NFL Off Topic

**p_rushing** · 03-05-2019, 07:53 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by fugazi

Is this the second time? for pretty much the same thing?

This time he isn't accused of raping the woman. At this point, his bail needs to be revoked and lock him up until trial.

I don't know what happened to him, but something other than drugs is wrong with him.

**ProfessaPackMan** · 03-06-2019, 12:41 AM

Re: NFL Off Topic

For decades, the NFL has tied its Sunday afternoon TV deals to the league’s two conferences. Soon, that could be going away.

Variety reports, via SportsMediaWatch.com, that the league and its network partners already have discussed eliminating the conference affiliations for the Sunday afternoon games.

This would give the NFL maximum flexibility to schedule the best games for the best spots, with an eye toward selecting optimal late-afternoon, nationally-televised games that currently rotate between FOX and CBS.

Subject to periodic cross-flexing, which has emerged in recent years, FOX currently is tied to the NFC, and has been since taking the NFC package from CBS in 1994. CBS later claimed the AFC package from NBC, which exited the NFL broadcast business for several years before securing in 2006 the rights to Sunday Night Football.

The Monday Night Football rights, currently held by ESPN, expire after the 2021 season. All other arrangements — the Sunday afternoon windows, Sunday Night Football, and Thursday Night Football — expire after the 2022 season.

NFL TV News

**AUChase** · 03-06-2019, 09:46 AM

Re: NFL Off Topic

I don't know if it even matters to me because I have to find streams for the Buccaneers on reddit even with the current format. If Fox is airing an NFC South game in my area it's rarely the Bucs.

**SPTO** · 03-06-2019, 10:31 AM

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'm not a fan of this, I don't like FOX's presentation and if that means more Bills games on FOX....Yeah, no bueno but i'll suck it up because i'm such a fan LOL

**mestevo** · 03-06-2019, 11:43 AM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by AUChase

I don't know if it even matters to me because I have to find streams for the Buccaneers reddit even with the current format. If Fox is airing an NFC South game in my area it's rarely the Bucs.

In a similar boat...

Originally posted by SPTO

I'm not a fan of this, I don't like FOX's presentation and if that means more Bills games on FOX....Yeah, no bueno but i'll suck it up because i'm such a fan LOL

...and also agree with this. Not a fan of Fox's presentation.

**areobee401** · 03-06-2019, 12:24 PM

NFL Off Topic

Also not a fan of Fox’s NFL presentation. Need to improve their HD feed too. By far the worst out of the manager networks in that area.

**ProfessaPackMan** · 03-06-2019, 08:29 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by ProfessaPackMan

The whole “There’s a bigger name than Kraft” part was all BS, wasn’t it?

Haven’t heard much about that part since it was reported last week.

Schefter spoke on this part in particular recently.

Per PFT.com:

ESPN’s Adam Schefter drew plenty of criticism for reporting in the immediate aftermath of the Robert Kraft situation that Kraft isn’t the “biggest name” to be ensnared. Schefter had kept a very low profile after the fuse hit the powder keg, declining comment to Andrew Marchand of the New York Post for his item that took a close look at the report.

Schefter finally addressed the situation during a recent appearance on the Pardon My Take podcast. Initially, Schefter took a lighthearted approach, trying to argue that a bigger name came from the financial sector.

“Wasn’t John Havens who was second in command at Citigroup a big name?” Schefter said. “Like I had people from CNBC — I could show the the texts — texting me, literally I can read to you right now: ‘John Havens was caught in the sting. He rans Sales and Trading for Morgan Stanley and was the No. 2 at Citigroup. How can people destroy their lives?'”

The hosts, Dan Katz and the twin brother of the late Eric Sollenberger, scoffed at the attempt to suggest that Havens was the bigger name, and they kept pressing Schefter.

“Again, I don’t have the name,” Schefter said. “I don’t have the name. Because I was not given the name. And, again, maybe I should have framed it a little differently because the story took on a life of its own. And I just should have said, ‘There are people down there telling me. . . .’ Now, there are people who tell you things that sometimes come to be and sometimes don’t.”

OK, but the job of a reporter is to aspire to report information accurately. And we’re only as good as the sources whom we trust. Schefter trusted a source who gave him bad information, and now he’s trying to shrug it off with “sh-t happens” nonchalance.

It would be better to just own the mistake, accept the rare L, apologize for sparking widespread speculation regarding who the bigger name might be, and move on.

**SPTO** · 03-06-2019, 09:57 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Looks like Schefter committed the sin of reporting without all the facts which a lot of reporters these days do these days just to get their name out there first.

**ImTellinTim** · 03-08-2019, 06:20 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

I thought everyone assumed that the big finance guy's name was the bigger name when it came out. I know I did.

I guess coming from Schefter I could see why it was assumed it was a big sports name, but I figured that guy was it.

**mestevo** · 03-08-2019, 09:50 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

@AndrewSiciliano
Hey look,
@TheAAF
is already influencing the
@NFL
.

The Broncos are proposing a rule change that would give teams the option of forgoing an onside kick. Instead, the team that just scored would put the ball on their own 35-yard-line and need to gain 15 yards to keep the ball.

**slickdtc** · 03-09-2019, 10:22 AM

NFL Off Topic

So basically a 4th & 15 from their own 35 instead of an onsides kick?

BUT THE OTHER TEAM DOESN’T GET A POSSESSION!? lol

It really depends what the aim for eliminating an onsides kick is. Do they want it gone for mostly safety reasons? The chance of recovery of an onsides kick is so low, I imagine they have to weight the 1 down scenario pretty heavily against them to keep that %. Start the team way farther back (own 10), first of all, then probably make it a 4th & 20. If you get it, you’ve still got a ways to go.

I can get down with an offensive play to keep possession, but it’s gotta be DIFFICULT. Really hard. Teams drive down the field too easily late in games. If we’re doing one play for the right to have another opportunity to tie or win a game, it has to be very, very hard. And what happens if we get a TD? I think a requirement would be the team going for the do-or-die must forfeit their preceding PAT/2pt. The scenarios are actually quite interesting, just had to be implemented right.

**mestevo** · 03-09-2019, 02:43 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

I don't think it needs to be that complicated after the try, but onside kicks were broken last season by the kickoff formation changes. Something needs to be done, so this could be a unique opportunity for this kind of rule change to actually happen.

A hard one to just evaluate over a preseason like some changes, since not many onside kicks are attempted. Some teams would do this more often than they'd consider kicking an onside, and unless you can do some crazy formation stuff there wouldn't be surprise onside/kickoff plays unless maybe a drop kick was allowed on the attempt?

**kehlis** · 03-10-2019, 12:12 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by slickdtc

So basically a 4th & 15 from their own 35 instead of an onsides kick?

BUT THE OTHER TEAM DOESN’T GET A POSSESSION!? lol

It really depends what the aim for eliminating an onsides kick is. Do they want it gone for mostly safety reasons? The chance of recovery of an onsides kick is so low, I imagine they have to weight the 1 down scenario pretty heavily against them to keep that %. Start the team way farther back (own 10), first of all, then probably make it a 4th & 20. If you get it, you’ve still got a ways to go.

I can get down with an offensive play to keep possession, but it’s gotta be DIFFICULT. Really hard. Teams drive down the field too easily late in games. If we’re doing one play for the right to have another opportunity to tie or win a game, it has to be very, very hard. And what happens if we get a TD? I think a requirement would be the team going for the do-or-die must forfeit their preceding PAT/2pt. The scenarios are actually quite interesting, just had to be implemented right.

They want it because with the new formation rules, it's nearly impossible to recover now.

**kehlis** · 03-12-2019, 02:07 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Falcons - Broncos August 1st in the Hall of Fame game.

**ggsimmonds** · 03-12-2019, 05:01 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by kehlis

They want it because with the new formation rules, it's nearly impossible to recover now.

The simplest thing would be to revert to previous formation rules only for the onside kick alignment.

That could lead to teams getting cute with the rules I guess, so the next best thing would be a scenario that gives roughly the same odds and results as the old onside kick rules. Maybe that is what the Broncos are aiming for. You succeed at the conversion that puts you roughly at midfield, which is close to where you would be after recovering an onside. But is the conversion rate of a 4th and 15 close enough to the conversion rate of a onside kick?

NFL Off Topic

Recommended Videos

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment