NFL Prognosticator: Los Angeles Relocation

Developers have announced the latest plans for a new Los Angeles stadium, and has offered it as a carrot for any team that "wants to relocate." But with the NFL at an all-time high for popularity, pervasiveness and revenues...and with no expansion likely...who would?

We start with 32 NFL teams. I would have to think that any team that built a new stadium since 1995 is out. There's no way any team in the league could get a new stadium with help from state and local government in the future if that happened. The outcry against taxpayer dollars (almost always needed at least in part for a stadium suited for the NFL) being used to support a team that bolts, leaving a white elephant would be prohibitive, and could sully the negotiations for the next round of stadiums.

OUT
Carolina (1996)
Washington (1997)
Baltimore (1998)
Tampa Bay (1998)
Cleveland (1999)
Tennessee (1999)
Cincinnati (2000)
Pittsburgh (2001)
Denver (2001)
Detroit (2002)
New England (2002)
Seattle (2002)
Houston (2002)
Philadelphia (2003)
Chicago (Soldier Field renovated 2003)
Green Bay (Lambeau Field renovated 2003)
Arizona (2006)
Kansas City (Arrowhead undergoing renovations)
New York Giants (New Meadowlands Stadium under construction)
New York Jets (New Meadowlands Stadium under construction)
Indianapolis Colts (Lucas Oil Field under construction)
Dallas Cowboys (New Cowboys Stadium under construction)

With that, we're down to 10 teams.
San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, Minnesota, St. Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami, Buffalo, and Jacksonville.

From here, the next logical step would be to pick the smallest media market, hoping the NFL could upgrade to LA, but frankly, since LA is the #2 media market in the country, any team would be an upgrade.

The NFL seems to be angling to get Buffalo into Toronto, so that is not an option. Miami, Buffalo, Minnesota, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Jacksonville could not be moved without a major reshuffling of divisions and upending of traditional rivalries, which was one of the main goals in the NFL's move to an 8-division system. Assuming the NFL still has respect for that tradition, we're down to 4. San Diego, Oakland, San Francisco, and St. Louis.

San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland would appear to be candidates on the surface simply because of their prior ties to the LA area. However, I can't see the Raiders or Rams moving to LA....again...

As far as proposed new stadiums, San Francisco's bid for a new stadium has run into numerous political issues, making them a likely candidate. However, the NFL may be reluctant to move such a historical franchise. Prior recent relocations (Rams, Raiders, Browns/Ravens, Oilers/Titans) were largely franchises that were less than successful in those homes. I believe there are only two Super Bowl appearances between those four franchises in their former homes).

San Diego's proposed stadium has not yet panned out, and would arguably be the most minimally-impacted move since San Diego is only 2 hours away from LA, about the same distance from Milwaukee to Green Bay. Existing Chargers fans would be able to make the commute, perhaps similar to the Packers' model of having games for Milwaukee ticket-holders. The Chargers have already made LA inroads, (the Chargers already have held training camp at the Home Depot Center in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson), and are playing in the third-oldest stadium in the league. So of all the teams that COULD relocate, the Los Angeles Chargers appears to be the most likely on the surface. Someone who knows more about day-to-day NFL politics want to chime in?

Read more...

Terribly Questionable Playcalling

Looking through the statistics of today's games, a noticeable trend would be the unbalanced pass-run ratios with teams who had success on the ground today. The most obvious example of this would be San Diego, where a sub par Philip Rivers effort led to baffling 30-16 loss at home to lowly Kansas City. Through the first four weeks, the major strength of the Chiefs defense would be their pass coverage. Despite their starting corners Ty Law and Patrick Surtain averaging 200 years old, they have limited the big play save one long Andre Johnson TD catch in week one. That said, Rivers put the ball up 42 times. Meanwhile, Cedric Benson and the real Adrian Peterson each ran for over 100 yards against Chiefs, and LT had 132 yards on 20 carries. Simply put, you run LT until KC proves they can stop him, and then you give them a dose of the Burner. Needing a TD late in the game to get within a score, the Chargers call four pass plays from the 5 yard line despite having the best goal line rusher in the history of the game. While I thought the Chargers could improve on Marty Ball, they replaced him with one of the worst head coaches in the history of professional sports, Norv Turner. Chargers fans will really enjoy going 6-10 with one of the NFL's five most talented rosters.

Not to be outdone, a couple of other genius play callers really put their best foot forward today. Speaking of the real Adrian Peterson, AD ran for 112 yards on 12 carries today in the Vikes 23-16 loss to the Packers. Despite averaging close to 10 yards a rush, Peterson received 12 fucking carries. The returning Chester Taylor added 40 yards on 8 carries. Your backs gave you 152 yards on 20 carries, yet you have Kelly Holcomb throw the ball 39 damn times. While Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job in reviving the Packers to join the NFC's elite (sort of like tallest midget club), the brilliance of Norv Turner and Brad Childress has nicely aided the process.

Finally, we take a trip to the mind of the notoriously pass happy Andy Reid. No wonder Donovan McNabb no longer buys into his plan, what with Reid calling 31 passes despite an O-Line that clearly had no interest in pass blocking the Giants. After getting sacked 12 times (an incredible six by Osi Umenyiora, who had yet to register a sack on the season coming in), McNabb will enjoy spending this next week in the team whirlpool. Of course, Correll Buckhalter admirably filled in for the injured Brian Westbrook, rushing for 103 yards on 17 carries. Apparently, Andy Reid had the over on Giants sacks tonight, as that would be the only conceivable explanation as to why you had McNabb consistently going back to pass despite atrocious pass blocking and a back averaging six yards a carry.

In all three cases, the game situation did not call for this imbalance, as the Eagles and Vikings consistently played around a TD behind, and San Diego had a 16-6 lead before allowing the Chiefs to score 24 unanswered points (a month's allotment for them). Instead of playing to that day's strength, these teams kept pulling the ball up come hell or high water. Because of that, they each received well deserved losses despite having a clear advantage over their opponents.

Read more...

Should LT be the Chargers back of the future?

Each week, instead of providing another half-ass weekly recap that can be seen across the internet, I will bring up a thought provoking or controversial issue/thought from the football action I observed (trust me, football action greatly trumps other kinds of action I would observe or partake in).

While watching the Bears piss away this week's game against the Chargers, I really started to wonder if San Diego should go with Michael Turner as their feature running back in future years and make a move with LT (LaDainian Tomlinson for those few people who may still think of LT as Lawrence Taylor). Now, LT would still be one of the top backs in football and the best player on the loaded roster of the Chargers. However, he has accumulated 2,448 touches (an astounding 408 per year) in his six year career and looks well on his way to another massive workload this season. History shows that backs with that kind of mileage have a strong chance of breaking down soon.

Also, should word hit that LT may be on the market, I think that Chargers could get a similar gigantic haul that the Cowboys got for Herschel Walker back in the late 1980's. That move led to the Boys three Super Bowl titles in the 1990's. Teams desperate to make a big move towards respectability like the Cardinals or Browns could offer a large package of young players and draft picks in order to get the most respected player in the game. For instance, Cleveland could offer Braylon Edwards, Sean Jones and 4-5 early round picks (with at least 2 future first rounds). Arizona could offer a package of Anquan Boldin, Adrian Wilson and 3-4 early round picks.

However, even with potential ransom that could be obtained in an LT trade, the major reason why the Chargers could pursue this course of action would be the big time talent of Michael Turner. At this point of his career, I think Turner may be one of the 10 best running backs in the league. He has the coveted combination of quickness and power in a body that could sustain the pounding required to be a primary NFL running back. Despite lacking top end speed, Turner's quickness in hitting the hole has led to him having a career average of 6.0 yards per carry.

As it currently stands, the Chargers will lose Turner for nothing in free agency as he will assuredly sign to be the starting running back for some team this off season. Instead of losing a valuable commodity for nothing, why not attempt to make a move that could propel the Chargers to a similar run the Patriots made earlier this decade, winning three Super Bowls in a four year period.

While I'm sure that many people may dismiss this idea as crazy or unrealistic, this kind of forward thinking would be needed in order to succeed in the most competitive league in professional sports.

Read more...

"How the heck do you a fire a guy who went 14-2 last year?!"

You say, "Hey Marty--Good season and all, but yeah, we still don't like you. So get out; you're fired." Or something like that.
In a way, it's refreshing to see an NFL team making a coaching change independent of team record. It may not seem fair to fire a guy whose team had the best record in the league. But that's exactly the point--his team had the 14-2 record. How much positive influence Schottenheimer had toward that end is not necessarily a reflection of the record itself.

And so his bosses realized this. And they fired him for personality conflicts, a reason far more valid than the one that fells 90% of NFL coaches, that being "We had a bad record and needed a scapegoat." It's also far more reasonable than the explanation many will no doubt suspect or will use to justify the firing--the "couldn't win the big game" criticism. But I appreciate that Chargers' president Dean Spanos didn't stoop to this excuse because he very well could have.

Instead, team management owned up to its dysfunction, an honesty rarely seen in sports or in any business for that matter. There was no cut-and-dry, "let's make Marty look like the bad guy" brush-off but rather an admission that, hey, we just couldn't get along.

I'm sure a lot of analysts will jump on this decision and call it crazy, but I think that would be shortsighted. This isn't the first time Schottenheimer has been fired, and--if recent hiring trends hold true--it won't be his last. Hey, maybe someday he'll supplant his old coordinator Wade Phillips in Dallas and then be replaced by Norv Turner. Either way, being 14-2 this year didn't magically correct whatever personality flaws hurt Marty in the past.

Sometimes coaching changes seem unfair, but when so many people of roughly equal ability are gunning so hard for a very small number of positions, high turnover is inevitable. People get fired. And get fired often. And the decision is never 100% the right one. Except when it's the Cardinals, and they fire Dennis Green. I don't see how anyone could quibble with that.

Read more...