead blocker on the team. Willie Parker, himself, publicly stated that he would prefer Kreider to new primary fullback Carey Davis.
Maybe that comes from familiarity, to some extent. The two worked well together in 2005 and 2006, so Parker knew what to expect from his ‘dozer. But Kreider also led the way for Jerome Bettis and the oft-injured Duce Staley, leading the Steelers to one of the best rushing attacks year-in and year-out. No matter who was behind him, he cleared gaping holes.
Kreider was less a victim of diminished abilities than of new coach Mike Tomlin’s preference for “dual-purpose” players — men who could serve more than a single role. Davis had a spectacular pre-season running the ball, prompting Tomlin to name him the starter when the regular season began. However, it seemed the fact that Davis put up his numbers largely against backups — and the backups’ backups — was mostly lost on a new coaching staff trying to make a big statement, and the result was diminished returns from the running game until Kreider was re-inserted as the starter. Production picked up again, and stayed that way until Kreider was lost for the season.
For a man to perform as consistently well as Kreider has over the last eight years, and to handle a demotion without so much as a publicly heard sigh, earns him a solid B.
User comments:* We could sure tell when Kreider was out our backfield was just not the same. I do not want to blame Parker's injury on loosing Dan, but it was not until after he was gone for the season. W/ out Parker we did not have any real running threat.
* It will be a real shame if the Steelers do not sign Dan in 2008. He is the essence of Steelers football - hard-nosed hitting - and he will be greatly missed. Too bad he was injured on the sloppy turf at Heinz field. He could have really contributed so much to the last few games. Obviously, Dan never gets the credit he deserves and I hope he can find a spot on another team that will appreciate him
* I agree the guy is tough as nails and can really serve up a pancake! It wasn’t his play that lost him the starting job, Tomlin just likes a FB that can swing out and catch a ball and go the distance.* I watched Dan come threw the ranks of the game starting with the midget program in his home town of Manheim,Pa. Right to the high school level where he was a very tough player helping to lead us into playoffs year in and year out. We were proud as a town when he went to New Hampshire for college in fact we would even go down to the University of Delaware to see him play against his former High School Quarterback Matt Nagy. Then he walked on in Pittsburgh and without looking back had a terrific career. Needless to say everyone in his home town is so very proud to have watched is career on a Friday night, Then a Saturday Afternoon right into a Sunday Afternoon. Tough as Nails and one of the nicest guys you will ever find.
* I think that Dan Kreider is a much better player then Carey Davis. Dan is a good power runner, and a better blocker, and should be allowed to run with the ball more often in a season.
* The Steelers were never the same without Dan Kreider leading the way for whoever was running behind him. I hope the coaching staff watches past years to see Dan is needed in the backfield. The end of the season showed what can happen if the Steelers can not play power football. Coach Tomlin, you need Kreider in your backfield
* Dan is one hell of a football player and a class act. Pittsburgh wake up!
Najeh Davenport
In what is probably bad news for Rams fans, the Steelers cut Najeh Davenport over the weekend.
It's bad news because Davenport has had exactly two 100-yard games in his career, and both were against the Rams. We'd have been better off had he stayed in Pittsburgh, who the Rams aren't due to play for four years. His release increases the odds he'll be on a team the Rams play in the near future. Watch now, he'll pop up in Arizona and gash the Rams twice next season.
RamView takes a dim view toward football players who poop in their ex-girlfriend's closet, or beat their current girlfriend (yes, Davenport was acquitted), or I'd say the Rams should sign him and then just put him on I.R. forever, where they'll never have to worry ever again about getting steamrolled by the otherwise completely ordinary big back.
It's bad news because Davenport has had exactly two 100-yard games in his career, and both were against the Rams. We'd have been better off had he stayed in Pittsburgh, who the Rams aren't due to play for four years. His release increases the odds he'll be on a team the Rams play in the near future. Watch now, he'll pop up in Arizona and gash the Rams twice next season.
RamView takes a dim view toward football players who poop in their ex-girlfriend's closet, or beat their current girlfriend (yes, Davenport was acquitted), or I'd say the Rams should sign him and then just put him on I.R. forever, where they'll never have to worry ever again about getting steamrolled by the otherwise completely ordinary big back.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Drumming up support
In an actual attempt to stir up some atmosphere in the Dome on game days, the Rams have announced they're bringing in a drumline.
Press release
When the St. Louis Rams take the Edward Jones Dome field for the regular season home opener versus the World Champion New York Giants, they will be joined by a high-energy drumline built to entertain Rams fans before, during and after games. The 15 precision drummers are from Gateway Indoor Percussion, one of the nation’s top competitive drumlines, and based out of St. Louis.
Fans will get to pick the name of the unit from choices such as "Rampage", "Battering Rams" (the current leader) and the deliciously generic "St. Louis Rams Drumline."
Though there's the cringeworthy opportunity for national highlights packages to include footage of the "Battering Rams" or whatever (I like "Elite Ram Corps" or "Woolly Bullies") and quip oh-so-cleverly about the Rams "getting beaten like a drum", I like this move by the Rams' PR people quite a bit.
Anything to liven up the Edward Jones morgue. A little college-type atmosphere with some bangin' drums can't hurt a bit in there.
Press release
When the St. Louis Rams take the Edward Jones Dome field for the regular season home opener versus the World Champion New York Giants, they will be joined by a high-energy drumline built to entertain Rams fans before, during and after games. The 15 precision drummers are from Gateway Indoor Percussion, one of the nation’s top competitive drumlines, and based out of St. Louis.
Fans will get to pick the name of the unit from choices such as "Rampage", "Battering Rams" (the current leader) and the deliciously generic "St. Louis Rams Drumline."
Though there's the cringeworthy opportunity for national highlights packages to include footage of the "Battering Rams" or whatever (I like "Elite Ram Corps" or "Woolly Bullies") and quip oh-so-cleverly about the Rams "getting beaten like a drum", I like this move by the Rams' PR people quite a bit.
Anything to liven up the Edward Jones morgue. A little college-type atmosphere with some bangin' drums can't hurt a bit in there.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Giants waive the Hefty Lefty?!?
Say it ain't so! Sorry, it's true - the Giants have cut 285(+) - pound QB Jared Lorenzen after four seasons. This'll make Preseason Challenge V just a little less enjoyable now.
Just say for a minute the Rams pick Lorenzen up. His strengths would be he'd have the strongest arm on the team, and I think, even at his size, he'd also be the Rams' most mobile QB. The big man can in fact scramble, and is certainly fleeter afoot than Marc Bulger or Trent Green. Weaknesses? He's taken a TON of sacks in the limited amount of preseason scouting I've done on him. That makes me question his field-reading ability and ability to audible out of trouble. Also, he's never beaten out the likes of Anthony Wright, Tim Hasselbeck, Jesse "The Bachelor" Palmer, or this year, David Carr, to even crest as high as #2 QB on the Giants' depth chart. That's not that high a bar to clear, even at 285 pounds. (OK - Lorenzen and Palmer never actually competed in a training camp; Lorenzen sat out the '04 season, Palmer's last with the team, for "personal reasons".)
The main reason the Rams should sign Jared Lorenzen? The man can run a QB sneak. He was unstoppable on QB sneaks as a preseason G-Man. Think of all those 3rd- and 4th-and-less-than-1s the Rams failed miserably on last year. How many QB sneaks failed in those situations? None. Linehan never called any! Mike Martz never called the QB sneak, either. In fact, it's been so long, for all I know, the last Ram QB to run a sneak may have been Roman Gabriel, and he probably fumbled. The trend's really inexplicable. The way both of these guys let their QBs get pummeled, I can't believe they were averse to the risk of QB injury on a six-inch running play. Nah, let's try to run Brian Leonard outside! Let's reverse to Cam Cleeland! Let's ignore that the QB sneak is one of the most effective short-distance running plays! Especially when your QB is bringing 300 lbs of beef!
Semi-seriously, for his QB sneak skills alone, wouldn't the Hefty Lefty be worth a flyer? What's there to lose? That the Rams gave up on the vast potential of Brock Berlin?
Just say for a minute the Rams pick Lorenzen up. His strengths would be he'd have the strongest arm on the team, and I think, even at his size, he'd also be the Rams' most mobile QB. The big man can in fact scramble, and is certainly fleeter afoot than Marc Bulger or Trent Green. Weaknesses? He's taken a TON of sacks in the limited amount of preseason scouting I've done on him. That makes me question his field-reading ability and ability to audible out of trouble. Also, he's never beaten out the likes of Anthony Wright, Tim Hasselbeck, Jesse "The Bachelor" Palmer, or this year, David Carr, to even crest as high as #2 QB on the Giants' depth chart. That's not that high a bar to clear, even at 285 pounds. (OK - Lorenzen and Palmer never actually competed in a training camp; Lorenzen sat out the '04 season, Palmer's last with the team, for "personal reasons".)
The main reason the Rams should sign Jared Lorenzen? The man can run a QB sneak. He was unstoppable on QB sneaks as a preseason G-Man. Think of all those 3rd- and 4th-and-less-than-1s the Rams failed miserably on last year. How many QB sneaks failed in those situations? None. Linehan never called any! Mike Martz never called the QB sneak, either. In fact, it's been so long, for all I know, the last Ram QB to run a sneak may have been Roman Gabriel, and he probably fumbled. The trend's really inexplicable. The way both of these guys let their QBs get pummeled, I can't believe they were averse to the risk of QB injury on a six-inch running play. Nah, let's try to run Brian Leonard outside! Let's reverse to Cam Cleeland! Let's ignore that the QB sneak is one of the most effective short-distance running plays! Especially when your QB is bringing 300 lbs of beef!
Semi-seriously, for his QB sneak skills alone, wouldn't the Hefty Lefty be worth a flyer? What's there to lose? That the Rams gave up on the vast potential of Brock Berlin?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Rams sign Greco
Catching up on last week's news, the Rams have signed third-round pick John Greco to a three-year contract. That makes two of this year's class signed, six to go.
Not to sound ungrateful, but it's hard to figure out how the #1, #3 and #4 picks overall have already been signed to contracts, but the Rams don't have anything done with #2, Chris Long. Is there any valid reason the Rams don't already have Long signed, when Oakland can get Darren McFadden in well ahead of time?
Not to sound ungrateful, but it's hard to figure out how the #1, #3 and #4 picks overall have already been signed to contracts, but the Rams don't have anything done with #2, Chris Long. Is there any valid reason the Rams don't already have Long signed, when Oakland can get Darren McFadden in well ahead of time?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Dear Roger Goodell: Don't stop at 17
I believe it was at the most recent owners' meetings where NFL commissioner Roger Goodell proposed the league add a 17th game to its schedule. Goodell provided few details. He mentioned it was a response to the (long-standing) problem of the poor quality of (and lack of interest in) the teams' four pre-season games. Rather than eliminate a couple of games, and (god forbid!) rather than ANY team come up with a fan-friendly way to tier-price these fairly useless, yet preciously-priced, spectator exercises, Goodell proposed a 17th regular-season game, indicating it would make each team more money. I assume he would expect to increase the TV contract by 1/16. The gate would change very little for most franchises, since most sell out nearly all of their seats anyway, and preseason games are priced the same as regular season games.
Every football fan's next question would seem to be "Who would play whom in the 17th game?" The NFL has very tidy scheduling right now, with 32 teams split between two conferences, which are split into four divisions. The league's been playing a 16-game schedule for 30+ years now. The schedule is tidily engineered to guarantee you can see every other NFL team play your team in your home stadium in an eight-year period. The current schedule works fabulously, and is part of the reason the NFL is America's pastime.
17 is not exactly a round number. And being an -odd- number, it would require half the teams to play one fewer home game a season. That disparity - or worse - may be fine for the podunks who run college football, but in a league that values parity (not to mention declaring a real champion at the end of the season), it just doesn't fly.
It shouldn't fly with fans, either. Assume all teams charge the same price for tickets. Should I have to pay the same fare for eight regular season games and two preseason games as a fan of another team who's getting nine regular season games and putting up with just one exhibition? Will a 9/1 team charge more for tickets because of the extra "real" game? You bet. Will 8/2 teams bump their prices up to keep pace? You bet. The extra game appears to screw the fans and the half of the teams who don't get the extra home game.
And what teams will those be? Will the league's favorites simply get the extra home game every year? No, nothing that blatant. Goodell tipped his hand a little bit when he also said the conferences would alternate having the extra game every season. The AFC one year, the NFC the next.
That only works if the extra game is always an interconference game. Where Goodell seems to be headed with his idea is that the game will be the dreaded "traditional" rivalry interconference game. Never mind that almost no NFL team has a traditional interconference rival. The NFL has been itching for years to have the New York - New York game every year, and that's what this is all about.
Some teams have fairly natural interconference rivals, based on geography. St. Louis - Kansas City, to be sure. I'd also count:
yes, Giants - Jets
Philadelphia - Pittsburgh
Washington - Baltimore
Dallas - Houston
San Francisco - Oakland
Tampa Bay - Miami
Others are "close enough" and have some appeal.
San Diego - Arizona would probably draw good road crowds back and forth. Same for Chicago - Indianapolis.
I'd pair Jacksonville with Carolina, though Atlanta is closer, because the Jagwires and Panthers have had a good rivalry going ever since they entered the league together in 1995.
New Orleans - Tennessee is a logical geographical matchup, though I doubt it would generate much excitement with casual fans.
Seattle ends up with Denver because they are so hard to match. This at least revives the old AFC West rivalry, though I suspect Seattle fans would rather butt heads with Raider Nation.
As for the leftovers?
Atlanta and Cincinnati would pair up by default. THERE'S an exciting reason to add another game to the schedule.
Cleveland, the oldest AFC city, ought to get one of the old-line NFC teams. I'll say Detroit because they're closest.
With eight Super Bowl losses between them, and no AFC rival very close to the Twin Cities, Minnesota - Buffalo is hard to resist. Which leaves Green Bay - New England.
You could tweak this a lot of ways, and the NFL would seem likely to rotate "rivalries" from year to year. Maybe one biennium, they change up to: Seattle-Oakland, SF-SD, Arizona-Denver.
But whatever they do is going to suck. Not only are many of these rivalries questionable, not only will you have half the teams playing more home games than others, there are other problems. For instance, in years the NFC West is scheduled to play the AFC West, will the Rams and Chiefs play TWICE? What if that's the NFC's year to host the extra game? I've got to pay for TWO Rams-Chiefs games? Yes, you can fix that by rotating rivalries (StL-Indy?) (KC-Chi?), but in the end, even if some of these rivalries do happen to become good ones, they'll have to rotated often enough that it'll kill any momentum the rivalry has. These games will never resemble rivalries as much as they will arbitrary slapping together of teams.
And it punches a hole in the league's preference for parity, a preference that has made the NFL the most successful professional sports league in the history of the world. One game means everything in a league where most years a team is eliminated from making the playoffs on a technicality, a second or third tiebreaker. But arbitrary rivalry scheduling discriminates against the teams trying to catch up a lot of the time. Tampa would love to start this schedule right now. While they're playing 1-15 Miami, Carolina and New Orleans have to play tough playoff teams from last year. Whereas the hurdle just got a lot higher for some non-playoff teams, like the Jets, Texans, Eagles, and Bears, among others. The NFL hasn't succeeded by making life harder for the worse-off teams.
There's something to like about Mike Florio's idea of having all the extra games in L.A. But why would you have the Jets play the Giants on the west coast? How big an L.A. crowd would you draw for Lions-Browns? And, rivalry game or no, if you bid out to other cities, you're just going to give the Cowboys an extra game in San Antonio every year, the Titans in Memphis, Florida teams in Orlando, the Seahawks in Portland or Vancouver, and so on. And those are the teams those cities will want. What kind of a crowd would even a game as attractive as Patriots-Packers or Bears-Colts draw in Orlando? Then again, we know Bears and Packers fans travel well. Maybe that's where the truth of a 17-game schedule with a neutral site game lies. Maybe not.
What the league should do is go to an 18-game schedule. It would eliminate the arbitrariness of the 17th game of the 17-game schedule. It would also restore scheduling parity the league had to get away from when it expanded to 32 teams. It'll strengthen your intraconference rivalries by making them occur more often, without losing the unique element of the occasional interconference games. Also importantly, every team would play the same number of home and away games. Duh. It would also eliminate two STUPID preseason games.
Rams 18-game schedule (4th place)
Division: Seahawks 2, Big Dead 2, Whiners 2
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Bills
NFC Rotating: NFC East: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles
NFC At-large: Bears (4th), Falcons (4th), Vikings (2nd), Saints (3rd).
Seahawks 18-game schedule (1st place)
Division: Rams 2, Big Dead 2, Whiners 2
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Bills
NFC Rotating: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles
NFC At-large: Packers (1st), Buccaneers (1st), Lions (3rd), Panthers (2nd).
Whiners 18-game schedule (3rd place)
Division: Rams 2, Big Dead 2, Seahawks 2
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Bills
NFC Rotating: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles
NFC At-large: Lions (3rd), Saints (3rd), Packers (1st), Falcons (4th).
Big Dead 18-game schedule (2nd place)
Division: Rams 2, Big Dead 2, Whiners 2
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Bills
NFC Rotating: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles
NFC At-large: Vikings (2nd), Panthers (2nd), Bears (4th), Buccaneers (1st).
The at-large opponents vary depending on where a team finished in its division the previous season.
Much, much better than Goodell's ham-handed proposal to force in a 17th, "rivalry" game, while improving on the problems of both that system and the NFL's trend away from parity-conscious scheduling since its last realignment.
Oh, except there isn't a precious freaking Giants-Jets game every year.
Every football fan's next question would seem to be "Who would play whom in the 17th game?" The NFL has very tidy scheduling right now, with 32 teams split between two conferences, which are split into four divisions. The league's been playing a 16-game schedule for 30+ years now. The schedule is tidily engineered to guarantee you can see every other NFL team play your team in your home stadium in an eight-year period. The current schedule works fabulously, and is part of the reason the NFL is America's pastime.
17 is not exactly a round number. And being an -odd- number, it would require half the teams to play one fewer home game a season. That disparity - or worse - may be fine for the podunks who run college football, but in a league that values parity (not to mention declaring a real champion at the end of the season), it just doesn't fly.
It shouldn't fly with fans, either. Assume all teams charge the same price for tickets. Should I have to pay the same fare for eight regular season games and two preseason games as a fan of another team who's getting nine regular season games and putting up with just one exhibition? Will a 9/1 team charge more for tickets because of the extra "real" game? You bet. Will 8/2 teams bump their prices up to keep pace? You bet. The extra game appears to screw the fans and the half of the teams who don't get the extra home game.
And what teams will those be? Will the league's favorites simply get the extra home game every year? No, nothing that blatant. Goodell tipped his hand a little bit when he also said the conferences would alternate having the extra game every season. The AFC one year, the NFC the next.
That only works if the extra game is always an interconference game. Where Goodell seems to be headed with his idea is that the game will be the dreaded "traditional" rivalry interconference game. Never mind that almost no NFL team has a traditional interconference rival. The NFL has been itching for years to have the New York - New York game every year, and that's what this is all about.
Some teams have fairly natural interconference rivals, based on geography. St. Louis - Kansas City, to be sure. I'd also count:
yes, Giants - Jets
Philadelphia - Pittsburgh
Washington - Baltimore
Dallas - Houston
San Francisco - Oakland
Tampa Bay - Miami
Others are "close enough" and have some appeal.
San Diego - Arizona would probably draw good road crowds back and forth. Same for Chicago - Indianapolis.
I'd pair Jacksonville with Carolina, though Atlanta is closer, because the Jagwires and Panthers have had a good rivalry going ever since they entered the league together in 1995.
New Orleans - Tennessee is a logical geographical matchup, though I doubt it would generate much excitement with casual fans.
Seattle ends up with Denver because they are so hard to match. This at least revives the old AFC West rivalry, though I suspect Seattle fans would rather butt heads with Raider Nation.
As for the leftovers?
Atlanta and Cincinnati would pair up by default. THERE'S an exciting reason to add another game to the schedule.
Cleveland, the oldest AFC city, ought to get one of the old-line NFC teams. I'll say Detroit because they're closest.
With eight Super Bowl losses between them, and no AFC rival very close to the Twin Cities, Minnesota - Buffalo is hard to resist. Which leaves Green Bay - New England.
You could tweak this a lot of ways, and the NFL would seem likely to rotate "rivalries" from year to year. Maybe one biennium, they change up to: Seattle-Oakland, SF-SD, Arizona-Denver.
But whatever they do is going to suck. Not only are many of these rivalries questionable, not only will you have half the teams playing more home games than others, there are other problems. For instance, in years the NFC West is scheduled to play the AFC West, will the Rams and Chiefs play TWICE? What if that's the NFC's year to host the extra game? I've got to pay for TWO Rams-Chiefs games? Yes, you can fix that by rotating rivalries (StL-Indy?) (KC-Chi?), but in the end, even if some of these rivalries do happen to become good ones, they'll have to rotated often enough that it'll kill any momentum the rivalry has. These games will never resemble rivalries as much as they will arbitrary slapping together of teams.
And it punches a hole in the league's preference for parity, a preference that has made the NFL the most successful professional sports league in the history of the world. One game means everything in a league where most years a team is eliminated from making the playoffs on a technicality, a second or third tiebreaker. But arbitrary rivalry scheduling discriminates against the teams trying to catch up a lot of the time. Tampa would love to start this schedule right now. While they're playing 1-15 Miami, Carolina and New Orleans have to play tough playoff teams from last year. Whereas the hurdle just got a lot higher for some non-playoff teams, like the Jets, Texans, Eagles, and Bears, among others. The NFL hasn't succeeded by making life harder for the worse-off teams.
There's something to like about Mike Florio's idea of having all the extra games in L.A. But why would you have the Jets play the Giants on the west coast? How big an L.A. crowd would you draw for Lions-Browns? And, rivalry game or no, if you bid out to other cities, you're just going to give the Cowboys an extra game in San Antonio every year, the Titans in Memphis, Florida teams in Orlando, the Seahawks in Portland or Vancouver, and so on. And those are the teams those cities will want. What kind of a crowd would even a game as attractive as Patriots-Packers or Bears-Colts draw in Orlando? Then again, we know Bears and Packers fans travel well. Maybe that's where the truth of a 17-game schedule with a neutral site game lies. Maybe not.
What the league should do is go to an 18-game schedule. It would eliminate the arbitrariness of the 17th game of the 17-game schedule. It would also restore scheduling parity the league had to get away from when it expanded to 32 teams. It'll strengthen your intraconference rivalries by making them occur more often, without losing the unique element of the occasional interconference games. Also importantly, every team would play the same number of home and away games. Duh. It would also eliminate two STUPID preseason games.
Rams 18-game schedule (4th place)
Division: Seahawks 2, Big Dead 2, Whiners 2
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Bills
NFC Rotating: NFC East: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles
NFC At-large: Bears (4th), Falcons (4th), Vikings (2nd), Saints (3rd).
Seahawks 18-game schedule (1st place)
Division: Rams 2, Big Dead 2, Whiners 2
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Bills
NFC Rotating: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles
NFC At-large: Packers (1st), Buccaneers (1st), Lions (3rd), Panthers (2nd).
Whiners 18-game schedule (3rd place)
Division: Rams 2, Big Dead 2, Seahawks 2
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Bills
NFC Rotating: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles
NFC At-large: Lions (3rd), Saints (3rd), Packers (1st), Falcons (4th).
Big Dead 18-game schedule (2nd place)
Division: Rams 2, Big Dead 2, Whiners 2
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins, Jets, Bills
NFC Rotating: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles
NFC At-large: Vikings (2nd), Panthers (2nd), Bears (4th), Buccaneers (1st).
The at-large opponents vary depending on where a team finished in its division the previous season.
Much, much better than Goodell's ham-handed proposal to force in a 17th, "rivalry" game, while improving on the problems of both that system and the NFL's trend away from parity-conscious scheduling since its last realignment.
Oh, except there isn't a precious freaking Giants-Jets game every year.
Bruce Gradkowski
While I was out of town last weekend, I missed what looks like a good move by Rams Park, picking up waived Buccaneers QB Bruce Gradkowski. All I saw of Gradkowski last year was preseason action, and he looked good, head and shoulders above most other teams' 3rd-string QBs. I would certainly expect him to beat out the overwhelmed Brock Berlin in training camp.
Gradkowski was thrown to the wolves as a rookie in 2006. Injuries led to him starting 11 games; Tampa went 3-8 in that stretch, with Gradkowski throwing for 9 TDs, 9 INTs, a passer rating of about 66 and under 128 yards a game. Two of his best games, unsurprisingly, came against New Orleans' awful pass defense. The Bucs won 2 of his first three starts before losing 7 of his last 8. The win was a solid 14-21-178, 2 TD performance against the Redskins, but Gradkowski threw 2 INTs in a loss at Dallas (passer rating of 29), 3 INTs the next week in a loss at Pittsburgh (passer rating of 36), and was replaced by Tim Rattay after a woeful 5-11-37 yard start to a week 15 loss at 2006's NFC champion, Chicago.
He relieved an injured Jeff Garcia (backup Luke McCown was also hurt) in a week 12 win over Washington in 2007, going an unimpressive 9-19-106, no TDs, no INTs.
Comments from tampabay.com posters after Gradkowski was waived, though they were a little more pre-occupied that day with the Bucs' re-signing of tight end/rapist/drunk driver Jerramy Stevens:
- Great news! Bruce has no potential
- Gruden/Allen will regret the move to release Grad. Gruden ruined another good QB! He will be back in Tampa one day to light it up against the Bucs. Gruden will be gone soon. He only likes 80 year old QB's. He has no clue or guts!
- I never liked Gradkowski. He was inaccurate, not a great throwing arm and could never lead our offense.
- Gradkowski is a heck of a QB! He took minimal talent and physical strength and size, and fought like a warrior. I think he clearly has the smarts, leading a Gruden offense, with a bad O-line, and questionable receivers as a ROOKIE. He played his heart out and gave us everything he had. I thank him for his contributions. Now, here's the truth though. He just wasn't good enough. He couldn't connect on the deep ball, struggled with some accuracy, and just didn't have enough tools. Hold your head high Grad! You gave us everything you got!
- The Bucs are playing a game of odds... and the odds are better that Stevens can stay out of trouble over Gradkowski ever being a decent QB. Bruce will get picked up by somebody that runs the WCO (Minnesota, Philly, Seattle) or a team that suits Bruce's strengths like handing off and predesigned movement (Tennessee)to compete for a team's 3rd QB spot.
- Gradkowski never had the arm strength or accuracy to succeed as our quarterback. Maybe in 5 years he will, but right now that's the right move by the Bucs.
- Easy on the Bruce bashing. He wasn't exactly surrounded w/talent when he was given the keys to the beater, known as the Bucs, evidence by the fact you couldn't read his name on the back of his jersey and it's damn near 10 letters. Young QB's aren't a good fit w/Gruden do to his system and verbage-Gruden himself loved the toughness in the guy. The Bucs have scrapheap qb's in camp. They'll, once again, try and win w/Defense. Hang in there Bruce.
- As far as Gradkowski goes, I liked him. He was a 6th rounder who got thrown into a starting position. He wasn't suppose to play that season. What did you expect?
Even accounting for the informed negative reviews, Gradkowski still has to be an improvement over Berlin. They'll certainly each have a chance to prove themselves at Rams training camp.
Gradkowski was thrown to the wolves as a rookie in 2006. Injuries led to him starting 11 games; Tampa went 3-8 in that stretch, with Gradkowski throwing for 9 TDs, 9 INTs, a passer rating of about 66 and under 128 yards a game. Two of his best games, unsurprisingly, came against New Orleans' awful pass defense. The Bucs won 2 of his first three starts before losing 7 of his last 8. The win was a solid 14-21-178, 2 TD performance against the Redskins, but Gradkowski threw 2 INTs in a loss at Dallas (passer rating of 29), 3 INTs the next week in a loss at Pittsburgh (passer rating of 36), and was replaced by Tim Rattay after a woeful 5-11-37 yard start to a week 15 loss at 2006's NFC champion, Chicago.
He relieved an injured Jeff Garcia (backup Luke McCown was also hurt) in a week 12 win over Washington in 2007, going an unimpressive 9-19-106, no TDs, no INTs.
Comments from tampabay.com posters after Gradkowski was waived, though they were a little more pre-occupied that day with the Bucs' re-signing of tight end/rapist/drunk driver Jerramy Stevens:
- Great news! Bruce has no potential
- Gruden/Allen will regret the move to release Grad. Gruden ruined another good QB! He will be back in Tampa one day to light it up against the Bucs. Gruden will be gone soon. He only likes 80 year old QB's. He has no clue or guts!
- I never liked Gradkowski. He was inaccurate, not a great throwing arm and could never lead our offense.
- Gradkowski is a heck of a QB! He took minimal talent and physical strength and size, and fought like a warrior. I think he clearly has the smarts, leading a Gruden offense, with a bad O-line, and questionable receivers as a ROOKIE. He played his heart out and gave us everything he had. I thank him for his contributions. Now, here's the truth though. He just wasn't good enough. He couldn't connect on the deep ball, struggled with some accuracy, and just didn't have enough tools. Hold your head high Grad! You gave us everything you got!
- The Bucs are playing a game of odds... and the odds are better that Stevens can stay out of trouble over Gradkowski ever being a decent QB. Bruce will get picked up by somebody that runs the WCO (Minnesota, Philly, Seattle) or a team that suits Bruce's strengths like handing off and predesigned movement (Tennessee)to compete for a team's 3rd QB spot.
- Gradkowski never had the arm strength or accuracy to succeed as our quarterback. Maybe in 5 years he will, but right now that's the right move by the Bucs.
- Easy on the Bruce bashing. He wasn't exactly surrounded w/talent when he was given the keys to the beater, known as the Bucs, evidence by the fact you couldn't read his name on the back of his jersey and it's damn near 10 letters. Young QB's aren't a good fit w/Gruden do to his system and verbage-Gruden himself loved the toughness in the guy. The Bucs have scrapheap qb's in camp. They'll, once again, try and win w/Defense. Hang in there Bruce.
- As far as Gradkowski goes, I liked him. He was a 6th rounder who got thrown into a starting position. He wasn't suppose to play that season. What did you expect?
Even accounting for the informed negative reviews, Gradkowski still has to be an improvement over Berlin. They'll certainly each have a chance to prove themselves at Rams training camp.
Rams sign 5th-round pick
The Rams have fifth-round draft pick Roy Schuening under contract. He's the first member of this year's draft class to sign.
And kudos to the Belleville News-Democrat for caring enough to get the word out there quickly.
Steve Korte article
As I post this, there's nothing on Schuening at stltoday.com or stlouisrams.com, not that the latter is particularly surprising.
And kudos to the Belleville News-Democrat for caring enough to get the word out there quickly.
Steve Korte article
As I post this, there's nothing on Schuening at stltoday.com or stlouisrams.com, not that the latter is particularly surprising.
Handicapping the race to L.A.
Mike Florio handicaps, sorta, the odds of various teams moving to Los Angeles, making the Jagwires the favorite, just ahead of the Rams. I'd also move the Vikings ahead of the Rams, given that their lease runs out 4 years before the Rams' does.
But put me down for option 10, IF the NFL goes ahead with its idea to add a 17th regular-season game. Roger Goodell's half-assed plan of giving the AFC the extra home-game one year, the NFC the next, simply does not deserve to fly, though I imagine it'll be approved by the owners whenever they get their say. A neutral-site game would be a fairer way to schedule a 17-game season. I'll complain more about Game 17 in a future post.
L.A. prize: NFL owners lining up to move?
Posted: June 11, 2008
The Jaguars have been competitive for years and now show Super Bowl promise, but they can't consistently sell out the uncovered seats in Jacksonville Municipal Stadium, let alone create the demand to remove those giant tarps covering sections and sections in the building's far corners.
So, with a Los Angeles developer taking the "if they come, I will build it" approach to constructing a new pro football stadium, the Jaguars could be the favorites to fill the 14-year (and counting) void in the nation's No. 2 television market.
Suffice it to say, Los Angeles is a complex situation. And Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver isn't the only NFL owner who dreams of placing "Los Angeles" in front of his or her team's nickname.
L.A. developer Ed Roski doesn't want to own an NFL team but does want to build and operate its home stadium. He discloses on the stadium's web site that his group is talking to "teams," but he won't identify the owners. (Of course, it's also a possible bluff, and he has talked to none of the 32 NFL owners.)
Let's assume Roski is talking to several NFL owners about relocating. Let's also assume that, eventually, there will be pro football in Los Angeles. Here is a look at 10 possible scenarios for NFL games returning to L.A.:
1. Jacksonville Jaguars
Even though we start by examining the Jaguars' situation, it doesn't necessarily mean the team is the most likely to move to L.A. But there have been rumors for years that Weaver is willing to sell, and there has been little talk of local interests buying the team and keeping it in Jacksonville.
At some point, Weaver will realize the Jaguars won't be viable over the long haul in their current home. And when Weaver finally hangs the "for sale" sign on the franchise, Southern California interests could swoop in.
Or maybe Weaver could move the team himself, without selling the franchise. It's a possibility that rarely gets mentioned. But if Weaver's ultimate decision not to sell is driven by a desire to win a Super Bowl, moving the team into a stadium that likely would generate a lot more revenue would give him even more ammo to turn the Jaguars into a championship team before he cashes out on his investment.
2. St. Louis Rams
With former majority owner Georgia Frontiere deceased and new majority owner Chip Rosenbloom reportedly contemplating a sale of the team, the Rams could be a logical candidate to return to the city from which they bolted in 1994. But the earliest opportunity to exit St. Louis' Edward Jones Dome comes in 2015. By then, Roski's stadium will have a different tenant, or the project likely will have been abandoned.
Still, the Rams would be welcomed back in Southern California with open arms. And their return wouldn't disrupt the division alignment, because the franchise already sits to the NFC West.
3. Minnesota Vikings
Ownership has been trying for years to get a new stadium in the Twin Cities. The Metrodome lacks the bells and whistles of modern stadiums, so the Vikings lag way behind some other teams when it comes to revenue.
The locals in Minnesota haven't been keen on the idea of using taxpayer money for a new stadium, and the collapse of the I-35 bridge last summer provides a constant reminder that public money is better spent on things that the public uses more than 10 days per year.
Sooner or later, the Vikings' stadium issue will come to a head. The team's lease at the Metrodome expires after the 2011 season, which is only three years away.
4. New Orleans Saints
The NFL is unlikely to abandon New Orleans as it continues a slow recovery from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. But, sooner or later, Saints ownership and league officials will have to face the difficult reality of running a big-league sports franchise in a city that might never return to the big leagues in terms of business or population.
We hope the Saints remain a fixture in New Orleans for as long as there's an NFL. Still, pro football is driven more by business interests than sentimentality. In the end, the dollars and cents might make the Saints a no-brainer candidate for a move.
5. Buffalo/Toronto Bills
It once was widely believed that the Bills were a prime candidate to move to Los Angeles. Owner Ralph Wilson, 89, has made it clear that his family won't keep the team after his demise. So the Bills will have a new owner, eventually. And that new owner might want to transport the franchise to a much more financially viable market.
That's probably why Wilson has been working so hard to establish a presence in Toronto. If the team is on track to, say, play a split schedule between Toronto and Buffalo, the team can be sold to local interests who won't feel compelled to make the move in order to make the money.
6. San Francisco 49ers
As the 49ers flail away in an effort to get a new home in the Bay Area, there has been some media speculation that they could be the team to move to L.A. It's unlikely at this point, but it's impossible to rule out any team unable to finagle a new stadium.
7. Oakland Raiders
In a roundabout way, a return by the Raiders to Los Angeles would make sense, considering few things the Raiders do ever make much sense. It thus would be fitting if the team that made the trek from Oakland to L.A. and back to Oakland went back to Los Angeles once more. Don't rule it out.
8. San Diego Chargers
The closest team to L.A. is the least likely to make the leap, in part because the unspoken goal seems to be adding another NFL team to the region. Still, the Chargers have yet to figure out a long-term stadium solution, and the money that could be made from a swanky new home in Los Angeles might be too good to pass up.
9. An expansion team
Though the NFL supposedly doesn't want to expand, fans in Jacksonville and Minneapolis and New Orleans and other cities that could lose their teams to L.A. think expansion is a great idea.
The problem is the league's current 32-team format -- with eight four-team divisions and a scheduling formula that brings every team to every stadium once every eight years -- is perfect. Adding just one team wouldn't make sense. At a minimum, the NFL would need to drop two new teams into the mix, just as it did in 1976 with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Seattle Seahawks and in 1995 with the Jaguars and Carolina Panthers.
There has been talk of two expansion teams landing in L.A. That certainly would be the ultimate use of Roski's stadium -- instead of one team playing eight games there, two would play 16.
Still, it's unlikely that expansion would happen soon enough for the plan to dovetail with Roski's objectives.
10. The neutral-site option
I've written about this plan before. With the NFL considering expanding the regular season to 17 games per team, such a format would allow for 16 neutral-site games per year.
Four games could be sent to Europe, two to Canada, one to Mexico, one to China or Japan ... and eight games to Los Angeles.
It's the best way to solve the L.A. problem without pilfering another city's team. And it becomes a viable option after the various teams listed above have used the vacancy in Southern California to leverage new stadiums of their own.
Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News.
But put me down for option 10, IF the NFL goes ahead with its idea to add a 17th regular-season game. Roger Goodell's half-assed plan of giving the AFC the extra home-game one year, the NFC the next, simply does not deserve to fly, though I imagine it'll be approved by the owners whenever they get their say. A neutral-site game would be a fairer way to schedule a 17-game season. I'll complain more about Game 17 in a future post.
L.A. prize: NFL owners lining up to move?
Posted: June 11, 2008
The Jaguars have been competitive for years and now show Super Bowl promise, but they can't consistently sell out the uncovered seats in Jacksonville Municipal Stadium, let alone create the demand to remove those giant tarps covering sections and sections in the building's far corners.
So, with a Los Angeles developer taking the "if they come, I will build it" approach to constructing a new pro football stadium, the Jaguars could be the favorites to fill the 14-year (and counting) void in the nation's No. 2 television market.
Suffice it to say, Los Angeles is a complex situation. And Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver isn't the only NFL owner who dreams of placing "Los Angeles" in front of his or her team's nickname.
L.A. developer Ed Roski doesn't want to own an NFL team but does want to build and operate its home stadium. He discloses on the stadium's web site that his group is talking to "teams," but he won't identify the owners. (Of course, it's also a possible bluff, and he has talked to none of the 32 NFL owners.)
Let's assume Roski is talking to several NFL owners about relocating. Let's also assume that, eventually, there will be pro football in Los Angeles. Here is a look at 10 possible scenarios for NFL games returning to L.A.:
1. Jacksonville Jaguars
Even though we start by examining the Jaguars' situation, it doesn't necessarily mean the team is the most likely to move to L.A. But there have been rumors for years that Weaver is willing to sell, and there has been little talk of local interests buying the team and keeping it in Jacksonville.
At some point, Weaver will realize the Jaguars won't be viable over the long haul in their current home. And when Weaver finally hangs the "for sale" sign on the franchise, Southern California interests could swoop in.
Or maybe Weaver could move the team himself, without selling the franchise. It's a possibility that rarely gets mentioned. But if Weaver's ultimate decision not to sell is driven by a desire to win a Super Bowl, moving the team into a stadium that likely would generate a lot more revenue would give him even more ammo to turn the Jaguars into a championship team before he cashes out on his investment.
2. St. Louis Rams
With former majority owner Georgia Frontiere deceased and new majority owner Chip Rosenbloom reportedly contemplating a sale of the team, the Rams could be a logical candidate to return to the city from which they bolted in 1994. But the earliest opportunity to exit St. Louis' Edward Jones Dome comes in 2015. By then, Roski's stadium will have a different tenant, or the project likely will have been abandoned.
Still, the Rams would be welcomed back in Southern California with open arms. And their return wouldn't disrupt the division alignment, because the franchise already sits to the NFC West.
3. Minnesota Vikings
Ownership has been trying for years to get a new stadium in the Twin Cities. The Metrodome lacks the bells and whistles of modern stadiums, so the Vikings lag way behind some other teams when it comes to revenue.
The locals in Minnesota haven't been keen on the idea of using taxpayer money for a new stadium, and the collapse of the I-35 bridge last summer provides a constant reminder that public money is better spent on things that the public uses more than 10 days per year.
Sooner or later, the Vikings' stadium issue will come to a head. The team's lease at the Metrodome expires after the 2011 season, which is only three years away.
4. New Orleans Saints
The NFL is unlikely to abandon New Orleans as it continues a slow recovery from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. But, sooner or later, Saints ownership and league officials will have to face the difficult reality of running a big-league sports franchise in a city that might never return to the big leagues in terms of business or population.
We hope the Saints remain a fixture in New Orleans for as long as there's an NFL. Still, pro football is driven more by business interests than sentimentality. In the end, the dollars and cents might make the Saints a no-brainer candidate for a move.
5. Buffalo/Toronto Bills
It once was widely believed that the Bills were a prime candidate to move to Los Angeles. Owner Ralph Wilson, 89, has made it clear that his family won't keep the team after his demise. So the Bills will have a new owner, eventually. And that new owner might want to transport the franchise to a much more financially viable market.
That's probably why Wilson has been working so hard to establish a presence in Toronto. If the team is on track to, say, play a split schedule between Toronto and Buffalo, the team can be sold to local interests who won't feel compelled to make the move in order to make the money.
6. San Francisco 49ers
As the 49ers flail away in an effort to get a new home in the Bay Area, there has been some media speculation that they could be the team to move to L.A. It's unlikely at this point, but it's impossible to rule out any team unable to finagle a new stadium.
7. Oakland Raiders
In a roundabout way, a return by the Raiders to Los Angeles would make sense, considering few things the Raiders do ever make much sense. It thus would be fitting if the team that made the trek from Oakland to L.A. and back to Oakland went back to Los Angeles once more. Don't rule it out.
8. San Diego Chargers
The closest team to L.A. is the least likely to make the leap, in part because the unspoken goal seems to be adding another NFL team to the region. Still, the Chargers have yet to figure out a long-term stadium solution, and the money that could be made from a swanky new home in Los Angeles might be too good to pass up.
9. An expansion team
Though the NFL supposedly doesn't want to expand, fans in Jacksonville and Minneapolis and New Orleans and other cities that could lose their teams to L.A. think expansion is a great idea.
The problem is the league's current 32-team format -- with eight four-team divisions and a scheduling formula that brings every team to every stadium once every eight years -- is perfect. Adding just one team wouldn't make sense. At a minimum, the NFL would need to drop two new teams into the mix, just as it did in 1976 with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Seattle Seahawks and in 1995 with the Jaguars and Carolina Panthers.
There has been talk of two expansion teams landing in L.A. That certainly would be the ultimate use of Roski's stadium -- instead of one team playing eight games there, two would play 16.
Still, it's unlikely that expansion would happen soon enough for the plan to dovetail with Roski's objectives.
10. The neutral-site option
I've written about this plan before. With the NFL considering expanding the regular season to 17 games per team, such a format would allow for 16 neutral-site games per year.
Four games could be sent to Europe, two to Canada, one to Mexico, one to China or Japan ... and eight games to Los Angeles.
It's the best way to solve the L.A. problem without pilfering another city's team. And it becomes a viable option after the various teams listed above have used the vacancy in Southern California to leverage new stadiums of their own.
Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)