I wouldn't want his lazy ass teaching my young players anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Printable View
I wouldn't want his lazy ass teaching my young players anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
^ Heh, Fair enough I am not exactly pleased with his signing myself.
It gets better. Coach Carrol says he is a "big" guy and can play over the weight he played at last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMan
Seahawks coach Pete Carroll on Tuesday said Lacy, who was listed at 235 pounds last season and whose weight was an issue with the Packers in 2015, is rehabbing from the ankle injury and the Seahawks want his weight in the 240s.
"He's a big back. He's a big guy. Ain't nothing wrong with that," Carroll told The John Clayton Show on 710 ESPN Seattle. "But there will be a real concerted effort to make sure he's at his very best. This is a hard time for him because he's working some rehab right now, but he is well-aware of what our expectations and the standards that we're setting. We would not have done this if we didn't have a really clear understanding of how we're going to go forward.
Translation: He's even more morbidly obese than beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by aging one
Hey look Pete has his reasons for doing what he is doing. I may not be completely sure what it is but these guys don't make to many bad moves. So have to wait and see...
OT T.J. Lang visited the Seahawks but eventually went on to sign a 3 year deal with the Lions, near his hometown.
I don't know if they could not agree or Lang felt Detroit was a better fit or deal.
I think Lacey is better than taking a chance on AP.
I don't know man, A.P. is old and could be washed up, but is also a proven hard worker with an insane resume who knows how to take care of his body and could teach the younger players on the team all kinds of stuff.
Eddie Lacy, on the other hand, is.....Eddie Lacy.
I hear your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by redhaze
To me, it's about on field.
Yes, younger players need mentoring and teaching, and a good coaching staff should be a part of that also. I have doubts about AP in the field.
And Lacey too, but prefer to chance with Lacey.
I just read the article where Pete said he wanted Lacey at 240 lbs.
PC says things like this. Although I doubt his sincerity at times.
It would appear Oakland have traded the Raiders to Sin City.
Raiders move to Las Vegas approved 31-1
Harry stick to what you know something about. Trying to hard makes you seem a bit like Chico when it comes to using the old noggin.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Dont forget its the quality of the post not the quantity.:)
If he did that he wouldn't be able to post about anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by aging one
Still not sure why Oakland and San Fran could not share a stadium. It works in New York, the LA teams are gonna do it .. but the Bay area can't pull it off?
Sorry, did I get it wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by aging one
Are the Raiders staying in Oakland?
Or are you just a pedantic, curmudgeonly twat?
:)
100% agree. They haven't even tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMan
Oakland to LA back to Oakland now off to Vegas. Kunts. :)
"In a statement after the 31-1 vote, Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross indicated he didn't feel the Raiders had met the relocation criteria by doing all they could to find a workable solution to stay in the Bay Area.
“My position today was that we as owners and as a league owe it to the fans to do everything we can to stay in the communities that have supported us until all options have been exhausted,”
Good on ya. I agree.
The Niners moved 45 miles or about 70kilometers south of SF to Santa Clara the very end of the bay area. They built the state of art Levi stadium. Well it turns out the stadium is not very nice at all and has little to no parking at $50. This has only made the situation worse with the losing Niners and the York family. From Oakland it would be even further. Mark is an idiot, I went to uni with him.:)
Draymond Green of the Warriors got in a few choice words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo2E3HZK9Og
He's right on the money. Oakland fans should boycot the kunts.Quote:
Originally Posted by aging one
He's not wrong.
At the same time, San Fran/Oakland is a pretty small area in the grand scheme of thing to have two NFL franchises. I like the idea of Las Vegas having their own team. Even though its kind of weird that its the Raiders. One could argue that a team with such a loyal fanbase is precisely the type of team that could withstand a transition from one city to another though. They've got fans across the country, and those fans will likely stay loyal to the team. Not as if it hasn't happened before. We shall see...
Population of the Bay Area about 7 million. Vegas 650 thousand. Fan base probably split 50/50 between 49ers and Raiders. Reckon Raider owner must see profitable reason to move but it escapes me.Quote:
Originally Posted by redhaze
I get that. I'm sure tourists coming in to see the games must be a big part of the plan.
Must be. Money definately involved somewhere. Always is in todays sport scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by redhaze
I find the criticisms I've read of the stadium to be silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by aging one
First one is, its too sunny and hot. Climate is variable of course, but Santa Clara during football season (regular season) will have great weather 80+% of the time. I agree that the September games have more than a remote chance of being darn hot. But since the majority of the league still plays in outdoor stadiums (my rough count says 23 out of 31), this is true of most everywhere.
Second one is its a long drive ... To build a new stadium, you need 10-15 acres of land ... chunks of land this size are not often just sitting around available in central locations. I've heard some jokes that the team should be renamed the San Jose 49ers (note, San Jose has a bigger population than San Fran). That said, the Bay Area has some of the best commuter train infrastructure in the USA. Trains run from San Fran to the stadium and it takes about an hour. They do special runs for the games. By the standards of big city California, an hour to get to a big event isn't too bad.
A lot of this isn't really about the stadium, but more about the fact the team is bad.
Nevada politicians being stupid could be part of it. They are paying a big share of the stadium build cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
They are paying their share ($750 million) through a hotel tax, and I don't see the hotels complaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMan
They anticipate an extra 450,000 visitors spending over $600 million year.
And they think (probably correctly) that the hotels will buy boxes and season tickets to encourage the big gamblers.
I think it's win-win.
Most NFL team revenue comes from TV money and merchandise anyway (and if there's one thing Vegas can do, it's sell shit).
I would think they'd prefer Monday Night games though, maybe give all those other weekenders an excuse to stay an extra night and do something they may never be able to do where they live - and drop a little more at the tables while they're at it.
Vegas may only have a small population but it gets 40 million visitors a year.
The Raiders' greedy move to Vegas makes sense now but will end up a disaster | FOX SportsQuote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
I'm an agreement with the below thinking.
Quote:
I’m skeptical Vegas will adopt the team like Oakland had. I’m more skeptical the team will be able to draw. Sundays are work days in Vegas. Do they expect tourists to fill the $1.9 billion stadium? The city has spent billions over the last few decades to become a self-sustaining destination, the kind of place where any group of people can come to town and only see two places: McCarran Airport and The Strip. Unless you’re trying to squeeze in a round of golf, who needs to go anywhere else, especially a football game that’ll be the same as you could see in 29 other cities. Blowing savings funds by splitting 10s is what stays in Vegas, not $9.50 nachos and upper-deck seats.
NFL games aren’t like Cirque de Soleil — they don’t attract the gawking masses, only the gawking masses in team colors. I mean, would anyone ever put an NFL stadium next to Disney World? So why Vegas?
That doesn't ring true for a number of reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMan
There are 300+ cities in the US with a population of 100,000 or more, which means 270 that don't have an NFL franchise.
All those visitors to Vegas that never get to see an NFL game may well want to go to one while they're there.
And they will be there for adult entertainment anyway, not mickey mouse rides, so what the fuck does Disneyland have to do with it?
People don't just go to Vegas to gamble, there are the residencies, shows, UFC, boxing, people go there for stag and hen weekends, and so on.
I don't think anyone bothers with the Strip any more except the gamblers; it's lost it's character. It's basically high end shopping malls between casino floors.
You have more fun getting pissed down at Fremont street to be honest.
Plus I think a lot of the former LA fans will probably drive up for the games, so it will get a core crowd, so it's not like you need to sell 60,000 seats all to tourists.
Plus I can see Cirque du Soleil and so on doing the half time entertainment; as I said, Vegas knows how to sell.
I suspect that's a big part of the reasoning: It's a great opportunity to promote Vegas. Enormous amount of free advertising every time there's a game on.
So it's basically another attraction for Vegas holidaymakers, and at the same time a great way for Vegas to promote itself.
I still say win-win.
There are very few NFL fans. There are a huge number of people who are fans of a specific NFL team. Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
The two sports events you mentioned aren't city-connected team sports. A fight fan is a fight fan, there's little geographic about it for the most part. Not seeing many lifelong Vikings fans vacationing in Vegas, and ponying up big dollars to see the Raiders play the Cardinals, just for something to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Now I will say if your team is playing a road game in Vegas, it might entice some to want do a 2-for-1 visit to the area (see the game, have Vegas fun). But how many people do that now? Not a lot. Miami for example is a great place to be in late November and December, but its still overwhelmingly Dolphin fans in the seats even when teams like Baltimore, Indianapolis and New England visit. Ditto the former San Diego team, their seats on the secondary market were relatively cheap. Part of the reason is how much it costs, when you add up airfare, tickets, rental car, hotel rooms, etc.
I believe you have to see a way to fill at least 90% of your seats with people who are avid fans of your team. Fans need to be fanatical in order to spend as the NFL wants them to.
Over 60000 rooms in the strip hotels. Outside the middle of summer the rooms are 90% full. The Strip is at least as much of a party place, as it is a gambling place, these days. Now, it might be a lot of gangsta wannabes and white trash, but its far from empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Its a world famous attraction containing lots to do, just like Vegas. Whereas an NFL game is a very specific thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
I'll repeat, I believe you still have to see a way to fill at least 90% of your seats with people who are avid fans of your team. The way it works in my opinion is if it somehow becomes like Green Bay, where the core stadium fan base is an entire state and parts of a couple of neighboring states within driving distance. Where the stadium has been successfully marketed as if its a shrine (though this is only in the past 20 years - before the mid 90s Lambeau Field was a dump). Success is possible, there is something about the Raiders that gets certain fans fired up.