2016 NFL Offseason Thread

Post by **brian** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:33 pm

Didn't see one yet.

Lions hire New England's Bob Quinn as their new GM. Too early to say, but seems likely Jim Caldwell's days are numbered. Already hearing rumblings that Matt Patricia (not Josh McDaniels) is likely to be the top candidate if Caldwell is schlonged.

rass · Post by **rass** » Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:00 pm

Awoooooooooooooo

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:32 pm

rass wrote:
Awoooooooooooooo

My dog is still sick. DON'T FUCK WITH ME!!!

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:20 pm

So, did the Raiders forget to move into LA before they abandoned LA? Maybe they can move to St. Louis.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:45 pm

howard wrote:So, did the Raiders forget to move into LA before they abandoned LA? Maybe they can move to St. Louis.

I wonder why the Raiders withdrew? They've been saying for months that their current situation is completely untenable. And, they have no Plan B in Oakland.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:07 pm

I guess that 1) Raiders got paid off, and 2) some owners visit their hatred for the dead father onto the son.

I don't understand the whole thing, because I thought the litigation between Al and the league that allowed him to move to LA the first time established the right of an owner to relocate w/o league approval. I don't know how that got reversed, either in court on within the league.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:11 pm

Naive question perhaps, but why didn't they just do a groundshare with the 49ers?

Rams Fanny · Post by **Rams Fanny** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:22 pm

howard wrote:I don't understand the whole thing, because I thought the litigation between Al and the league that allowed him to move to LA the first time established the right of an owner to relocate w/o league approval. I don't know how that got reversed, either in court on within the league.

Hasn't been reversed but better politically if they can pretend the owners gave approval. Best analogy is getting Congress to approve military action when everybody knows the Pres will do it anyway. Silent Stan was going to do this anyway and made that plain last week when he said the stadium was going to be built regardless of this decision.

Rams Fanny · Post by **Rams Fanny** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:23 pm

Also....Woo-Hoo!!

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:36 pm

Rams Fanny wrote:Hasn't been reversed but better politically if they can pretend the owners gave approval. Best analogy is getting Congress to approve military action when everybody knows the Pres will do it anyway. Silent Stan was going to do this anyway and made that plain last week when he said the stadium was going to be built regardless of this decision.

OK, thanks. That makes a lot of sense, if Rams were coming no matter what. Listening to Stan at the press conference, he seems the type I would not want to play poker against. Pretty funny if it boils down to 32 rich guys pushing their weight around, making side deals and payoffs to one another, and coming up with a bunch of theater for public consumption.

Rex wrote:Naive question perhaps, but why didn't they just do a groundshare with the 49ers?

Probably because they want to move, a lot of money to be made in LA. I don't know what would prevent them now from working something out with the Niners. I can make more guesses, but I'm already posting way beyond my knowledge on this stuff.

My first ever game was Rams vs Baltimore Colts (Johnny U!) in the Coliseum a long ass time ago. Maybe I'll catch a Rams game this fall.

Post by **brian** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:47 pm

Rams Fanny wrote:Also....Woo-Hoo!!

Lots more games on local TV here in the 702 you gotta think.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:10 pm

The Inglewood stadium is gonna be a dome? WTF do you need a dome in Southern California?

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:37 pm

howard wrote:
Rams Fanny wrote:Hasn't been reversed but better politically if they can pretend the owners gave approval. Best analogy is getting Congress to approve military action when everybody knows the Pres will do it anyway. Silent Stan was going to do this anyway and made that plain last week when he said the stadium was going to be built regardless of this decision.
OK, thanks. That makes a lot of sense, if Rams were coming no matter what. Listening to Stan at the press conference, he seems the type I would not want to play poker against. Pretty funny if it boils down to 32 rich guys pushing their weight around, making side deals and payoffs to one another, and coming up with a bunch of theater for public consumption.

Rex wrote:Naive question perhaps, but why didn't they just do a groundshare with the 49ers?
Probably because they want to move, a lot of money to be made in LA. I don't know what would prevent them now from working something out with the Niners. I can make more guesses, but I'm already posting way beyond my knowledge on this stuff.

My first ever game was Rams vs Baltimore Colts (Johnny U!) in the Coliseum a long ass time ago. Maybe I'll catch a Rams game this fall.

I believe there is also a rule that if you move without league approval you have to change your team's name. So if they moved to LA without a league vote, they couldn't be the Raiders anymore. This was something they were talking about on St. Louis sports radio a few months back, as Kroenke was always the most likely of the 3 owners to move without league approval.

I also think that the Raiders likely do not have the will to move to LA unless they were sharing a stadium (and the attendant construction costs) with a second franchise. It was pretty smart of Mark Davis to partner with the Chargers on the Carson stadium, but it's not surprising that the ultimate deal was Rams and Chargers moving to Inglewood. Kroenke is absolutely loaded (it sure helps to marry into the Walton family when your business is shopping center development), and as a result the financing for the Inglewood project was always sounder than for Carson. And I think there was a lot more support for the Chargers moving to LA than the Raiders. That's how the Rams/Chargers Inglewood compromise wound up being the winner.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm

Los Angeles Ra1der$.

Done.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:48 am

If the Chargers follow and share LA, the stadium better be sponsored by Dodge.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:57 am

howard wrote:The Inglewood stadium is gonna be a dome? WTF do you need a dome in Southern California?

Final Fours?

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:57 am

Ryan wrote:
howard wrote:The Inglewood stadium is gonna be a dome? WTF do you need a dome in Southern California?
Final Fours?

That's a pretty great reason.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:17 am

A_B wrote:
Ryan wrote:
howard wrote:The Inglewood stadium is gonna be a dome? WTF do you need a dome in Southern California?
Final Fours?
That's a pretty great reason.

It'll be really great when they start playing CFP title games at the new stadium instead of at the Rose Bowl.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:56 am

howard wrote:I guess that 1) Raiders got paid off, and 2) some owners visit their hatred for the dead father onto the son.

Prior to the vote, I had read that #2 was going to happen.

Post by **Shirley** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:14 am

I was pretty surprised to hear last night that the St. Louis Rams had a total of 4 winning seasons in 21 years in St. Louis. Four! And that's with The Greatest Show on Turf team that went to two Super Bowls. I mean, I knew the Rams had some lean years in there, but I never would have guessed only 4 winning seasons. That's pretty damn hard to do in the NFL where they practically mandate parity.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:15 am

Shirley wrote:I was pretty surprised to hear last night that the St. Louis Rams had a total of 4 winning seasons in 21 years in St. Louis. Four! And that's with The Greatest Show on Turf team that went to two Super Bowls. I mean, I knew the Rams had some lean years in there, but I never would have guessed only 4 winning seasons. That's pretty damn hard to do in the NFL where they practically mandate parity.

And they almost went to the playoffs in 6!

(made it as 8-8 in 2004)

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:19 am

Shirley wrote:I was pretty surprised to hear last night that the St. Louis Rams had a total of 4 winning seasons in 21 years in St. Louis. Four! And that's with The Greatest Show on Turf team that went to two Super Bowls. I mean, I knew the Rams had some lean years in there, but I never would have guessed only 4 winning seasons. That's pretty damn hard to do in the NFL where they practically mandate parity.

Why you gotta bring up shit like this?

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:21 am

Shirley wrote:I was pretty surprised to hear last night that the St. Louis Rams had a total of 4 winning seasons in 21 years in St. Louis. Four! And that's with The Greatest Show on Turf team that went to two Super Bowls. I mean, I knew the Rams had some lean years in there, but I never would have guessed only 4 winning seasons. That's pretty damn hard to do in the NFL where they practically mandate parity.

It's been lean for the 3 teams involved.

Chargers 6 out of 21 (8-8 4 times)
Rams 4 out of 21 (8-8 twice)
Raiders 3 out of 21 (8-8 5 times)

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:23 am

I'm convinced that the only reason Jeff Fisher is still the Rams coach is because Kroenke knew it'd be a lot harder to move a winning team. I believe Fisher is one of only 3 coaches in the last 45 years to get a 5th season after four straight losing ones.

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:35 am

Joe K wrote:I'm convinced that the only reason Jeff Fisher is still the Rams coach is because Kroenke knew it'd be a lot harder to move a winning team. I believe Fisher is one of only 3 coaches in the last 45 years to get a 5th season after four straight losing ones.

Assuming he finishes the season next year (he will) and they go no better than 6-10 (they won't), he'll be the all-time losingest coach in NFL history. Tell me again why people assume he's a good coach?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:11 pm

It's Hue Jackson in Cleveland

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:53 pm

I hate that hire, as a fan of Cleveland sucking dongs.

Post by **brian** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:04 pm

Yeah that's another solid hire for Cleveland.

Post by **brian** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:59 pm

JFF in Los Angeles would go swimmingly I'm sure.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:50 pm

It shows how far the Niners have fallen that Hue Jackson picked the Browns over them. Who could've predicted that the decision to force out Harbaugh after 3 wildly successful years would make the Niners an extremely unappealing destination for other coaching candidates?

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:31 pm

Joe K wrote:It shows how far the Niners have fallen that Hue Jackson picked the Browns over them. Who could've predicted that the decision to force out Harbaugh after 3 wildly successful years would make the Niners an extremely unappealing destination for other coaching candidates?

Jed York and Trent Baalke thought that it was their roster that created the wins, more than Harbaugh's leadership. What a joke. They did have some bad luck, losing Patrick Willis, Chris Borland and Anthony Davis to early retirements, but the rest of it is on them. Recent drafts have provided almost no help. And, nobody around here forgets that Jed York compared replacing Harbaugh with Tomsula to the Golden State Warriors replacing Mark Jackson with Steve Kerr. Jed York is a silver spoon kid who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. The team is not positioned to win anytime soon.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Chip to the Niners.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:12 pm

Kaepernick should be pretty happy. Kelly's system seems to benefit from a mobile QB with arm strength.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:43 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote:Kaepernick should be pretty happy. Kelly's system seems to benefit from a mobile QB with arm strength.

His jerseys have been taken off clearance by the 49ers team store.

Was trying to remember the last time a player went from unwanted (back) to potential franchise QB (or any position) so quickly.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:46 pm

And, with the Pederson to the Eagles news, when the last time a team fired its coach, and then when looking for a replacement of the replacement, went to a direct coaching tree branch of the first fired coach.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:00 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:
DSafetyGuy wrote:Kaepernick should be pretty happy. Kelly's system seems to benefit from a mobile QB with arm strength.
His jerseys have been taken off clearance by the 49ers team store.

Was trying to remember the last time a player went from unwanted (back) to potential franchise QB (or any position) so quickly.

Local media is having a field day with that one. When last season first started going off the rails, it was noted by some columnists that leaks from team management were pinning the blame on Kaepernick and starting to paint him as a bad guy. Local writers bitch about the leaks, because the leaks go directly to national writers and bypass the local guys. By the time he went on IR, folks were wondering if the relationship with Kaepernick was permanently harmed. Parag Marathe, who had been Jed York's right hand man was demoted (and publicly humiliated) with no reason ever given, but columnists speculated that he had been one of the poison pen leakers, and had been taken to task. Shortly after that, you saw Baalke disputing reports that said Kaepernick was history. So, who knows. I think Kaepernick is due a sizable roster bonus pretty soon.

Post by **brian** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:07 pm

Koetter to Tampa HC. Only job open (as of now) is Tennessee. Thinking they might be waiting on McDaniels.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:09 pm

brian wrote:Only job open (as of now)...

But, the ice is pretty thin in Detroit, right?

Post by **brian** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:11 pm

sancarlos wrote:
brian wrote:Only job open (as of now)...
But, the ice is pretty thin in Detroit, right?

It's 50/50, yeah. The obvious choices to replace Caldwell if they go that way are McDaniels or Patricia. If Quinn (the new GM) is happy with either of those, then they might be content to wait until the Pats are eliminated.

duff · Post by **duff** » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:02 am

I understand people thinking taking assistants from the Belichick tree would be a good idea, but which one of his branches have done anything on their own?

Crennell? McDaniels? O'Brien? Mangini?

Am I missing anyone? I can only imagine the shit show Matt Patricia will be.