There are a few buildings/parcels with "For Sale" signs. You could always roll the dice and buy something for an investment.beer city wrote:Excellent - now I just need to collect a huge finder fee from Stan -
- 2,929
ESPN: Jerry Jones: NFL return to LA near
Source: http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/i ... turning-la
Cowboys owner Jones was making these statements as the Cowboys attend training camp in Oxnard, CA. This is a rather thorough article and must be read, noting that it is Jerry Jones who is doing the talking, of course.
Highlights:
- Says a relocation is "closer than ever" since LA has been without a team, nearly 20 years
- Stephen Jones, Jerry's son, sits on the NFL's stadium committee. He said last year the committee considers getting an NFL team to LA a "top priority". Jerry says now this hasn't changed.
- No time frame was given, but sees things happenning "in the near future".
- Should a team relocate, it would probably play in either the LA Colliseum or the Rose Bowl while a new stadium is built.
- Commissioner Roger Goodell was sourced as stating the NFL will not be expanding, and that if a team is to play in LA, then that team will arrive via relocation. Still, he said that decision will belong to the NFL and NOT to the individual owners, that no NFL team has any "presumptive right" to play in LA.
- The two LA-based stadium projects are described as "shovel-ready", just waiting for a team to commit.
- Jerry Jones: "I've never, ever been a part of any meeting or committee ever that didn't want, as quickly as we could, to get a team in L.A. I've heard that that could be a threat to people moving their teams out, but that's not right. We've always preferred to get a team here."
The article focuses on the 3 teams that used to call LA home:
- The Rams
- The Chargers
- The Raiders
In sourcing the story, Yahoo Sports makes sure to state that the Jacksonville Jaguars are "certainly" a candidate for relocation.
Source: (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... 51143.html)
Today, if I were to wager, I'd say the most likely teams to relocate to LA are:
1. Jacksonville (3 to 2)
2. Oakland (3 to 1)
3. San Diego (5 to 1)
4. Saint Louis (10 to 1)
Jacksonville is a terrible place for the NFL. It's a small market where locals look to the Gators at the University of Florida for their football. These are the people who keep Tim Tebow in the news because he's Gator alumni. But, they by and large don't care for the Jags. Plus, they suck, especially as MJD is growing old. I bet Blaine Gabbert has more Mizzou fans than Jags fans.
Oakland has been a variable for years. Even with Al Davis having passed, the front office is still somewhat unpredictable. Meanwhile, Oakland is on the downswing in jobs, population, and economic standing. San Francisco remains prosperous, but those prosperous San Franciscans cheer the 49ers, and so will their TV viewership. Ditto San Jose. And when I think of the Raiders, my mental image is not of their fans dressed like the KISS Army; it's Ice Cube wearing a Raiders cap. Of these four teams, the Raiders most belong to LA. It's not like they ever won a Super Bowl in Oakland since their last move.
The largest TV markets of these four are Saint Louis and San Diego.
More TV = less desire by the NFL owners to see either move to LA.
But, between STL & SD, likelihood may be focused on geography; a move by the Chargers to LA would not be that far away, and they could expect San Diegans, er, San Diego-ans, uh, San Dieg-ahns, er, San Diego-ehns (thanks, Ron Burgundy) to be able to travel to the game with relative ease. Buses of Chargers fans up the I-5 would make the 2 hour trip every Sunday. If the Rams moved, that would eliminate the entirety of the local fan base from being able to somewhat regularly attend games ever again.
Plus, I just don't see Stan Kroenke wanting to move to LA. He doesn't want the money of the LA market as much as the prestige of owning a team, and that prestige most eminates from being a big player where one considers home (well, here and Montana).
Source: http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/i ... turning-la
Cowboys owner Jones was making these statements as the Cowboys attend training camp in Oxnard, CA. This is a rather thorough article and must be read, noting that it is Jerry Jones who is doing the talking, of course.
Highlights:
- Says a relocation is "closer than ever" since LA has been without a team, nearly 20 years
- Stephen Jones, Jerry's son, sits on the NFL's stadium committee. He said last year the committee considers getting an NFL team to LA a "top priority". Jerry says now this hasn't changed.
- No time frame was given, but sees things happenning "in the near future".
- Should a team relocate, it would probably play in either the LA Colliseum or the Rose Bowl while a new stadium is built.
- Commissioner Roger Goodell was sourced as stating the NFL will not be expanding, and that if a team is to play in LA, then that team will arrive via relocation. Still, he said that decision will belong to the NFL and NOT to the individual owners, that no NFL team has any "presumptive right" to play in LA.
- The two LA-based stadium projects are described as "shovel-ready", just waiting for a team to commit.
- Jerry Jones: "I've never, ever been a part of any meeting or committee ever that didn't want, as quickly as we could, to get a team in L.A. I've heard that that could be a threat to people moving their teams out, but that's not right. We've always preferred to get a team here."
The article focuses on the 3 teams that used to call LA home:
- The Rams
- The Chargers
- The Raiders
In sourcing the story, Yahoo Sports makes sure to state that the Jacksonville Jaguars are "certainly" a candidate for relocation.
Source: (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... 51143.html)
Today, if I were to wager, I'd say the most likely teams to relocate to LA are:
1. Jacksonville (3 to 2)
2. Oakland (3 to 1)
3. San Diego (5 to 1)
4. Saint Louis (10 to 1)
Jacksonville is a terrible place for the NFL. It's a small market where locals look to the Gators at the University of Florida for their football. These are the people who keep Tim Tebow in the news because he's Gator alumni. But, they by and large don't care for the Jags. Plus, they suck, especially as MJD is growing old. I bet Blaine Gabbert has more Mizzou fans than Jags fans.
Oakland has been a variable for years. Even with Al Davis having passed, the front office is still somewhat unpredictable. Meanwhile, Oakland is on the downswing in jobs, population, and economic standing. San Francisco remains prosperous, but those prosperous San Franciscans cheer the 49ers, and so will their TV viewership. Ditto San Jose. And when I think of the Raiders, my mental image is not of their fans dressed like the KISS Army; it's Ice Cube wearing a Raiders cap. Of these four teams, the Raiders most belong to LA. It's not like they ever won a Super Bowl in Oakland since their last move.
The largest TV markets of these four are Saint Louis and San Diego.
More TV = less desire by the NFL owners to see either move to LA.
But, between STL & SD, likelihood may be focused on geography; a move by the Chargers to LA would not be that far away, and they could expect San Diegans, er, San Diego-ans, uh, San Dieg-ahns, er, San Diego-ehns (thanks, Ron Burgundy) to be able to travel to the game with relative ease. Buses of Chargers fans up the I-5 would make the 2 hour trip every Sunday. If the Rams moved, that would eliminate the entirety of the local fan base from being able to somewhat regularly attend games ever again.
Plus, I just don't see Stan Kroenke wanting to move to LA. He doesn't want the money of the LA market as much as the prestige of owning a team, and that prestige most eminates from being a big player where one considers home (well, here and Montana).
Crazy Jerry also finally sold the Death Star's name as his place will now be called AT&T Stadium.gone corporate wrote:ESPN: Jerry Jones: NFL return to LA near
Source: http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/i ... turning-la
Cowboys owner Jones was making these statements as the Cowboys attend training camp in Oxnard, CA. This is a rather thorough article and must be read, noting that it is Jerry Jones who is doing the talking, of course.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas ... tadium.ece
I thought the Jaguars just committed to a $60 millionish renovation of EverBank Stadium? Plus I thought they had pretty tough lease to break and couldn't cleanly get out until the early 2020's?gone corporate wrote:ESPN: Jerry Jones: NFL return to LA near
Source: http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/i ... turning-la
Cowboys owner Jones was making these statements as the Cowboys attend training camp in Oxnard, CA. This is a rather thorough article and must be read, noting that it is Jerry Jones who is doing the talking, of course.
Highlights:
- Says a relocation is "closer than ever" since LA has been without a team, nearly 20 years
- Stephen Jones, Jerry's son, sits on the NFL's stadium committee. He said last year the committee considers getting an NFL team to LA a "top priority". Jerry says now this hasn't changed.
- No time frame was given, but sees things happenning "in the near future".
- Should a team relocate, it would probably play in either the LA Colliseum or the Rose Bowl while a new stadium is built.
- Commissioner Roger Goodell was sourced as stating the NFL will not be expanding, and that if a team is to play in LA, then that team will arrive via relocation. Still, he said that decision will belong to the NFL and NOT to the individual owners, that no NFL team has any "presumptive right" to play in LA.
- The two LA-based stadium projects are described as "shovel-ready", just waiting for a team to commit.
- Jerry Jones: "I've never, ever been a part of any meeting or committee ever that didn't want, as quickly as we could, to get a team in L.A. I've heard that that could be a threat to people moving their teams out, but that's not right. We've always preferred to get a team here."
The article focuses on the 3 teams that used to call LA home:
- The Rams
- The Chargers
- The Raiders
In sourcing the story, Yahoo Sports makes sure to state that the Jacksonville Jaguars are "certainly" a candidate for relocation.
Source: (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... 51143.html)
Today, if I were to wager, I'd say the most likely teams to relocate to LA are:
1. Jacksonville (3 to 2)
2. Oakland (3 to 1)
3. San Diego (5 to 1)
4. Saint Louis (10 to 1)
Jacksonville is a terrible place for the NFL. It's a small market where locals look to the Gators at the University of Florida for their football. These are the people who keep Tim Tebow in the news because he's Gator alumni. But, they by and large don't care for the Jags. Plus, they suck, especially as MJD is growing old. I bet Blaine Gabbert has more Mizzou fans than Jags fans.
Oakland has been a variable for years. Even with Al Davis having passed, the front office is still somewhat unpredictable. Meanwhile, Oakland is on the downswing in jobs, population, and economic standing. San Francisco remains prosperous, but those prosperous San Franciscans cheer the 49ers, and so will their TV viewership. Ditto San Jose. And when I think of the Raiders, my mental image is not of their fans dressed like the KISS Army; it's Ice Cube wearing a Raiders cap. Of these four teams, the Raiders most belong to LA. It's not like they ever won a Super Bowl in Oakland since their last move.
The largest TV markets of these four are Saint Louis and San Diego.
More TV = less desire by the NFL owners to see either move to LA.
But, between STL & SD, likelihood may be focused on geography; a move by the Chargers to LA would not be that far away, and they could expect San Diegans, er, San Diego-ans, uh, San Dieg-ahns, er, San Diego-ehns (thanks, Ron Burgundy) to be able to travel to the game with relative ease. Buses of Chargers fans up the I-5 would make the 2 hour trip every Sunday. If the Rams moved, that would eliminate the entirety of the local fan base from being able to somewhat regularly attend games ever again.
Plus, I just don't see Stan Kroenke wanting to move to LA. He doesn't want the money of the LA market as much as the prestige of owning a team, and that prestige most eminates from being a big player where one considers home (well, here and Montana).
- 3,767
^ You are correct. I was thinking the exact same thing.
Paying for it, is the only fly in the ointment. Jacksonville has to pay $43 million of the bill. If this falls through, the Jags rise to the top of the list.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -upgrades/
Paying for it, is the only fly in the ointment. Jacksonville has to pay $43 million of the bill. If this falls through, the Jags rise to the top of the list.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -upgrades/
True.DogtownBnR wrote:^ You are correct. I was thinking the exact same thing.
Paying for it, is the only fly in the ointment. Jacksonville has to pay $43 million of the bill. If this falls through, the Jags rise to the top of the list.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -upgrades/
We're all just pulling stuff out...somewhere. But if I'm guessing who's moving to LA it's:
1A)Chargers
1B)Raiders
2)Jacksonville
3)St. Louis
- 1,792
If The Jaguars go to LA hopefully the RAMS can swap places with them in the AFC South. And if its Oakland that heads to LA i'td be nice to reorganize so the the Rams play with the Chiefs and Broncos. If they did that I think you might see alot more Regional rivalries and traveling fan base.
As it is in the NFC West there are a lot of away games that are played on the west coast making it harder for fans to travel. And really its just an artifact of the Rams move here from LA.
As it is in the NFC West there are a lot of away games that are played on the west coast making it harder for fans to travel. And really its just an artifact of the Rams move here from LA.
For whatever it's worth, here's what longtime St. Louis Post-Dispatch Rams beat writer Jim Thomas had to say about all this here (emphasis my own):gone corporate wrote:ESPN: Jerry Jones: NFL return to LA near
Source: http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/i ... turning-la
Cowboys owner Jones was making these statements as the Cowboys attend training camp in Oxnard, CA. This is a rather thorough article and must be read, noting that it is Jerry Jones who is doing the talking, of course.
Highlights:
- Says a relocation is "closer than ever" since LA has been without a team, nearly 20 years
- Stephen Jones, Jerry's son, sits on the NFL's stadium committee. He said last year the committee considers getting an NFL team to LA a "top priority". Jerry says now this hasn't changed.
- No time frame was given, but sees things happenning "in the near future".
- Should a team relocate, it would probably play in either the LA Colliseum or the Rose Bowl while a new stadium is built.
- Commissioner Roger Goodell was sourced as stating the NFL will not be expanding, and that if a team is to play in LA, then that team will arrive via relocation. Still, he said that decision will belong to the NFL and NOT to the individual owners, that no NFL team has any "presumptive right" to play in LA.
- The two LA-based stadium projects are described as "shovel-ready", just waiting for a team to commit.
- Jerry Jones: "I've never, ever been a part of any meeting or committee ever that didn't want, as quickly as we could, to get a team in L.A. I've heard that that could be a threat to people moving their teams out, but that's not right. We've always preferred to get a team here."
The article focuses on the 3 teams that used to call LA home:
- The Rams
- The Chargers
- The Raiders
In sourcing the story, Yahoo Sports makes sure to state that the Jacksonville Jaguars are "certainly" a candidate for relocation.
Source: (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... 51143.html)
Today, if I were to wager, I'd say the most likely teams to relocate to LA are:
1. Jacksonville (3 to 2)
2. Oakland (3 to 1)
3. San Diego (5 to 1)
4. Saint Louis (10 to 1)
Jacksonville is a terrible place for the NFL. It's a small market where locals look to the Gators at the University of Florida for their football. These are the people who keep Tim Tebow in the news because he's Gator alumni. But, they by and large don't care for the Jags. Plus, they suck, especially as MJD is growing old. I bet Blaine Gabbert has more Mizzou fans than Jags fans.
Oakland has been a variable for years. Even with Al Davis having passed, the front office is still somewhat unpredictable. Meanwhile, Oakland is on the downswing in jobs, population, and economic standing. San Francisco remains prosperous, but those prosperous San Franciscans cheer the 49ers, and so will their TV viewership. Ditto San Jose. And when I think of the Raiders, my mental image is not of their fans dressed like the KISS Army; it's Ice Cube wearing a Raiders cap. Of these four teams, the Raiders most belong to LA. It's not like they ever won a Super Bowl in Oakland since their last move.
The largest TV markets of these four are Saint Louis and San Diego.
More TV = less desire by the NFL owners to see either move to LA.
But, between STL & SD, likelihood may be focused on geography; a move by the Chargers to LA would not be that far away, and they could expect San Diegans, er, San Diego-ans, uh, San Dieg-ahns, er, San Diego-ehns (thanks, Ron Burgundy) to be able to travel to the game with relative ease. Buses of Chargers fans up the I-5 would make the 2 hour trip every Sunday. If the Rams moved, that would eliminate the entirety of the local fan base from being able to somewhat regularly attend games ever again.
Plus, I just don't see Stan Kroenke wanting to move to LA. He doesn't want the money of the LA market as much as the prestige of owning a team, and that prestige most eminates from being a big player where one considers home (well, here and Montana).
And here's what Bernie Miklasz had to say about it on Twitter:Don July wrote:Did you catch Jerry Jones comments about the NFL and LA? Thoughts? Knowing JJ sounds like a means for publicity and to stir the pot.
by Don July 23 at 1:55 PMJim Thomas wrote:I didn't think much about them. Jerry likes to play to the crowd, and I believe he was speaking in California, wasn't he? I remember during the expansion process 20 years ago, he told reporters from each of the candidate cities (StL, Baltimore, Memphis, Carolina, Jacksonville) basically what they wanted to hear. Stuff like "St. Louis is a fine city and would be a good place for an expansion team, etc. etc." Then it was "Jacksonville is a fine city, they have a passion for football" blah, blah, blah. . .and on and on. To the point that reporters used to joke about it. At the moment, I don't think LA is any closer to getting a team that it was in 1995, the year after the Rams and Raiders left.
And on his STL Today forum (emphasis Bernie's own):@KingTony91 @ShaneGmoSTLRams @espn Leverage Game. Understandably so. But two expansion teams for LA is the objective.
Key part of the JJ comments:
"We’ve got some very talented and very qualified people that want to be a part of it that are not a part of the league right now."
To repeat again... and again... and again:
LA set aside for expansion.
Huge expansion fees for the current owners.
-B
And here:Two NFL owners have told me about the long-term plan (expansion for LA.)
In my private talks with Goodell -- I don't care if anyone dismisses them or not -- he's made his desires clear to me about keeping the Rams here... again, feel free to disregard. No offense taken here.
-B
My takeaway from all of this is that this is not much more than Jerry Jones being Jerry Jones; getting some air-time, stirring the pot, and possibly even helping some of his NFL Owner brethren with leverage in their stadium negotiations.Two expansion teams.
$1 billion fee for each.
-B
That's $60,000,000 of free money into each team's pockets. Plus however much that increases the TV contracts by adding LA back as a home market.
The man is loony. Smart but loony (and an attention whore).rawest1 wrote:My takeaway from all of this is that this is not much more than Jerry Jones being Jerry Jones; getting some air-time, stirring the pot, and possibly even helping some of his NFL Owner brethren with leverage in their stadium negotiations.
One more, from here:
BernieM wrote:NFL contractually controls the LA market.
All 32 owners signed off on that agreement ... so yes, actually it's very easy for the league to prevent a team from moving there.
And Goodell is a bulldog about it...
Keeping it open until it's time for a two-team expansion.
Until then, LA will continue to be an extremely valuable "chip" for owners in their leverage game in existing market. And Kroenke will use it to his advantage.
The end result in my informed opinion: riverfront stadium; shared-cost project involving Kroenke, NFL and local entities.
-B
Agree completelydweebe wrote:That's $60,000,000 of free money into each team's pockets. Plus however much that increases the TV contracts by adding LA back as a home market.
The man is loony. Smart (and an attention whore) but loony.rawest1 wrote:My takeaway from all of this is that this is not much more than Jerry Jones being Jerry Jones; getting some air-time, stirring the pot, and possibly even helping some of his NFL Owner brethren with leverage in their stadium negotiations.
- 2,929
re Jerry Jones: Solid commentary here, with great utilization of sources for quotes & reference. Conversations like these make me really happy that this site exists and that these conversations can take place at such cogent levels. And yes, I think Jerry Jones is a loon, but he's one helluva smart one, very savvy with the media.
Meanwhile, until other news arises, I'm just looking forward to seeing these rookies actually catch passes in the NFL, and having an offensive line strong enough to keep Sam Bradford's brain from getting scrambled every other down. We have quality defenders with some great skill sets capable of stopping big plays. Going forward, and with all deference to Daryl Richardson, I am more concerned right now with the quality of our running game than I am about the off-chance the Rams will ever move out of STL.
Meanwhile, until other news arises, I'm just looking forward to seeing these rookies actually catch passes in the NFL, and having an offensive line strong enough to keep Sam Bradford's brain from getting scrambled every other down. We have quality defenders with some great skill sets capable of stopping big plays. Going forward, and with all deference to Daryl Richardson, I am more concerned right now with the quality of our running game than I am about the off-chance the Rams will ever move out of STL.
A few things:
Anyone at the game last night? I was able to watch some piece meal on the internet but the feed doesn't lend itself to good real time analysis. Fan response? Half Packers fans per usual? Offense really display the potential that Burwell is claiming this morning? Defense as lackluster as it seemed? Still seems like a lot of sloppiness regarding dumb penalties from rookies and vets alike.
I realize it's preseason and he's acclimating to the system and the NFL, but I really hope Tavon Austin isn't being overhyped and in a few years he will be the Rams' David Perron.
What are opinions of Demoff's public comments this week on a uniform overhaul? The timing of this message and his forecast for a change sometime around 2015-2016 season is interesting.
Finally, with Nixon and Kroenke both visiting camp this week I was expecting more commentary on discussions of the future.....I should have known better. It's hard to believe that within 27 years, we've been able to bring two franchises to similar points of jeopardy.
Fingers crossed for an improved record in 2013. Go Rob Steeples! Go Rams!
Anyone at the game last night? I was able to watch some piece meal on the internet but the feed doesn't lend itself to good real time analysis. Fan response? Half Packers fans per usual? Offense really display the potential that Burwell is claiming this morning? Defense as lackluster as it seemed? Still seems like a lot of sloppiness regarding dumb penalties from rookies and vets alike.
I realize it's preseason and he's acclimating to the system and the NFL, but I really hope Tavon Austin isn't being overhyped and in a few years he will be the Rams' David Perron.
What are opinions of Demoff's public comments this week on a uniform overhaul? The timing of this message and his forecast for a change sometime around 2015-2016 season is interesting.
Finally, with Nixon and Kroenke both visiting camp this week I was expecting more commentary on discussions of the future.....I should have known better. It's hard to believe that within 27 years, we've been able to bring two franchises to similar points of jeopardy.
Fingers crossed for an improved record in 2013. Go Rob Steeples! Go Rams!
I'm a big time fan, so I'm going to give you more detail than you wanted...
I watched the full game last night on TV. No idea about attendance, although I'm told there was a good portion of Packers fans there. No real surprise. It's preseason. The Rams aren't a hot ticket yet. And fan bases like the Packers (or Bears or Chiefs—which unfortunately surround our market) will always travel well. Plus, due to the fact that the Rams have only been here 19 years, have been frequently bad, and until Kroenke took over have made no efforts to market outside of St. Louis Metro, you have lots of fans in the general area who are or have become fans of those teams instead of the Rams.
As far as the game goes, the Rams defense didn't play well, but they also didn't give up an TDs until the very bottom of the rosters were in. Primarily, they struggled with tackling, even guys who we know are good tacklers. If they fix that, the Packers O would have done very little. Also gave up some passing chunks in zone defenses, but the defense wasn't varying their looks much or rushing much. They're definitely keeping it simple and saving something for the regular season. If there's one area to be concerned about, it's safety (still). Ultimately, though, the defense bent but didn't break. Positive individual performances came from Rodney McLeod at safety (I think he may see a promotion and be a big help), and Ray Ray Armstrong at linebacker (he's just fighting to make the team, but he's got some sleeper potential).
On offense, we failed to score at all until the garbage time, but that doesn't paint the whole picture. As far as scoring goes, we passed up two likely (one being a gimme) FGs in favor of practicing our 4th down play calls. Another FG was missed by Zuerlein (maybe 50ish yards?). Sam Bradford looked really, REALLY good. He's making good decisions and throwing an accurate ball. There were 3 beautiful passing/receiving plays. A Faulk like catch and run by Richardson out of the backfield, a deep ball to Givens, and a play where the o-line held, Sam threaded the needle, Jared Cook snagged the pass with his hands and chugged for a lot of yardage.
Sam had two bad passes. One a sure touchdown to Tavon from about 3 yards out where he just put it a little too high, and one that was just a simple missed connection on a deep ball to Tavon. Tavon may have slowed his route. There were also two defenders close. The ball was past all of them. Just one of those deep balls you try and move on from, no big deal.
As far as Tavon, he had maybe a couple drops, but he didn't look horrible, he just wasn't really in many positions to shine. As I mentioned with the defense, I think you're seeing really dry play-calling on the offense. Tavon has primarily been used as a checkdown option. I can't even remotely imagine the Rams will waste his speed like that. I think they're saving a lot of the playbook for the games that count. Tavon may have some nerves to get over, but once he does, he'll start holding onto the ball and be a weapon.
Other issues were far too many penalties on both sides of the ball, and a lack of conversion on 3rd and 4th down. The best chance to score a TD with the 1st unit was thwarted by the one bad pass by Sam and then a fumbled exchange on the snap. Things that need cleaned up, but not things that have me worried.
The other main thing is that Kellen Clemens, while probably a great teammate, isn't a very good QB. Austin Davis will jump over him back to the 2nd unit, and rightfully so. We definitely don't want to see Sam missing many snaps this year.
I'm always an optimist, but while the end results weren't there, I saw enough to feel good about both sides of the ball. Clean up the little mistakes and open up the playbook, and we should have an exciting team.
I'm also a design junkie (and an actual designer). I'm begging Kevin Demoff on Twitter to let me advise him on their upcoming changes, lol. I'm afraid they'll screw it up. I mostly love their current set. I miss the gold pants (and when the gold was actually metallic—Nike's using a flat material).
Like most, I also have fond feelings for the 99 and before set, but I don't think translates well to a modern uniform and I think there are some flaws in the design. I'd be open to bringing that color scheme back, though. I HATE all the talk about going to just the blue and white that the franchise once wore. We identify with blue and gold (whether it's navy/gold or royal/yellow), why throw that out? Especially when tons of teams already use blue and Indy already owns blue and white.
They can where whatever uniforms they want for the retro alternates (although I prefer the '99s because they were actually worn in STL), but for the full-times, they need to be very careful. I intent to bug Kevin Demoff just about every day until he at least acknowledges me, lol.
Lastly, Kroenke-Nixon... sounds like they may not have even met with each other despite being at Rams park on back to back days. I hope something went down behind the scenes, but who knows. For now, I'll contain to trust Miklasz and Burwell who are increasingly adamant that a new stadium will be built on the riverfront somewhere between downtown and the new bridge.
I watched the full game last night on TV. No idea about attendance, although I'm told there was a good portion of Packers fans there. No real surprise. It's preseason. The Rams aren't a hot ticket yet. And fan bases like the Packers (or Bears or Chiefs—which unfortunately surround our market) will always travel well. Plus, due to the fact that the Rams have only been here 19 years, have been frequently bad, and until Kroenke took over have made no efforts to market outside of St. Louis Metro, you have lots of fans in the general area who are or have become fans of those teams instead of the Rams.
As far as the game goes, the Rams defense didn't play well, but they also didn't give up an TDs until the very bottom of the rosters were in. Primarily, they struggled with tackling, even guys who we know are good tacklers. If they fix that, the Packers O would have done very little. Also gave up some passing chunks in zone defenses, but the defense wasn't varying their looks much or rushing much. They're definitely keeping it simple and saving something for the regular season. If there's one area to be concerned about, it's safety (still). Ultimately, though, the defense bent but didn't break. Positive individual performances came from Rodney McLeod at safety (I think he may see a promotion and be a big help), and Ray Ray Armstrong at linebacker (he's just fighting to make the team, but he's got some sleeper potential).
On offense, we failed to score at all until the garbage time, but that doesn't paint the whole picture. As far as scoring goes, we passed up two likely (one being a gimme) FGs in favor of practicing our 4th down play calls. Another FG was missed by Zuerlein (maybe 50ish yards?). Sam Bradford looked really, REALLY good. He's making good decisions and throwing an accurate ball. There were 3 beautiful passing/receiving plays. A Faulk like catch and run by Richardson out of the backfield, a deep ball to Givens, and a play where the o-line held, Sam threaded the needle, Jared Cook snagged the pass with his hands and chugged for a lot of yardage.
Sam had two bad passes. One a sure touchdown to Tavon from about 3 yards out where he just put it a little too high, and one that was just a simple missed connection on a deep ball to Tavon. Tavon may have slowed his route. There were also two defenders close. The ball was past all of them. Just one of those deep balls you try and move on from, no big deal.
As far as Tavon, he had maybe a couple drops, but he didn't look horrible, he just wasn't really in many positions to shine. As I mentioned with the defense, I think you're seeing really dry play-calling on the offense. Tavon has primarily been used as a checkdown option. I can't even remotely imagine the Rams will waste his speed like that. I think they're saving a lot of the playbook for the games that count. Tavon may have some nerves to get over, but once he does, he'll start holding onto the ball and be a weapon.
Other issues were far too many penalties on both sides of the ball, and a lack of conversion on 3rd and 4th down. The best chance to score a TD with the 1st unit was thwarted by the one bad pass by Sam and then a fumbled exchange on the snap. Things that need cleaned up, but not things that have me worried.
The other main thing is that Kellen Clemens, while probably a great teammate, isn't a very good QB. Austin Davis will jump over him back to the 2nd unit, and rightfully so. We definitely don't want to see Sam missing many snaps this year.
I'm always an optimist, but while the end results weren't there, I saw enough to feel good about both sides of the ball. Clean up the little mistakes and open up the playbook, and we should have an exciting team.
I'm also a design junkie (and an actual designer). I'm begging Kevin Demoff on Twitter to let me advise him on their upcoming changes, lol. I'm afraid they'll screw it up. I mostly love their current set. I miss the gold pants (and when the gold was actually metallic—Nike's using a flat material).
Like most, I also have fond feelings for the 99 and before set, but I don't think translates well to a modern uniform and I think there are some flaws in the design. I'd be open to bringing that color scheme back, though. I HATE all the talk about going to just the blue and white that the franchise once wore. We identify with blue and gold (whether it's navy/gold or royal/yellow), why throw that out? Especially when tons of teams already use blue and Indy already owns blue and white.
They can where whatever uniforms they want for the retro alternates (although I prefer the '99s because they were actually worn in STL), but for the full-times, they need to be very careful. I intent to bug Kevin Demoff just about every day until he at least acknowledges me, lol.
Lastly, Kroenke-Nixon... sounds like they may not have even met with each other despite being at Rams park on back to back days. I hope something went down behind the scenes, but who knows. For now, I'll contain to trust Miklasz and Burwell who are increasingly adamant that a new stadium will be built on the riverfront somewhere between downtown and the new bridge.
- 10K
My take on the unis is similar to yours.
I like the navy and old gold, and miss the gold pants as well. To me, that color scheme represents the ST. LOUIS Rams. They really should've made that switch when they first moved to STL in order to help establish a new identity for the franchise here. I think the navy also works much better from a merchandise perspective - it looks better on hats, shirts, hoodies, etc. I'd be totally in favor of using the throwbacks once or twice a year, but other than that, I would much prefer to stick to the current color scheme. I'm also not a fan of the monochromatic look - blue jerseys w/blue pants or white jerseys w/white pants. The white road jerseys with the gold pants were one of the NFL's slickest color combinations, IMO - that look was so sharp.
As far as the old school blue and white look, I see no reason to bring that back. Very few people in STL care about the franchise's history before the Rams arrived here, so I don't see any reason to go back to that scheme.
I like the navy and old gold, and miss the gold pants as well. To me, that color scheme represents the ST. LOUIS Rams. They really should've made that switch when they first moved to STL in order to help establish a new identity for the franchise here. I think the navy also works much better from a merchandise perspective - it looks better on hats, shirts, hoodies, etc. I'd be totally in favor of using the throwbacks once or twice a year, but other than that, I would much prefer to stick to the current color scheme. I'm also not a fan of the monochromatic look - blue jerseys w/blue pants or white jerseys w/white pants. The white road jerseys with the gold pants were one of the NFL's slickest color combinations, IMO - that look was so sharp.
As far as the old school blue and white look, I see no reason to bring that back. Very few people in STL care about the franchise's history before the Rams arrived here, so I don't see any reason to go back to that scheme.
- 3,433
jstriebel, thanks for the detailed thoughts. My family has been season ticket holders since the beginning so I'll gladly take the extended analysis any time....
I share your concerns regarding the uniforms. While I do like current color scheme, I feel like there is something lacking. This is likely just transferring the general feeling of mediocrity toward their competitive prowess over the last decade (much like the general public's opinion of the dome....don't remember all the dome dissing when the team beat the snot out of everybody). The horn design is a classic that is hard to screw up, but I wouldn't put it past the same franchise who signed off on Jason Smith to give it a college try. To me the beauty of the football uniform lies in simplicity. Uniforms have gotten out of control is double and triple stripes, half stripes, jagged stripes, blocked patterns, etc. The best example to me is the Bengals taking a genius design in the striped helmets and the taking the focus off it by turning the shirts and pants into an abstract painting. I think the best examples of strong uniforms combine simple distinct color combos between shirts, pants, and socks. I'd love to see solid blue stirrups with gold stripes at the top (kind of like the baseball Cardinals. Lay of thick strips and keep the horns as the focal point.
Secondarily, I feel like the Rams Head logo good use a little tweaking.
In regards to Saturday night, it's difficult to watch the offensive line play sometimes. I'm no x's and o's football guy, but it seemed like Denver was blowing by our O-line. I'm surprised Saffold is getting praised because he put up no resistance multiple times. Then there's the absolute absence of run blocking. Most of our runs are going for 2-3 yards and it's rare to watch them blow open the huge holes that other teams seem to regularly manifest. And why on earth where our corners giving them 8-10 yards at the line of scrimmage? How many quick slants were we going to allow? The secondary coverage looked completely lost for a bulk of the first half. It Multiple times Jenkins and Finnegan were just shaking their heads like...what happened?
For a defense who was so dominant last year in multiple statistical categories, the preseason has me scratching my head a bit. Hopefully they will tighten up and put these discussions to rest by Week 1.
I share your concerns regarding the uniforms. While I do like current color scheme, I feel like there is something lacking. This is likely just transferring the general feeling of mediocrity toward their competitive prowess over the last decade (much like the general public's opinion of the dome....don't remember all the dome dissing when the team beat the snot out of everybody). The horn design is a classic that is hard to screw up, but I wouldn't put it past the same franchise who signed off on Jason Smith to give it a college try. To me the beauty of the football uniform lies in simplicity. Uniforms have gotten out of control is double and triple stripes, half stripes, jagged stripes, blocked patterns, etc. The best example to me is the Bengals taking a genius design in the striped helmets and the taking the focus off it by turning the shirts and pants into an abstract painting. I think the best examples of strong uniforms combine simple distinct color combos between shirts, pants, and socks. I'd love to see solid blue stirrups with gold stripes at the top (kind of like the baseball Cardinals. Lay of thick strips and keep the horns as the focal point.
Secondarily, I feel like the Rams Head logo good use a little tweaking.
In regards to Saturday night, it's difficult to watch the offensive line play sometimes. I'm no x's and o's football guy, but it seemed like Denver was blowing by our O-line. I'm surprised Saffold is getting praised because he put up no resistance multiple times. Then there's the absolute absence of run blocking. Most of our runs are going for 2-3 yards and it's rare to watch them blow open the huge holes that other teams seem to regularly manifest. And why on earth where our corners giving them 8-10 yards at the line of scrimmage? How many quick slants were we going to allow? The secondary coverage looked completely lost for a bulk of the first half. It Multiple times Jenkins and Finnegan were just shaking their heads like...what happened?
For a defense who was so dominant last year in multiple statistical categories, the preseason has me scratching my head a bit. Hopefully they will tighten up and put these discussions to rest by Week 1.
- 10K
I'm not worried about the defense. Fisher plays it pretty close to the vest in the preseason. We'll see the real deal in week 1. Also, if you want to take a positive from the defense's play, they were basically letting Manning throw darts and they still held Denver to FGs in the first half.
- 2,929
Amazing. The NFL just was named liable to a class action lawsuit, led by retired players, for concussions and other headstrike-related injuries. The League is liable to the tune of $765M, even more than the grandest rehab at the Jones Dome could've been.
Forbes argues that the best way to pay this off, without making each team pay out $24MM and diluting shareholder equity, is to create a new franchise in LA. There's precedent for this in MLB creating franchises in Colorado and Miami after it was found liable for headstrike-related injuries. And thus, threats to cities with lesser stadiums to move to LA may be discounted.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman ... ium=social
Forbes argues that the best way to pay this off, without making each team pay out $24MM and diluting shareholder equity, is to create a new franchise in LA. There's precedent for this in MLB creating franchises in Colorado and Miami after it was found liable for headstrike-related injuries. And thus, threats to cities with lesser stadiums to move to LA may be discounted.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman ... ium=social
^ Gone Corporate, if I understand the terms right this paid out over 10 years, or more manageable number relative to revenues NFL is expected over the 10 year period. With half in first 3 years and the rest over the remaining 7 year period. Heard a pretty convincing argument at end of day this was a good outcome for the NFL considering liabilities hanging out there.
On a different note, I really hope most of the money will go to players instead of lawyers. Class actions lawsuits typically end with big pay outs to law firms. Hate to see something similiar here.
On a different note, I really hope most of the money will go to players instead of lawyers. Class actions lawsuits typically end with big pay outs to law firms. Hate to see something similiar here.
- 8,155
Also this was not a ruling against NFL but rather a settlement with the NFL not even having to release its own documents as to what it really knew about head injuries.dredger wrote:^ Gone Corporate, if I understand the terms right this paid out over 10 years, or more manageable number relative to revenues NFL is expected over the 10 year period. With half in first 3 years and the rest over the remaining 7 year period. Heard a pretty convincing argument at end of day this was a good outcome for the NFL considering liabilities hanging out there. .
- 1,610
dredger wrote:^ Gone Corporate, if I understand the terms right this paid out over 10 years, or more manageable number relative to revenues NFL is expected over the 10 year period. With half in first 3 years and the rest over the remaining 7 year period. Heard a pretty convincing argument at end of day this was a good outcome for the NFL considering liabilities hanging out there.
On a different note, I really hope most of the money will go to players instead of lawyers. Class actions lawsuits typically end with big pay outs to law firms. Hate to see something similiar here.
I think it's actually payable over 20 years, 50% in the first 3 years and the remaining 50% over the next 17 years, which makes it even more manageable.
- 2,929
Guys, I don't know the settlement terms from which the NFL will pay off the class action suitors, and neither do I know how much the lawyers are going to get.
What is important is that the owners are both happy to settle while not wanting to each pay out eight figures should doing so be disruptive to their teams financing going forward. You think the Oakland Raiders want to pay out somewhere around 3% of their total valuation (not cash on hand, but franchise value) in cash? Does Stan Kroenke want to just hand over $24MM?
And, the best solution to make these payoffs without diluting free cash flow would be expansions met by franchise fees. Here, the LA threat may be capped. Something to keep an eye out for...
What is important is that the owners are both happy to settle while not wanting to each pay out eight figures should doing so be disruptive to their teams financing going forward. You think the Oakland Raiders want to pay out somewhere around 3% of their total valuation (not cash on hand, but franchise value) in cash? Does Stan Kroenke want to just hand over $24MM?
And, the best solution to make these payoffs without diluting free cash flow would be expansions met by franchise fees. Here, the LA threat may be capped. Something to keep an eye out for...
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/showusat.php?id=2761473
The STL portion of this entertaining read seems hauntingly well written.
The STL portion of this entertaining read seems hauntingly well written.
- 3,767
Anyone attend the game yestereday? I was not there,but I heard there were several thousand empty seats. I am not sure why this was not a full house sellout. The excitement is greater than it has been in years. I heard there were thousands of empty seats. I wonder if ownership took notice. I hope not! This does not make the case for Stan keeping the team in STL. I do not know have much owners care about attendance, if the tix are purchased. Anyone have the tickets sold figure, versus ACTUAL attendance? I know the money is not at the gate for owners, but who really knows what makes Stan tick. Does he care that the attendance was 55K (according to AM 920). I know it ended up being a nice day, Cards game at the same time, Loufest, on top of the Dome's poor dark atmosphere and lack of tailgating, but come on, 10K empty seats on opening day! Not good STL!
I just hope that ownership sees this as a challenge to improve the on-the-field product and push to get the Rams into an outdoor facility IN ST. LOUIS!!!
I just hope that ownership sees this as a challenge to improve the on-the-field product and push to get the Rams into an outdoor facility IN ST. LOUIS!!!
- 10K
I, too, was a little surprised that the dome wasn't full, but there was still a fairly large crowd there yesterday. Considering that the Cards were playing as well - I know a few people who had tickets for both games and went to the Cards game first, then walked to the dome - I guess maybe that's to be expected.
The Rams game was a blast, and the crowd brought lots of energy. Hopefully starting off the season 1-0 for the first time since 2006 will help generate some additional buzz and ticket sales for the next game.
The Rams game was a blast, and the crowd brought lots of energy. Hopefully starting off the season 1-0 for the first time since 2006 will help generate some additional buzz and ticket sales for the next game.