BarleyNY

Couldn't agree more. Total dirtbag. Ditto Lane Kiffin. I'll add: Nick Saban, Rich Rodriquez, John Cooper, Butch Davis and Todd Graham. Joe Paterno has a special place on that list too. Oh yeah, I can't stand Tomlin either but I don't put him with that group.

Apparently he prefers Tennessee, but the Titians want Horton to stay. That's the holdup. Horton wants to go to Cleveland (or at least he did), but is still under contract in TEN and they're working on a new deal to get him to stay. The Titians will get Horton or Schwartz. Cleveland will get Horton if Tennessee gets Schwartz or CLE MIGHT get Schwartz if TEN keeps Horton.

Maybe he's in the running for a HC job and isn't accepting a DC offer until that job is filled? That would make sense. I don't know anything about him personally.

From what I've been hearing Schwartz has been getting a lot of interest as a DC and is mulling over several offers. Or did you mean as a HC? Once the first domino falls a bunch of things should start falling into place quickly, including Schwartz, Ray Horton, Mularkey, and others. I suspect that the Titians HC position might be that first domino, but I'm not sure. That hasn't been made clear.

The Bills had the most penalties and the most penalty yards in the league in 2015. How is calling them undisciplined unfair?

Exactly. Well said.

NE. They're limping into the playoffs, can't protect Brady and have to deal with a very good KC team that's playing lights out and cruising right now. Honestly, the only advantage NE has is at QB.

The incredible premiums paid by ESPN aren't sustainable though. The model was put into practice how you stated, but it isn't working. Disney's (ESPN's parent company) stock plummeted from 120 to 95 last year due primarily to those kinds of deals by ESPN. It's also why there have been so many cost cutting moves made by ESPN of late. They spent crazy to corner the market on a lot of sports, but didn't realize that the non-sports watchers would cut the cable and stop subsidizing the sports enthusiasts. It is a huge issue with ESPN right now and there isn't a clear way out. They've locked themselves in with the cable/dish companies and really can't go a la carte.

I didn't even address the politics or offers and counter-offers of the situation. There's no way St. Louis (or San Diego) can compete with stadium revenue in LA. None. The money in LA to buy luxury suites, local advertising/sponsorship, etc. is worlds apart. That argument concerns why those owners want to move to LA, not why the NFL wants teams there. I was primarily addressing the latter as the former seemed pretty obvious. And I thought I covered that with my teams-belong-to-their-owners-not-their-host-cities bit. It sucks (and as a native Clevelander I know it all too well), but it's reality.

Advertising dollars during football games and programs really are the basis for the network contracts. That's what pays for virtually all of the contract. Feel free to tell me what else is paying for it and how that works if you honestly think it's something else. As for waiting 20 years, how about this? 20 years ago the NFL was vastly different in many ways, including revenue sources. TV revenue didn't factor into the equation nearly as much and has only exploded in recent years. Thus we have the push for the lucrative LA market now, when finances are driving it.

You don't think their eyes are on that next contract with this move? I sure do. It can be argued that this won't have much of an impact on viewership - and I allowed for that - but I expect that it will. it might not be immediate, but I bet you'll see it before that next TV contract gets negotiated. Die hard fans will still root for their old team, but they'll probably root for an LA team (that's on local TV) too. Casual fans will put eyes on the new games as well - especially if one of those teams is winning. It sure doesn't hurt to hedge on that winning thing with two teams either. Done expect Bills-level loyalty either. How many more Clippers fans appeared when they got better than the Lakers?

Some networks pay a premium beyond what advertising brings in in order to pimp their other shows and gain the prestige that comes with carrying NFL games. It's often a loss on the NFL games, but is made up elsewhere due to viewership of other shows, etc. The contract is still based on advertising revenue though.

Apparently Jackson from Cleveland has also asked Schwartz to be the DC for the Browns. The man has a lot of options from what I hear. I bet he gets paid very large.

That's a bit different than a team moving BACK to the city that was its home for almost 50 years. It'd be like if the Ravens never existed and the Colts moved back to Baltimore. Obviously there is a big financial incentive for the Rams, too. Everyone should remember that just because a team uses the name of the city in which it resides doesn't mean it's that city's team. It's not - it's the owner's team. It's only in that city because it's their best financial option. Green Bay excepted, of course. The Rams are moving for financial reasons (what's specious about that?), but I'm having a difficult time getting worked up over St. Louis losing the team that they took from LA to the city they took them from, LA.

The TV contracts are driven by advertising dollars which are driven by eyeballs watching. If LA teams drive that up (which is a big question), then TV revenue will rise. And we all know that TV revenue is what drives the NFL. So I'd say that the question of whether or not these moves increase revenue is yet to be answered. There was a team in LA twenty years ago and it was the Rams. (Okay, they moved in '94.) They were there for almost fifty years. I didn't see many care when the Rams bailed LA for St. Louis. Now that they're moving back (as in getting the team that they lost back) everybody is outraged. Why? Because LA is easy to hate?

Agreed. Heard that Kelly's offense never progressed to a complexity required in the NFL. Too often defenses knew what was coming. Yeah, it really should be. I bet RG3 is his guy. Word was that he was ready to jump at him if Washington released him last year.

Totally agree. My first thought after reading the OP was "Oh, yeah! That's EXACTLY what this team needs."* (*Note the sarcasm.) Seriously, how determined are some of you to head off any hope of success?

Man I was praying this was a joke thread. Tebow is not an NFL QB.

A little history on the Rams: 1936-1945: Cleveland Rams 1946-1994: Los Angeles Rams 1995-2015: St. Louis Rams 2016-?: Los Angeles Rams I feel for the fans in St. Louis, but it was really Los Angeles's team to begin with. I don't really consider them Cleveland's team because they left when the Browns began because they didn't think they could compete. Plus they were in LA almost 50 years.

And that stadium is as close to Oakland as it is to San Francisco. Plus then nobody would have to go into Oakland to see a game.

Little was horrible at catching the ball, as noted. However, in Cleveland at least, he didn't work at his craft like he should have. That showed in his route running too. It's very much an outside chance, but maybe things can click for him if he does. And he is an outstanding blocker for whatever that's worth.

The way that I look at this is that So. Cal. is gaining one NFL team, which makes sense. The Chargers are moving because they're going to lose a huge portion of their market to the new LA team if they don't. Incidentally, St. Louis is a baseball town through and through. I'll be sad for their football fans if they relocate though. That sucks.

Absolutely nothing will get me excited for next season until next season. I will need to see some positive strides on the field in real games to get excited. But some quality improvements/additions in the QB corps would sure help.

Every month or so....

Well, yeah. But there's a circus coming with RG3 wherever he goes. Teams have to weigh that distraction against what he might bring. If he's been humbled by what's transpired in Washington then he could have some real upside. If not, then he's not going to help anyone.