quote:

---

Originally posted by salmonjunkie
The Chargers may be 4-1 but, I think we're the worst 4-1 team in the league right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gobbledygooker
And the Panthers are the best 1-4 team in the league right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrJustinB
Something about Chicago's loss to the Lions had me feeling sick to my stomach. Ugh...this is going to be a long season.

---

quote:

---

SAN FRANCISCO � Jed York sat in a modest conference room inside the owner�s suite at Candlestick Park on Sunday afternoon, a strain of sadness in his voice and a silver-and-black tie hanging from his neck.

In another hour the 49ers� president and CEO would watch the team his family owns steamroll the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 48-3 at one of the NFL�s most dilapidated stadiums. At that moment, however, York�s thoughts were with the rival franchise across the Bay.

�Al Davis helped broker the deal for my grandfather [Ed DeBartolo Sr.] to buy the 49ers, and he was very good to our family,� York said of the Oakland Raiders� iconic owner, who died Saturday at the age of 82. �This is a very sad day for sports, and it�s a sad day for the 49ers, too.�

Yet for all the emotion associated with the loss of one of football�s legendary figures, and the sentiment triggered by the Raiders� stirring 25-20 victory over the Texans in Houston on Sunday, the practical impact of Davis� passing could be equally significant.

The apparent handing down of the franchise�s controlling interest from Davis to his son, Mark, may well cause a seismic shift in the NFL�s stadium construction and franchise relocation landscapes, with implications likely to reverberate across the facility-challenged state of California.

As the NFL closes in on a potential return to the Los Angeles market, which has been vacant since the Raiders returned to Oakland and the Rams moved to St. Louis in 1995, there are numerous questions in the wake of Davis� death:

Will the Raiders now be more receptive to cutting a deal with the 49ers that would establish the two franchises as co-tenants in a newly constructed Bay Area stadium, likely at the Santa Clara site where York has already received voter approval to proceed?

Will the Raiders be wooed back to L.A. as a tenant by one of two competing groups attempting to build stadiums in the region?

Will another franchise contemplating relocation � most likely the San Diego Chargers, but possibly the Minnesota Vikings, Jacksonville Jaguars, St. Louis Rams or Buffalo Bills � feel a renewed sense of urgency to strike a deal in Los Angeles now that the Raiders are theoretically in play?

Will Mark Davis entertain offers to sell the team that was inextricably linked to his father for nearly five decades?

Can Southern California sustain three teams � two in Los Angeles and one in San Diego? Conversely, might the 49ers have Northern California to themselves when the dust settles?

�There�s so much uncertainty, and this definitely changes the game,� one NFL owner said Sunday. �As far as L.A., now the race is on, and the Raiders returning just became a lot more viable.�

Two other NFL owners said they believed the league would be receptive to a potential Raiders relocation south, given California�s stadium construction challenges and the attendance issues the team has experienced since returning to Oakland in 1995 following a 13-year stint at the Los Angeles Coliseum.

The groundwork for such a move may already be in the works. Six months ago, Al Davis sat down with officials from AEG � including the company�s chairman, multi-billionaire developer Phil Anschutz � to discuss the possibility of the Raiders playing in a proposed downtown Los Angeles stadium, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. However, Davis balked at Anschutz�s insistence on owning a sizeable share of the franchise, and the talks went nowhere.

It�s unknown whether Davis conducted similar discussions with developer Ed Roski, who is spearheading a competing stadium project on 600 acres of land he owns in the City of Industry, about 20 miles east of the proposed AEG site. While it is believed that the NFL would prefer the economics and location of the AEG plan � the three owners interviewed on Sunday each viewed the downtown option as the more favorable of the two � Y! Sports� Jason Cole reported last Friday that the league has legitimate concerns about Anschutz�s proposal.

The Raiders� situation is further complicated by the existence of numerous minority partners in the ownership group, including a group of East Coast businessmen who collectively purchased a 20-percent share in the team in 2007. However, sources indicate that those relatively new partners did not have an option to buy a controlling interest upon Davis� death, meaning Mark Davis likely controls the franchise�s immediate direction.

In an interview Sunday night, Raiders CEO Amy Trask, confirming comments she had made the previous night to the San Francisco Chronicle, told Y! Sports that �the team is not for sale. It will remain in the Davis family.�

Technically, Al Davis� interest in the franchise will be passed to his wife, Carol, meaning that by law Mark can run the franchise without having to pay estate taxes. Upon his mother�s death, Mark would face a potentially hefty tax bill; however, an organizational source said that Al Davis anticipated this issue and put a plan in place that should allow the team to stay in the family under that circumstance.

In the meantime, Trask is likely to remain in place as CEO, and resolving the stadium situation will be perhaps her biggest challenge. If the team prefers to stay in Northern California, several sources say, the Raiders will likely be receptive to sharing a stadium with the 49ers. While the Raiders have explored the possibility of building a new facility on or adjacent to the current O.co Coliseum site in Oakland, there�s a far greater chance that the Santa Clara stadium effort, which York has spearheaded for several years, would be revised to include both teams as tenants.

�The deal that the voters approved allows for a two-team stadium in Santa Clara,� York said Sunday. �We�re moving forward, and that option exists if the Raiders are interested.�

Said Trask: �We have a tremendous relationship with the 49er organization, and we enjoy working with the 49ers on a variety of business matters. We have an open mind about the possibility of sharing a stadium and we keep the 49ers abreast of our stadium-related efforts, just as the 49ers keep us abreast of theirs.�

Because the 49ers are at a relatively advanced point in their stadium efforts � according to an organizational source, they have already sold approximately a quarter of the available luxury suites � it�s likely that they would propose a deal granting them primary ownership of the facility, with the Raiders signing a short-term lease that could later be extended if the arrangement proved to be mutually beneficial. The Raiders, in turn, would assume less of the financial risk and would be under less pressure to charge premium ticket prices.

However, the Raiders also have significant support in Southern California, and some owners believe that it makes more sense to have only one franchise in the Bay Area, something which could best be accomplished by the Raiders� moving from Oakland to Los Angeles.

�With Al alive, I don�t think they ever could�ve gotten the votes to move back to L.A.,� one owner said. �It�s not just because Al wouldn�t have given up control and was difficult to deal with; it�s because it�s too important a market, and Al only cared about the football side. We need someone there who cares about the business side, too. Now, all of a sudden, the landscape has changed. The Raiders are a very viable option.�

To this point, the franchise considered most likely to relocate to L.A. has been the Chargers, whose decade-long efforts to land a new stadium in the San Diego area have thus far been fruitless. Like the Raiders, the Chargers could get out of their current lease (at Qualcomm Stadium) with relative ease, and they would also have a strong fan base in the area given their relative proximity to Los Angeles.

Sources say Chargers chairman Dean Spanos has had numerous conversations with AEG but that the two sides are far apart on two significant issues: Spanos is dead-set against surrendering a controlling interest to Anschutz, and a potential sale of a minority interest (somewhere in the 30 percent range) is complicated by divergent interpretations of the franchise�s value. Whereas Anschutz believes he should be able to purchase his share at a reduced rate as a consideration for the large amount of capital he�d put up for stadium construction, Spanos insists that the franchise value should be pegged to the team�s projected worth upon the facility�s completion, which would be significantly higher.

With no end to the stare down in sight, it�s unclear whether either side will blink. The Chargers might now fear being beaten to L.A. by the Raiders in the wake of Davis� death, a development that would leave them in a tough situation. Though the league ultimately believes L.A. is a two-team market, the preferred model allows for one NFC team and one AFC team, complicating a potential scenario in which the Raiders and Chargers both attempt to move there.

Said one source familiar with AEG�s stance, �[The Chargers] have all the opportunity in the world, unless someone beats them there, and then they have nothing. They could go from being the team with the most upside to the team that�s completely screwed.�

Then again, AEG could also be left on the outside if Spanos or another owner were to sidestep AEG and make a deal with Roski. One potential advantage of Roski�s plan is that unlike Anschutz, he is not believed to be seeking ownership interest in whatever team or teams are persuaded to move to Los Angeles.

Other franchises that are believed to be in play for L.A. are the Vikings, who have thus far failed in their efforts to land a new stadium in Minneapolis; the Rams, who have an out clause in their lease at the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis; and the Jaguars, who have struggled to draw fans in the Jacksonville market and whose owner, Wayne Weaver, has discussed selling the team with several potential buyers over the past few years.

The Bills will likely be sold upon the passing of 92-year-old owner Ralph Wilson, but numerous owners prefer that a buyer would choose to relocate the franchise to nearby Toronto, the fourth-largest market in North America. A move to L.A. is viewed as a secondary option.

The bottom line is that a great deal of uncertainty remains as to what the NFL�s short- and long-term future in California holds, and right now the Raiders, as they adjust to the end of Al Davis� long reign, have some decisions to make which will impact that landscape in numerous ways.

�Mark Davis is going to have a lot of interest from potential buyers,� one NFL owner said. �Some very rich people are going to come at him with an eye on L.A., and it will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Until we see what happens with the Raiders, it�s hard to predict how this will all shake out.�

On Sunday, amid all the uncertainty, the Bay Area enjoyed a bittersweet yet fulfilling afternoon of NFL action. In San Francisco, York joined 69,732 fans at Candlestick in a pregame moment of silence to honor Davis, then watched the Niners roll to their most decisive victory in 24 years and improve to 4-1, marking their best start since 2002.

A few hours later the Raiders landed in Oakland and arrived in the parking lot of their training facility in nearby Alameda to find a crowd of approximately 500 appreciative fans awaiting them. Trask joined coaches and players in a spontaneous, half-hour-long grieving session that featured hugs, heartfelt remembrances of the franchise�s late standard-bearer and a whole lot of tears.

�There were families with children and babies that probably should have been asleep,� Trask said. �There wasn�t a beer or cigarette to be found, just love and respect and a whole lot of emotion.�

For the Raiders � on this night, at least � it felt very much like home.

---

quote:

---

Despite significant political momentum throughout California for a downtown Los Angeles stadium that would house an NFL team, the league had a recent message for people involved with the project:

Right now, no thanks.

During a Sept. 6 meeting at the NFL offices in New York, commissioner Roger Goodell told Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry and political aide Bernard Parks, Jr. that neither the league nor any team interested in moving there would agree to the business proposal set forth by Anschutz Entertainment Group, according to three sources with knowledge of the conversation. AEG is the private company that has offered to build and operate a retractable-roof stadium, which would be named Farmers Field, on the site that is currently part of the Los Angeles Convention Center.

While one source said that Goodell was optimistic about many parts of the proposal, it was clear that significant changes must occur before the league would be interested.

�He was very complimentary of a lot of the project, so it wasn�t all negative,� a second source said. �But he laid out the problems the league sees.�

Both Perry, who is the chair of the city�s committee on the proposed stadium, and Parks, the chief of staff for his father and L.A. Councilman Bernard Parks, Sr., confirmed that they met with Goodell last month. Neither of them would discuss what Goodell said about the proposal from AEG.

�I wouldn�t want to share the details of the conversation,� Perry said Wednesday. �We had a good, get-acquainted session and I discussed with him the MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] we had passed in the city.�

�It was mostly about updating the league of the situation within the city and everything concerning the project to that point,� said Parks, whose father worked for almost five years to get the NFL to return to the Los Angeles Coliseum and now supports the project at the nearby convention center.

An NFL official acknowledged the meeting occurred, but declined to discuss the specifics.

AEG spokesman Michael Roth also declined to comment about the meeting between Goodell, Perry and Parks. The company also declined to have a financial officer discuss further specifics about the deal. Roth, however, did say AEG is still committed to paying in the area of $1.3 billion for construction of the new stadium, parking structures and other costs associated with the project. AEG has also made wide-ranging promises on covering other expenses related to the project, which will include expansion of the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Since last month�s meeting, the California legislature has passed SB 292, a measure subsequently signed by Gov. Jerry Brown that eases many of the legal burdens to getting the stadium done. The developments have been impressive, but the NFL and team officials have been focused on how the plan would work for a franchise that relocates to L.A.

�I give the politicians in California a lot of credit for what they�ve been able to do so far,� said an NFC team executive with extensive knowledge of the state and particularly Los Angeles. �What they�ve done is tee it up for the NFL and the private sector to get something done and that�s no small feat � but the hard work is still left to do. Making the numbers work is going to be really hard.�

Next Tuesday, the NFL will hold its annual fall meeting in Houston. Although Goodell has said several times in the past two years that getting a team in Los Angeles is a league priority, the owners are expected to spend little time talking about the downtown project or a competing proposal from Los Angeles developer Ed Roski. In fact, only about 30 minutes of the agenda is expected to be spent discussing new stadiums. There are roughly six stadium situations throughout the league to discuss and no one from Los Angeles will be there to officially talk to the owners.

One underlying question regarding the NFL�s stance on the downtown site is whether this is simply part of negotiations. Another question is whether the NFL has pushed the downtown idea completely aside in favor of Roski�s project in the City of Industry (that project has been renamed the Los Angeles Stadium at Grand Crossing).

�If Roski were to put together a favorable package, I think this thing could get done there pretty fast,� a league source said. Last Sunday, CBS NFL insider Charley Casserly hinted that Roski�s site could be pulling ahead.

�What�s interesting about that site is that it�s a 600-acre site which would be totally devoted to football,� Casserly said. �In other words, you�ll have plenty of room for the stadium, parking, entertainment, the �NFL experience.� Sounds like a Super Bowl site to me.�

Still, anyone who understands the emotional side of returning a team to Los Angeles knows the attachment to the downtown site over Roski�s, which is approximately 20 miles east of the AEG site. While that seems reasonably close, traditional Los Angelenos often look down their nose at places such as the City of Industry, as if they are little more than the butt of some old Johnny Carson joke.

That said, finances usually trump emotions, particularly as the NFL tries to decipher the economic realities and the billions of dollars at stake. Moreover, the change in demographics in Southern California over the past 20 years has made other sites more feasible.


What AEG is proposing is a landlord-tenant relationship it has successfully developed with the Los Angeles Lakers, Clippers and Kings. All of those teams play at the Staples Center, which is across the street from the proposed stadium. In essence, AEG sells the tickets, advertising and sponsorship deals for those teams, takes a cut and then pays the teams. The deal works well because none of the teams had the capital to build a Staples-style arena.

The NFL, however, is a different beast. Five NFL team executives have said over the past two months that what AEG is asking for is not acceptable for an NFL team.

�You�re talking about a team being disconnected from season ticketholders and rights holders,� another NFC team executive said. �There�s no team that will do that and I don�t think you can get approval from the rest of the owners for an arrangement like that.�

Moreover, there is a simpler issue: NFL teams don�t need to cut such deals to give part of the profit to another entity, let alone watch some of the money go to a third entity. As part of the MOU, Los Angeles would be paid a �market-value� lease by AEG for the property the stadium sits on. Perry noted that the lease, which runs for 55 years, includes �escalators.� In short, the city is also seeking to make money on the stadium.

�The NFL is in a position to demand what it wants, not take what it gets,� an AFC team executive said. �When you look at the analysis of the revenue that could be made, it looks great. You�re talking about some of the highest revenues in the league. The problem is that when you start to look at the expenses and how much has to be divided among all the competing interests, you have to wonder how much is going to be there for a team.�

That point is backed up by the independent analysis done by Conventions, Sports & Leisure, International (CSL). The report, which was commissioned by the city and was completed in July, points out that the debt service for building the structure could impact what the team ultimately makes.

�The projected combined net income from operations between the Stadium and the Team would equal more than $107 million in 2016 dollars. This would be among the highest in the NFL,� CSL wrote. �However, this does not take into account any debt service payments on the stadium, acquisition of the team or any relocation fee that would be required to move an existing franchise to Los Angeles.�

For instance, a �relocation fee� that would have to be paid to the other owners could be as much as $250 million, according to numerous sources. CSL mentioned that it could be as much as $500 million, but one source said that was too high.

�Understand that the league is motivated to get a team back there, not punish it for moving the way we used to,� the first NFC team executive said. �But there will be some fees and $250 million sounds about right � of course, you would probably ask the city or, in this case, AEG to pay that fee.�

Another potential problem is that cost overruns for the stadium could have a huge negative impact. CSL called the cost estimates for the stadium �conservative� and one high-end builder said this week that the estimates �are simply unrealistic.� The builder said the project could easily hit $2 billion, particularly once traffic and other environmental issues were solved.

While that is still AEG�s money to spend, the ripple effect is a concern to NFL teams.

�What kind of stadium are you really going to end up with and how does that impact the cash flow?� the builder said. �Unless somebody is building something out of the goodness of their heart � and that doesn�t happen a lot in these circumstances � then there�s going to be a lot of red ink at the end to deal with and that�s not good for anybody in this kind of project.�

Aside from decreasing how much a team can make year over year, there is the macro impact on the value of the team. That is perhaps the key component in the entire process, as the first NFC executive pointed out.

�The way the NFL is now economically, teams don�t move just to get a better deal,� the executive said. �It�s not just about whether you can make another $10 million a year because teams are already doing well. Teams don�t move for better deals anymore � if a team is going to move it�s because the value of the team is going to jump and jump significantly.�

In short, as the average team value has moved past $1 billion per year, teams such as the Jacksonville Jaguars, Buffalo Bills, Oakland Raiders and Minnesota Vikings are still looking for ways to improve value, if for no other reason than to improve resale value.

That second part leads to another issue that NFL owners have recoiled at: The effort by AEG to buy equity in a team at a perceived discounted price. Part of the deal AEG, which is owned by multi-billionaire Phil Anschutz, has proposed is that Anschutz gets to buy a part of a team that moves there. This is similar to what Roski had initially proposed in 2007 and 2008.

Like Roski�s initial concept (from which he has backed off), Anschutz has offered teams such as the San Diego Chargers roughly $250 million to buy approximately 50 percent of a team, two NFL sources said. In an earlier conversation, Roth confirmed that AEG is seeking to be a �minority� owner in whichever team moved to Los Angeles, but declined to discuss the specifics and took issue with the notion of the term �discounted.�

�I think that�s something to be decided between Mr. Anschutz and the owner of whatever team decides it wants to come to Los Angeles,� Roth said.

The gamble by Anschutz is that his $250 million investment could quickly be worth much more.

For instance, Jacksonville, often mentioned as a potential suitor for Los Angeles, is currently valued at $725 million, according to Forbes magazine. Off the top, Anschutz investment of $250 million would be worth $362.5 million if he bought part of the Jaguars. Once the team moved to Los Angeles, the belief by many is that it could be worth $1.3 billion or more. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who is a business partner of AEG, has said in the past that a Los Angeles franchise could be worth upwards of $2 billion.

If the franchise were worth merely $1.3 billion, Anschutz�s share would be worth nearly $650 million. That�s approaching triple the initial investment. If the team were to be worth what Jones estimates, $250 million quickly becomes worth $1 billion. That means that Anschutz�s investment in the stadium could be offset by the increase in his investment in the team.

Conversely, the NFL anticipates that Anschutz�s L.A. Live development, which includes the Staples Center, Nokia Theatre, a JW Marriott hotel, a Ritz Carlton condominium complex and numerous high-end restaurants and clubs in the area adjoining where the stadium would go, would increase exponentially.

�The question [Anschutz] has to ask himself is how much is he willing to invest for the payoff he�s going to get on L.A. Live,� the league executive said.

That makes it even less likely that some team owner would be willing to sell part of his team to Anschutz, or at least any significant portion. The problem is that those numbers don�t work for the NFL. It makes no sense for an owner to move to Los Angeles if it has to sell half the team at a discounted rate while the value of the team does not increase dramatically.

�If I were advising a team, I would be hard pressed to tell them to sell a significant portion of equity in their team,� said Marc Ganis, the president of SportsCorp, a sports consulting group. �With the collective bargaining agreement that was just signed and the certainty in cost that exist now, you�re really going to see team values increase drastically without having to do something like moving the team and taking that kind of risk.

�Unless you�re going to see the team immediately jump in value to $1.5, $1.6 or $1.7 billion, there�s no reason to go to Los Angeles. It�s very hard to envision that with the kind of deal that it sounds like is out there. Really, unless that�s the case [where the team value goes], if an owner really wants to go to Los Angeles, I would tell him � �

As Ganis paused, a reporter sarcastically said, �Buy a ticket.�

Ganis laughed.

�Sometimes the best advice is the obvious advice,� he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TommyD420
Is it that the Bears had 9 false start penalties, when it takes some teams several seasons to have 9?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by theflammablemanimal
Should his nickname be Choky Romo of Tony Choke-o?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TommyD420

Is it Former Patriots First-Round Bust Brandon Meriweather headhunting and generally looking lost on every play?

---

quote:

---

Is it that Jahvid Best, whose former career-best rushing performance was 76 yards, gashed the vaunted Bears Defense with nothing but Hall of Famers at LB (tm Jon Gruden) for like a buck-60 and almost 20 yards a carry?

---

quote:

---

Is it that Jay Cutler seems to only target white people?

---

quote:

---

Is it that Matt Forte still hasn't been offered a contract extension by the Bears?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nOOb

I'm not sure what Meriweather was the answer to, but if the question was "Who can we get to improve on our safety position?", they failed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nOObI don't know what Lance Briggs has done in his career other than "play next to Brian Urlacher", but most of those big runs were, directly, his fault. Hell, they teach you in pee-wee football that, when you play defense, you watch the ball, not the backfield. Briggs did this TWICE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chretienbabacool
Oh come on Urlacher for sure belongs there. One bad defensive game doesn't mean somehow the linebackers suddenly suck. Let's not forget the defense is also asked to constantly go out and play because the offense can't do crap and at some point any defense no matter how good is gonna stop being able to succeed.

Urlacher is asked to do a lot more than most middle linebackers coverage wise and yes I would easily compare him to Mike Singletary value wise because Singletary never could have played the pass coverage Urlacher provides.

Year after year this defense is dominant. There are multiple issues for why it has changed some this year, but you just cannot put this all on the linebackers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TommyD420
Yeah, the Mike LB in the Tampa 2 is super hard. Drop back 15 yds at the snap of the ball. Stand there. Hit someone if they come near you. The end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gobbledygooker
So much for all of those "I'm taking Minnesota in a minor upset" picks.

And has there been any sadder image this season than when the camera caught a dejected Mama McNabb walking toward the stadium exit after McNabb got his ass sacked for a second time in a row, right before getting yanked?

---