- Dec 7, 2006
- 12,819
- 8,278
or it might be better to run on 3rd/4th and 1 from the gun, bc it's not expected
THREAD LOCK.
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by Johnny_Cakes,
- Start date
- May 17, 2007
- 27,183
- 27,650
I feel u but I disagree.
If DC could've took snaps under center there is no doubt in my mind Musgrave calls a power run on 3rd & 1.
If DC could've took snaps under center there is no doubt in my mind Musgrave calls a power run on 3rd & 1.
- Aug 25, 2012
- 18,535
- 25,499
To me it looks like Murray actually runs better in the pistol vs when DC is under center
- May 17, 2007
- 27,183
- 27,650
I'm not disputing this. I just think it's put your offense at a significant disadvantage in obvious running situations like 3rd/4th and short or 1st and goal from the 1. a goal line formation has a much better chance to get that 1 yard.
D
Deleted member 185039
Guest
More DeAndre
- Jan 19, 2002
- 24,213
- 6,633
To get a 1st round bye, the raiders have to win out and KC loses at least 1 game?
If they're tied, KC has the advantage/tiebreaker correct?
If they're tied, KC has the advantage/tiebreaker correct?
- Aug 7, 2005
- 4,536
- 2,976
KC does have the tiebreaker.
D
Deleted member 185039
Guest
Everyone on this board is pretty much rooting for the Titans hard today.
- Aug 25, 2012
- 18,535
- 25,499
I really thought Aldon would have been back by now...Commish playin now 
- Aug 25, 2012
- 18,535
- 25,499
Jason La Confora's report on stadium discussion at The Owners meeting
Cliff notes:
NFL announced that Oakland is a superior market.
Raiders said that Vegas isn't as weak a market as the NFL's reports claimed it to be.
Raiders presented their own independent report which is not what the NFL had in their studies.
Mark Davis continues to claim he will file for relocation at the end of the season.
Raiders and NFL battling to win over owners in Vegas-Oakland debate
By Jason La Canfora 3h ago • 2 min read
The NFL made a strong pitch to owners on the virtues of the Oakland market at last week's league meetings, presenting a case to counter the Raiders' intended move to Las Vegas. We previously reported that was the league office's intention.
Eric Grubman, the NFL's point person on stadium issues, presented data from a detailed market study indicating that Oakland is a far superior market to Vegas, according to league sources, while Raiders' execs pointed to two of their own studies that sought to discount that data and highlight the strength of Las Vegas.
The battle for the hearts and minds of the other owners is in full swing, with Raiders owner Mark Davis pushing to get a vote on a relocation as soon as possible, while the NFL is continuing to explore options in the Bay area. The league has a particular eye toward possible league assistance in developing the area around a new stadium there.
Raiders owner Mark Davis is pushing for a relocation vote as soon as possible. USATSI
The league's study included a survey that attempted to quantify, on a host of categories, the overall strengths or weaknesses of Oakland and Vegas in comparison to other existing league markets. On the scale provided to owners, sources said, the average NFL market was given an overall rating 68; Oakland, a far superior TV market, scored a 70 according to those figures, while Vegas was just a 60 on this scale. Regardless, Davis again told the full ownership present that he will file relocation papers as soon as possible in January, the sources said, and team president Marc Badain was critical of the league's study during the session about the potential move.
"Badain basically stood up and said the league's study was BS," one source said. "And he had two of his studies that looked nothing like the one Grubman presented."
Davis also vowed that any lingering issues between him and outside developers or financers would be resolved well before anything came to a relocation vote.
"Basically, Mark was just pretty much saying, 'We're going, we're going, we're going,'" according to another source present at the meetings.
Regardless of which study may be closer to the truth about the merits of Vegas football, the NFL has the ability to slow or stall this process, and it seems unlikely Davis gets any relocation vote before the spring, sources reiterated. And even then some league sources believe the NFL could procure the nine votes against a move while continuing to explore options in the Bay Area.
By Jason La Canfora 3h ago • 2 min read
The NFL made a strong pitch to owners on the virtues of the Oakland market at last week's league meetings, presenting a case to counter the Raiders' intended move to Las Vegas. We previously reported that was the league office's intention.
Eric Grubman, the NFL's point person on stadium issues, presented data from a detailed market study indicating that Oakland is a far superior market to Vegas, according to league sources, while Raiders' execs pointed to two of their own studies that sought to discount that data and highlight the strength of Las Vegas.
The battle for the hearts and minds of the other owners is in full swing, with Raiders owner Mark Davis pushing to get a vote on a relocation as soon as possible, while the NFL is continuing to explore options in the Bay area. The league has a particular eye toward possible league assistance in developing the area around a new stadium there.
Raiders owner Mark Davis is pushing for a relocation vote as soon as possible. USATSI
The league's study included a survey that attempted to quantify, on a host of categories, the overall strengths or weaknesses of Oakland and Vegas in comparison to other existing league markets. On the scale provided to owners, sources said, the average NFL market was given an overall rating 68; Oakland, a far superior TV market, scored a 70 according to those figures, while Vegas was just a 60 on this scale. Regardless, Davis again told the full ownership present that he will file relocation papers as soon as possible in January, the sources said, and team president Marc Badain was critical of the league's study during the session about the potential move.
"Badain basically stood up and said the league's study was BS," one source said. "And he had two of his studies that looked nothing like the one Grubman presented."
Davis also vowed that any lingering issues between him and outside developers or financers would be resolved well before anything came to a relocation vote.
"Basically, Mark was just pretty much saying, 'We're going, we're going, we're going,'" according to another source present at the meetings.
Regardless of which study may be closer to the truth about the merits of Vegas football, the NFL has the ability to slow or stall this process, and it seems unlikely Davis gets any relocation vote before the spring, sources reiterated. And even then some league sources believe the NFL could procure the nine votes against a move while continuing to explore options in the Bay Area.
Cliff notes:
NFL announced that Oakland is a superior market.
Raiders said that Vegas isn't as weak a market as the NFL's reports claimed it to be.
Raiders presented their own independent report which is not what the NFL had in their studies.
Mark Davis continues to claim he will file for relocation at the end of the season.
Last edited:
- Aug 25, 2012
- 18,535
- 25,499
Then another article in the east bay times saying the NFL doesn't like the deal the city purposes 
Cliff notes:
NFL claims that the stadium term sheet doesn't resolve any of the "long term issues" they are worried about.
Alameda County says this deal is as good as it's gonna get. Take it or leave it.
Ronnie Lott says he was a little offended, but has had productive conversations with the NFL.
Stanford Professor says this is leverage play by NFL to milk more, as they always do when doing stadium deals.
In short: this **** ain't gettin done anytime soon. I really don't even think the NFL owners will vote on Vegas relocation when Mark files for it.
East Bay officials fume at NFL’s dismissal of Coliseum deal
By Matier & RossDecember 18, 2016 Updated: December 18, 2016 6:00am
1
East Bay officials aren’t budging from their $350 million pledge for a Raiders stadium at the Coliseum site. Photo: Jeff Chiu, Associated PressPhoto: Jeff Chiu, Associated Press East Bay officials aren’t budging from their $350 million pledge for a Raiders stadium at the Coliseum site.
Oakland and Alameda County officials are stinging from the NFL’s swift rebuke of the Raiders stadium deal they put on the table — but they aren’t budging from their $350 million pledge of public support.
“We are not going to get into a bidding war,” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell panned a stadium framework approved last week by the City Council and county Board of Supervisors.
While avoiding specifics, the NFL boss said the plan failed to address “the long-term issues” needed to make the new stadium work for either the Raiders or the community.
“We have not made great progress in Oakland,” Goodell said. “We need to continue to work at it.”
“I disagree,” said Supervisor Scott Haggerty. The deal is as good as it’s going to get, he said, adding, “What the NFL did was kick the Raiders fans right in the gut.”
The framework for a stadium envisions the city and county handing over $150 million worth of land at the Coliseum site to a group led by NFL Hall of Famer Ronnie Lott. The public would pay $200 million to upgrade infrastructure for a new $1.3 billion stadium. The NFL and Raiders would put up a total of $500 million, and Lott’s group would be tasked with finding the remaining $600 million in private financing.
NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said Goodell’s comments shouldn’t have come as a surprise. “We have been very forthcoming with city leadership and those attached to the potential project,” he told us. “We have expressed for months our concerns directly to them.”
McCarthy also said Goodell had spoken with Lott — who earlier called another NFL executive’s dismissal of the deal “a little offensive” — and that the two “had a productive conversation.”
An Oakland Raiders fan, before a September game, holds a sign protesting the team’s possible relocation to Las Vegas. Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez, Associated Press
Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez, Associated Press
IMAGE 1 OF 3 An Oakland Raiders fan, before a September game, holds a sign protesting the team’s possible relocation to Las Vegas.
He said league reps have also spoken to Schaaf, who, at least publicly, continues to take a diplomatic tack, declining to comment directly on Goodell’s remarks.
Stanford University economics Professor Roger Noll, who has studied sports deals for years, said Goodell’s out-of-hand rejection of the deal was “completely predictable.”
“Bear in mind that the NFL is continually in the negotiating mode,” Noll said. “They are always trying to extract as much as possible” from stadium deals.
In the case of the Raiders, Oakland is faced with trying to match Las Vegas’ offer of $750 million in hotel tax money to build a stadium in the desert. Insiders tell us that the league could drag out the process for another year, in hopes that both cities will reach deeper into their pockets.
By Matier & RossDecember 18, 2016 Updated: December 18, 2016 6:00am
1
East Bay officials aren’t budging from their $350 million pledge for a Raiders stadium at the Coliseum site. Photo: Jeff Chiu, Associated PressPhoto: Jeff Chiu, Associated Press East Bay officials aren’t budging from their $350 million pledge for a Raiders stadium at the Coliseum site.
Oakland and Alameda County officials are stinging from the NFL’s swift rebuke of the Raiders stadium deal they put on the table — but they aren’t budging from their $350 million pledge of public support.
“We are not going to get into a bidding war,” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell panned a stadium framework approved last week by the City Council and county Board of Supervisors.
While avoiding specifics, the NFL boss said the plan failed to address “the long-term issues” needed to make the new stadium work for either the Raiders or the community.
“We have not made great progress in Oakland,” Goodell said. “We need to continue to work at it.”
“I disagree,” said Supervisor Scott Haggerty. The deal is as good as it’s going to get, he said, adding, “What the NFL did was kick the Raiders fans right in the gut.”
The framework for a stadium envisions the city and county handing over $150 million worth of land at the Coliseum site to a group led by NFL Hall of Famer Ronnie Lott. The public would pay $200 million to upgrade infrastructure for a new $1.3 billion stadium. The NFL and Raiders would put up a total of $500 million, and Lott’s group would be tasked with finding the remaining $600 million in private financing.
NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said Goodell’s comments shouldn’t have come as a surprise. “We have been very forthcoming with city leadership and those attached to the potential project,” he told us. “We have expressed for months our concerns directly to them.”
McCarthy also said Goodell had spoken with Lott — who earlier called another NFL executive’s dismissal of the deal “a little offensive” — and that the two “had a productive conversation.”
An Oakland Raiders fan, before a September game, holds a sign protesting the team’s possible relocation to Las Vegas. Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez, Associated Press
Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez, Associated Press
IMAGE 1 OF 3 An Oakland Raiders fan, before a September game, holds a sign protesting the team’s possible relocation to Las Vegas.
He said league reps have also spoken to Schaaf, who, at least publicly, continues to take a diplomatic tack, declining to comment directly on Goodell’s remarks.
Stanford University economics Professor Roger Noll, who has studied sports deals for years, said Goodell’s out-of-hand rejection of the deal was “completely predictable.”
“Bear in mind that the NFL is continually in the negotiating mode,” Noll said. “They are always trying to extract as much as possible” from stadium deals.
In the case of the Raiders, Oakland is faced with trying to match Las Vegas’ offer of $750 million in hotel tax money to build a stadium in the desert. Insiders tell us that the league could drag out the process for another year, in hopes that both cities will reach deeper into their pockets.
Cliff notes:
NFL claims that the stadium term sheet doesn't resolve any of the "long term issues" they are worried about.
Alameda County says this deal is as good as it's gonna get. Take it or leave it.
Ronnie Lott says he was a little offended, but has had productive conversations with the NFL.
Stanford Professor says this is leverage play by NFL to milk more, as they always do when doing stadium deals.
In short: this **** ain't gettin done anytime soon. I really don't even think the NFL owners will vote on Vegas relocation when Mark files for it.
Last edited:
- Jan 19, 2002
- 24,213
- 6,633
I really thought Aldon would have been back by now...Commish playin now
Can't say I'm surprised
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
Big day for us, guys. 14 years of pain could be ended.
- Mar 12, 2004
- 16,322
- 23,778
My Titans cmon baby
- Aug 25, 2012
- 18,535
- 25,499
Titans lost fellas. Tough for them to catch Andy on a semi bye week
- Mar 12, 2004
- 16,322
- 23,778
I don't think the Chiefs got that first down but I don't like this challenge though not enough evidence to overturn it
D
Deleted member 185039
Guest
I really thought Aldon would have been back by now...Commish playin now
Passive aggression
- Aug 25, 2012
- 18,535
- 25,499
Titans
- Mar 12, 2004
- 16,322
- 23,778
[emoji]128545[/emoji]
- Mar 30, 2016
- 208
- 44
i dont understand why they went for the win there
- Aug 25, 2012
- 18,535
- 25,499
I don't get that **** either. They acting like Drew Brees or Brady on the other side of the field
- Aug 25, 2012
- 18,535
- 25,499
Week in and week out teams beat themselves when playing KC
- Mar 30, 2016
- 208
- 44
here we go! LOL succop for the win!!
D
Deleted member 185039
Guest
L for you this week. Wear it proud.Titans lost fellas. Tough for them to catch Andy on a semi bye week
- Jan 17, 2013
- 8,090
- 7,101
YEESSSS!!
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
