NFL (2024 Season)

[jeffandnicole]

Brian Flores' attorney is saying his client wasn't hired by the Texans because of his lawsuit:  https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/07/brian-flores-claims-through-counsel-that-he-didnt-get-texans-job-due-to-lawsuit/

Would any company be interested in hiring a applicant who's suing the company?

[webny99]

Brian Flores' attorney is saying his client wasn't hired by the Texans because of his lawsuit:  https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/02/07/brian-flores-claims-through-counsel-that-he-didnt-get-texans-job-due-to-lawsuit/

Would any company be interested in hiring a applicant who's suing the company?

Yeah, I would think it would be obvious that that's why he didn't get the job now.. especially for the Texans who are involved in plenty of legal issues even without this. I thought Flores basically already admitted as much.


On one of the more substantive claims though, I wouldn't be shocked if the Dolphins owner really did offer Flores money to tank. It's easy to forget what a total disaster the Dolphins were at the beginning the 2019 season. People were openly talking about them tanking and it reached a whole new level when they started the season 0-4 while being outscored 162-26. It looked like one of the most obvious tank jobs in NFL history even without any of these claims.

I think it's an incredible testament to Flores that he helped turn things around enough to finish the season on a 5-4 run and even playing spoiler to the Patriots, effectively ending the Brady era in New England. If that ends up being what cost him his job, when it should have been what saved it long-term and established him as one of the best coaches in the league... I just don't know what you can say to defend the owner at that point.

[CoreySamson]

I think the reason the Texans didn't hire Flores is because Deshaun Watson expressed great interest in playing under him. The Texans want to distance themselves from Deshaun as much as possible (as well as the fans), and bringing in a coach that he wanted to play for would add an extra layer of convolution to the whole situation. It would probably be extremely ugly. I'm going to reserve judgement on Lovie Smith until we see how the Texans perform under him, but he does seem like a transitory hire to me.

[webny99]

Roger Goodell announces that to avoid the unfairness of teams playing the Super Bowl in their home stadium that we've seen over the last two years, all future Super Bowls will be held at AT&T Stadium in Dallas.

NFL Memes tweeted this too, dressed up as an official "statement": link here

As you can imagine, the replies were a mess. It's sad how many people thought it was real.

[jeffandnicole]

Roger Goodell announces that to avoid the unfairness of teams playing the Super Bowl in their home stadium that we've seen over the last two years, all future Super Bowls will be held at AT&T Stadium in Dallas.

NFL Memes tweeted this too, dressed up as an official "statement": (tweet)

As you can imagine, the replies were a mess. It's sad how many people thought it was real.

Oh my goodness.

[webny99]

(Side note... I can't seem to figure out how to link to a tweet without the actual tweet showing up in the post. I'd like to avoid that since it slows things down taking extra time to load and scroll past. I've fixed my above reply to show the full tweet for now, but I'd appreciate any advice on this.)

[Alps]

(Side note... I can't seem to figure out how to link to a tweet without the actual tweet showing up in the post. I'd like to avoid that since it slows things down taking extra time to load and scroll past. I've fixed my above reply to show the full tweet for now, but I'd appreciate any advice on this.)

You should just be able to use the URL of the actual tweet, unless this software automatically converts anything with "Twitter" in it to the [ tweet ] tag. If that's the case, you'd have to use tinyurl or similar to shorten it to something BBCode can't parse, and then give us the shortlink.

[1995hoo]

(Side note... I can't seem to figure out how to link to a tweet without the actual tweet showing up in the post. I'd like to avoid that since it slows things down taking extra time to load and scroll past. I've fixed my above reply to show the full tweet for now, but I'd appreciate any advice on this.)

You should just be able to use the URL of the actual tweet, unless this software automatically converts anything with "Twitter" in it to the [ tweet ] tag. If that's the case, you'd have to use tinyurl or similar to shorten it to something BBCode can't parse, and then give us the shortlink.

Using the URL posts the tweet, in my experience. If I use the "share" button on Twitter and then copy the URL it gives me, a couple of extra characters apparently show up at the end and the forum software can't process them, which is why sometimes if I link a tweet it's followed by something like s=?21 or similar. On my PC I can avoid that by loading the tweet separately and copying the URL from the address bar, but I haven't found a way to do that from the app.

[hotdogPi]

but I haven't found a way to do that from the app.

You can go to the webpage in a browser instead of using the app.

[webny99]

(Side note... I can't seem to figure out how to link to a tweet without the actual tweet showing up in the post. I'd like to avoid that since it slows things down taking extra time to load and scroll past. I've fixed my above reply to show the full tweet for now, but I'd appreciate any advice on this.)

You should just be able to use the URL of the actual tweet, unless this software automatically converts anything with "Twitter" in it to the [ tweet ] tag. If that's the case, you'd have to use tinyurl or similar to shorten it to something BBCode can't parse, and then give us the shortlink.

OK, it seems to still post the actual tweet, so I will try tinyurl. Thanks!

[webny99]

On the subject of the Pro Bowl, I saw the idea floating around that the Pro Bowl should be replaced with a game between the two teams with the worst records, with the winner getting the #1 overall pick.

I actually like that idea, and to take it a step further... how about after 16 games, the bottom four teams play each other in the season finale, with the two winners advancing to the #1 pick bowl?

This past year we would have had:
(29) Jets (or Giants? depending on tiebreaker) vs. (32) Jaguars
(30) Texans vs. (31) Lions

Of course, it would be a little tricky to figure out what to do with those team's original opponents. Presumably they would play each other, so in this case that would have been Bills vs. Packers and Colts vs. Titans. Not sure the league would ever go for that, but I think it would help disincentive tanking because you'd have to be good enough to win two games to clinch the #1 pick.

[NWI_Irish96]

On the subject of the Pro Bowl, I saw the idea floating around that the Pro Bowl should be replaced with a game between the two teams with the worst records, with the winner getting the #1 overall pick.

I actually like that idea, and to take it a step further... how about after 16 games, the bottom four teams play each other in the season finale, with the two winners advancing to the #1 pick bowl?

This past year we would have had:
(29) Jets (or Giants? depending on tiebreaker) vs. (32) Jaguars
(30) Texans vs. (31) Lions

Of course, it would be a little tricky to figure out what to do with those team's original opponents. Presumably they would play each other, so in this case that would have been Bills vs. Packers and Colts vs. Titans. Not sure the league would ever go for that, but I think it would help disincentive tanking because you'd have to be good enough to win two games to clinch the #1 pick.

NFL teams spend weeks preparing for opponents. You're not going to get them to buy into any sort of variable scheduling at the end of the season.

The two worst teams facing off for the #1 pick is intriguing, but you're not going to get those teams to hang around until Pro Bowl weekend to do it. If you're going to do it, it would have to be a Thursday night game between the Wild Card and Divisional weekends.

I don't think there's a good solution for the Pro Bowl. Teams don't want their players to risk injury in a meaningless exhibition, and fans don't want to watch a farce of a game. This is the best I can come up with:

Make the game essentially a competitive 7-on-7 drill. Since a 7-on-7 drill doesn't have linemen, have one quarter where the OL and DL have to play all the positions except QB.

[nexus73]

In the Sixties we saw the NFL Pro Bowl as a game between the two teams who lost to those playing for the title while the AFL had their champion face the best players from the other 7 teams. 

A Niners-Chiefs game would be more entertaining than a group of All Pro players taking it easy methinks.

Rick

[1995hoo]

In the Sixties we saw the NFL Pro Bowl as a game between the two teams who lost to those playing for the title while the AFL had their champion face the best players from the other 7 teams. 

A Niners-Chiefs game would be more entertaining than a group of All Pro players taking it easy methinks.

Rick

That wasn't the Pro Bowl, that was the "Playoff Bowl"–essentially a European-style third-place game. The Playoff Bowl's legacy, for many years, was that the coaches from the teams that lost the conference championships (whose teams would have competed in the Playoff Bowl when it existed) became the coaches for that season's Pro Bowl. I believe the Playoff Bowl games are now recorded as exhibition games in the league's records. Vince Lombardi famously called it a "hinky-dink" game.

The AFL's concept sounds similar to what the NHL did prior to the 1967 expansion, although they began the season with their all-star game–the NHL All-Stars played the defending season's Stanley Cup champion.

[triplemultiplex]

But what's the motivation for the players to go out there and play a game for third place?  This isn't a youth basketball tournament.

[Henry]

On the subject of the Pro Bowl, I saw the idea floating around that the Pro Bowl should be replaced with a game between the two teams with the worst records, with the winner getting the #1 overall pick.

I actually like that idea, and to take it a step further... how about after 16 games, the bottom four teams play each other in the season finale, with the two winners advancing to the #1 pick bowl?

This past year we would have had:
(29) Jets (or Giants? depending on tiebreaker) vs. (32) Jaguars
(30) Texans vs. (31) Lions

Of course, it would be a little tricky to figure out what to do with those team's original opponents. Presumably they would play each other, so in this case that would have been Bills vs. Packers and Colts vs. Titans. Not sure the league would ever go for that, but I think it would help disincentive tanking because you'd have to be good enough to win two games to clinch the #1 pick.

NFL teams spend weeks preparing for opponents. You're not going to get them to buy into any sort of variable scheduling at the end of the season.

The two worst teams facing off for the #1 pick is intriguing, but you're not going to get those teams to hang around until Pro Bowl weekend to do it. If you're going to do it, it would have to be a Thursday night game between the Wild Card and Divisional weekends.

I don't think there's a good solution for the Pro Bowl. Teams don't want their players to risk injury in a meaningless exhibition, and fans don't want to watch a farce of a game. This is the best I can come up with:

Make the game essentially a competitive 7-on-7 drill. Since a 7-on-7 drill doesn't have linemen, have one quarter where the OL and DL have to play all the positions except QB.

That is quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever heard! I'd rather the NFL do a draft lottery like the NBA and NHL do, with the 18 teams that failed to make the playoffs participating in it.

[1995hoo]

But what's the motivation for the players to go out there and play a game for third place?  This isn't a youth basketball tournament.

Agreed. I don't understand why the Europeans are so obsessed with determining third place, either–for example, the World Cup and other major soccer tournaments usually include a third place game. Why? Who cares? I get it at the Olympics where they award a bronze medal, but otherwise it seems like overkill. The NCAA basketball tournament used to have a third-place game but discontinued it in the early 1980s.

I think the NFL's motivation for the Playoff Bowl in the 1960s was TV money–it gave them another postseason TV game in a time when there weren't many games televised. That's obviously moot nowadays!

On the subject of the Pro Bowl, I saw the idea floating around that the Pro Bowl should be replaced with a game between the two teams with the worst records, with the winner getting the #1 overall pick.

I actually like that idea, and to take it a step further... how about after 16 games, the bottom four teams play each other in the season finale, with the two winners advancing to the #1 pick bowl?

This past year we would have had:
(29) Jets (or Giants? depending on tiebreaker) vs. (32) Jaguars
(30) Texans vs. (31) Lions

Of course, it would be a little tricky to figure out what to do with those team's original opponents. Presumably they would play each other, so in this case that would have been Bills vs. Packers and Colts vs. Titans. Not sure the league would ever go for that, but I think it would help disincentive tanking because you'd have to be good enough to win two games to clinch the #1 pick.

NFL teams spend weeks preparing for opponents. You're not going to get them to buy into any sort of variable scheduling at the end of the season.

The two worst teams facing off for the #1 pick is intriguing, but you're not going to get those teams to hang around until Pro Bowl weekend to do it. If you're going to do it, it would have to be a Thursday night game between the Wild Card and Divisional weekends.

I don't think there's a good solution for the Pro Bowl. Teams don't want their players to risk injury in a meaningless exhibition, and fans don't want to watch a farce of a game. This is the best I can come up with:

Make the game essentially a competitive 7-on-7 drill. Since a 7-on-7 drill doesn't have linemen, have one quarter where the OL and DL have to play all the positions except QB.

That is quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever heard! I'd rather the NFL do a draft lottery like the NBA and NHL do, with the 18 teams that failed to make the playoffs participating in it.

I don't think it's the stupidest. The stupidest sports idea I ever heard was one that really happened: For a couple of years, the KHL staged the Nadezhda Cup, a sort of playoff tournament involving all the teams that didn't qualify for the Gagarin Cup Playoffs. In North American terms, the equivalent would be the NHL staging a playoff tournament involving the sixteen teams that don't qualify for the Stanley Cup Playoffs, but you could extrapolate that to any of our other sports.

[NWI_Irish96]

But what's the motivation for the players to go out there and play a game for third place?  This isn't a youth basketball tournament.

Agreed. I don't understand why the Europeans are so obsessed with determining third place, either–for example, the World Cup and other major soccer tournaments usually include a third place game. Why? Who cares? I get it at the Olympics where they award a bronze medal, but otherwise it seems like overkill. The NCAA basketball tournament used to have a third-place game but discontinued it in the early 1980s.

I think the NFL's motivation for the Playoff Bowl in the 1960s was TV money–it gave them another postseason TV game in a time when there weren't many games televised. That's obviously moot nowadays!

On the subject of the Pro Bowl, I saw the idea floating around that the Pro Bowl should be replaced with a game between the two teams with the worst records, with the winner getting the #1 overall pick.

I actually like that idea, and to take it a step further... how about after 16 games, the bottom four teams play each other in the season finale, with the two winners advancing to the #1 pick bowl?

This past year we would have had:
(29) Jets (or Giants? depending on tiebreaker) vs. (32) Jaguars
(30) Texans vs. (31) Lions

Of course, it would be a little tricky to figure out what to do with those team's original opponents. Presumably they would play each other, so in this case that would have been Bills vs. Packers and Colts vs. Titans. Not sure the league would ever go for that, but I think it would help disincentive tanking because you'd have to be good enough to win two games to clinch the #1 pick.

NFL teams spend weeks preparing for opponents. You're not going to get them to buy into any sort of variable scheduling at the end of the season.

The two worst teams facing off for the #1 pick is intriguing, but you're not going to get those teams to hang around until Pro Bowl weekend to do it. If you're going to do it, it would have to be a Thursday night game between the Wild Card and Divisional weekends.

I don't think there's a good solution for the Pro Bowl. Teams don't want their players to risk injury in a meaningless exhibition, and fans don't want to watch a farce of a game. This is the best I can come up with:

Make the game essentially a competitive 7-on-7 drill. Since a 7-on-7 drill doesn't have linemen, have one quarter where the OL and DL have to play all the positions except QB.

That is quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever heard! I'd rather the NFL do a draft lottery like the NBA and NHL do, with the 18 teams that failed to make the playoffs participating in it.

I don't think it's the stupidest. The stupidest sports idea I ever heard was one that really happened: For a couple of years, the KHL staged the Nadezhda Cup, a sort of playoff tournament involving all the teams that didn't qualify for the Gagarin Cup Playoffs. In North American terms, the equivalent would be the NHL staging a playoff tournament involving the sixteen teams that don't qualify for the Stanley Cup Playoffs, but you could extrapolate that to any of our other sports.

World Cup also awards a bronze medal. Just doesn't get the same publicity as Olympic medals.

[hotdogPi]

On the subject of the Pro Bowl, I saw the idea floating around that the Pro Bowl should be replaced with a game between the two teams with the worst records, with the winner getting the #1 overall pick.

I actually like that idea, and to take it a step further... how about after 16 games, the bottom four teams play each other in the season finale, with the two winners advancing to the #1 pick bowl?

This past year we would have had:
(29) Jets (or Giants? depending on tiebreaker) vs. (32) Jaguars
(30) Texans vs. (31) Lions

Of course, it would be a little tricky to figure out what to do with those team's original opponents. Presumably they would play each other, so in this case that would have been Bills vs. Packers and Colts vs. Titans. Not sure the league would ever go for that, but I think it would help disincentive tanking because you'd have to be good enough to win two games to clinch the #1 pick.

So for the "Tank Bowl", what commercials do we get?

• Car commercials by companies that also made tanks during wartime
• Army recruitment
• Products advertised on Shark Tank
• Pet stores, water filters, anything for fish tanks

[thspfc]

On the subject of the Pro Bowl, I saw the idea floating around that the Pro Bowl should be replaced with a game between the two teams with the worst records, with the winner getting the #1 overall pick.

I actually like that idea, and to take it a step further... how about after 16 games, the bottom four teams play each other in the season finale, with the two winners advancing to the #1 pick bowl?

This past year we would have had:
(29) Jets (or Giants? depending on tiebreaker) vs. (32) Jaguars
(30) Texans vs. (31) Lions

Of course, it would be a little tricky to figure out what to do with those team's original opponents. Presumably they would play each other, so in this case that would have been Bills vs. Packers and Colts vs. Titans. Not sure the league would ever go for that, but I think it would help disincentive tanking because you'd have to be good enough to win two games to clinch the #1 pick.

Nope

[jeffandnicole]

On the subject of the Pro Bowl, I saw the idea floating around that the Pro Bowl should be replaced with a game between the two teams with the worst records, with the winner getting the #1 overall pick.

I actually like that idea, and to take it a step further... how about after 16 games, the bottom four teams play each other in the season finale, with the two winners advancing to the #1 pick bowl?

This past year we would have had:
(29) Jets (or Giants? depending on tiebreaker) vs. (32) Jaguars
(30) Texans vs. (31) Lions

Of course, it would be a little tricky to figure out what to do with those team's original opponents. Presumably they would play each other, so in this case that would have been Bills vs. Packers and Colts vs. Titans. Not sure the league would ever go for that, but I think it would help disincentive tanking because you'd have to be good enough to win two games to clinch the #1 pick.

NFL teams spend weeks preparing for opponents. You're not going to get them to buy into any sort of variable scheduling at the end of the season.

The two worst teams facing off for the #1 pick is intriguing, but you're not going to get those teams to hang around until Pro Bowl weekend to do it. If you're going to do it, it would have to be a Thursday night game between the Wild Card and Divisional weekends.

I don't think there's a good solution for the Pro Bowl. Teams don't want their players to risk injury in a meaningless exhibition, and fans don't want to watch a farce of a game. This is the best I can come up with:

Make the game essentially a competitive 7-on-7 drill. Since a 7-on-7 drill doesn't have linemen, have one quarter where the OL and DL have to play all the positions except QB.

That is quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever heard! I'd rather the NFL do a draft lottery like the NBA and NHL do, with the 18 teams that failed to make the playoffs participating in it.

There's not a whole lot of difference between the 1st and 2nd pick, and unless both teams desire the same position, they aren't going to really care their draft order. Any team can trade for one of these spots. And what motivation would many of the players have for their ownership and management to get a better draft pick, who will probably be paid more than most of the players on the field,  some of whom won't even have a spot on the team the next year?

[1995hoo]

^^^^

The teams who picked first and second in 2012 might think there was some difference, at least in retrospect anyway.

[NWI_Irish96]

^^^^

The teams who picked first and second in 2012 might think there was some difference, at least in retrospect anyway.

Maybe 1998 also.

[Big John]

If the team picking 2nd wanted to move up to 1st, they would still have to pay a hefty price.  Same as 3rd into 2nd, see Trubisky.

[jeffandnicole]

^^^^

The teams who picked first and second in 2012 might think there was some difference, at least in retrospect anyway.

Maybe 1998 also.

Well, maybe it was the team more than the player. But the fact that we need to look back 9 years...then 30+ years, shows that the difference may not truly matter all that much.

The chances of getting a great pick down low, like Tom Brady, is more likely to happen than getting a star at number 1.