2021-2022 NFL Thread

[unclevlad]

Besides, the reason why the basketball team dropped it are even more relevant now.

 

DCFC is pretty nice, but "FC" is too strongly associated with soccer so I don't see that.  

Monarchs and Royals...not good ideas for DC in particular, but I think Presidents also fits into that group.  And Senators has been done.  The Washington Congress doesn't sound bad but it's too confusing.  (And let's not even talk about the negative comparisons if the team doesn't win, or has no offense.)  

 

I gotta agree, not many do anything for me.  If that's the full list, I'd probably go with Brigade...but only if they also changed team colors.  

[archer]

32FC (W32) - I couldn't find a 32FC but a FC-32 is a delay timer which I think you could use to construct a bomb. Don't know whether that's what they're referencing or not but....

 

Monarchs/Royals - not appropriate for the capital's team.

Aviators/Pilots/Armada/Brigade - Identifying too closely with one branch of the military not appropriate for the capital's team.

 

Anchors/Defenders/Rising/Aces/Swifts/Commanders/Rubies- too many obvious bad jokes about the team name when the team is doing poorly.

 

Archers - not sure I'd want the team associated with my name. Hard pass, and not the forward kind.

 

Ambassadors/Beacons/Icons - Football players are known for not being these things. No need to add a burdensome team name to every incident.

 

Presidents are not known for being presidential. No need to add a burdensome team name to every incident.

 

Renegades - After the first player incident, people would realize the name is a disaster.

 

Belters - Synonym for hitting someone or for downing a drink quickly. Given that the team members aren't going to always be model citizens and football players have been known to beat up their spouses and to get into drunken bar brawls, that's a no on the name. Even though otherwise I think it'd be a very cool name (due to denizens of the asteroid belt usually being called Belters).

 

Warriors - My daughters' high school got in trouble because "Warriors" was cultural appropriation of Native Americans. So I don't see this name as a strict upgrade from "Redskins". If they have this name, there'll be fans showing up to games with all of the Redskins/Indian stuff and the whole round of complaints will start up again.

 

Riders- How long before fans start showing up with cavalry stuff and people start complaining that it's just another angle on harassment of Native Americans: would it be the first game or take as long as the second game?

 

Guardians/Majors - That's just incredibly bland.

 

First City Football Club (FCFC)/Washington DC Football Club (DCFC)/Washington Capital City Football Club (CCFC)/Football Team - Speaking of incredibly bland.

 

Redtails/Redwolves/Red Hogs - I think having "red" in the name is problematic if the fans decide to hold a grudge over the forced name change.

 

Demon Cats - Nothing wrong with this other than that I have a personal distaste for it.

 

Griffins are usually shown "rampant" which makes me giggle because I sometimes have a juvenile sense of humor.

 

Razorbacks - The University of Arkansas has done all the cool-looking variants of this logo over the decades. And there's only so much you can do with a pig without making it look stupid and just changing the color to a more natural brown or black isn't going to avoid trademark infringement if the team logo is remotely close to anything UoA has marketed in the past.

 

Wild Hogs - Doesn't speak to me but probably would appeal to disgruntled traditional Redskin fans.

 

 

I like Wayfarers. The name is fairly unique and the potential logo artists have a lot of directions they could go with the name. And the same for memorabilia sales.

[Pariah]

About time. The previous ones were hideous.

 

Bengals unveil new uniforms for 2021 season

 

[Starlord]

Beat me to it.  I particularly like the all-white and all-black.

[Pariah]

Alex Smith has announced his retirement.

 

Time to name the Comeback Player of the Year award in his honor, if you ask me.

[unclevlad]

19 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Alex Smith has announced his retirement.

 

Time to name the Comeback Player of the Year award in his honor, if you ask me.

 

I'd be fine with it.  Great story on what catalyzed the decision here:

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/football-team/how-snowboarding-trip-helped-alex-smith-realize-it-was-time-retire

 

I'm glad for him.  Glad he made it back, glad that he's made the decision that he's comfortable with.  He had a very good career;  we're so easily jaded by the numbers, but 35,000 yards, 199 TDs, and 99-67-1 in games started is exceptional.  No, I don't think Smith was ever going to be at the level to be a team's strong point, but he was a heckuva lot better than average.

One can argue, of course, that put him in the same boat as several others:  too good to bail on, but not good enough to make deep playoff runs.

[Starlord]

Justin Fields informs teams he has epilepsy

 

Projected 5 QBs could go in the first round.  IMO is SF, Detroit or Denver let Fields slip to NE at 15 then their management should be fired.

[Cancer]

On 4/16/2021 at 12:39 PM, unclevlad said:

... but I think Presidents also fits into that group. 

 

 

And to name them the Dead Presidents would be too pointedly indicative of why they exist.

[Cygnia]

I still think Washington should call itself "Gridlock"

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Cygnia said:

I still think Washington should call itself "Gridlock"

 

That would certainly describe their offense fairly well.

[Pariah]

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

Justin Fields informs teams he has epilepsy

 

Projected 5 QBs could go in the first round.  IMO is SF, Detroit or Denver let Fields slip to NE at 15 then their management should be fired.

 

With the new non-Elway GM and the free agency moves so far, I have literally no idea what Denver will do with that #9 pick. 

[archer]

2 hours ago, Starlord said:

Justin Fields informs teams he has epilepsy

 

Projected 5 QBs could go in the first round.  IMO is SF, Detroit or Denver let Fields slip to NE at 15 then their management should be fired.

 

Epilepsy is such a weird disease. Who knows but what his first real hit in practice is going to aggravate something?

 

The real question to me is whether if he slides a couple of picks if some other team is going to step up and offer Detroit, Denver, etc. some kind of deal to move up and try to snag Fields.

 

Yeah, passing on Fields might look stupid in a couple of years if he turns out to be a superstar. But if you get some other team's 1st pick in this year's draft plus some other stuff, it might start to look appealing.

 

What would any of you have to get in trade for your first round pick in that situation and not feel like your team has gotten ripped off?

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

 

With the new non-Elway GM and the free agency moves so far, I have literally no idea what Denver will do with that #9 pick. 

 

Because they don't know either.    It's entirely possible that a decent QB could fall to them at 9 depending on what Atlanta does at 4.  Fallback plan is probably trading back for Bridgewater or Mariota.

[archer]

52 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Because they don't know either.    It's entirely possible that a decent QB could fall to them at 9 depending on what Atlanta does at 4.  Fallback plan is probably trading back for Bridgewater or Mariota.

 

Usually a franchise will wargame out various scenarios based on who is left on the board.

 

Then they delay making their pick on draft day to see if some other team comes up with a better offer than the players who are still on the board.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if Denver has a great QB fall into their lap without having to do anything special.

 

But Denver has so many problems, I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to do something weird like trade down and try to stock up on draft picks.

 

I think I could do better than most franchises by reading a fantasy draft magazine then trying to pick "Jimmy Johnson" style.

 

Back when he was a head coach, I'd read through a draft magazine then tick off around twenty players as "JJ would love to draft this guy". Then at the end of the draft, he'd have picked seven players off of my list. 

 

And that's without following college football or doing anything other than reading a single draft magazine.

[Old Man]

26 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Usually a franchise will wargame out various scenarios based on who is left on the board.

 

Then they delay making their pick on draft day to see if some other team comes up with a better offer than the players who are still on the board.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if Denver has a great QB fall into their lap without having to do anything special.

 

But Denver has so many problems, I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to do something weird like trade down and try to stock up on draft picks.

 

I think I could do better than most franchises by reading a fantasy draft magazine then trying to pick "Jimmy Johnson" style.

 

Back when he was a head coach, I'd read through a draft magazine then tick off around twenty players as "JJ would love to draft this guy". Then at the end of the draft, he'd have picked seven players off of my list. 

 

And that's without following college football or doing anything other than reading a single draft magazine.

 

It sort of doesn't matter who Denver drafts anyway, given the current HC and OC.  Shurmur's made the playoffs like twice in 20 years.  Although admittedly the best QB he's ever had was Nick Foles.

[archer]

22 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

It sort of doesn't matter who Denver drafts anyway, given the current HC and OC.  Shurmur's made the playoffs like twice in 20 years.  Although admittedly the best QB he's ever had was Nick Foles.

 

Well Denver likely won't make the playoffs this year regardless. 

 

But a good draft could make the difference between Denver being marked as an "easy win" on everyone's schedule or not. And being competitive could help merchandise sales, season ticket sales, and other things which might give the franchise more money to play with in the future.

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, archer said:

 

Epilepsy is such a weird disease. Who knows but what his first real hit in practice is going to aggravate something?

 

So in all his time playing so far, he's never taken a real hit?

28 minutes ago, archer said:

But a good draft could make the difference between Denver being marked as an "easy win" on everyone's schedule or not. And being competitive could help merchandise sales, season ticket sales, and other things which might give the franchise more money to play with in the future.

 

The Broncos have sold out the stadium...every game...for 50 years.  Not 50 games...50 YEARS.  Including 2010...after 4 straight years of missing the playoffs, they went 4-12 and fixed the McDaniels mistake.  Revenue stream #2 is, of course, the TV deals, and everyone gets paid from that.  Even the Jets and Bengals.

 

Denver's not an easy win according to Vegas.  7.5 wins projected right now...but remember that's, at best, going 1-3 against KC and the Chargers.  There's 9 teams with lower, 2 with the same...so OK, it's below average but it's not disastrous.  The 5 "easy wins" by their ratings:  Jets, Bengals, Eagles, Lions, and Texans at the bottom.  (The mess with DeShaun Watson, both football and non-football, is huge here.)  Eagles have a pathetic division schedule, so for any decent team they should be an easy win.  And so on.

Granted, those numbers are about as accurate as Jalen Hurts' passing...

[archer]

33 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

The Broncos have sold out the stadium...every game...for 50 years.  Not 50 games...50 YEARS.  Including 2010...after 4 straight years of missing the playoffs, they went 4-12 and fixed the McDaniels mistake. 

 

Perhaps I should have been clearer

 

The question isn't only selling out but what you can charge in the process of selling out.

 

Jerry Jones, for example, parlayed years of mildly competitive teams and remembered past glory into sky-high season ticket prices. And monetized such things as "getting on the waiting list to buy season tickets" so that it cost you roughly the equivalent of "nice tickets for three games" just to get on the list to be eligible to buy season tickets. 

 

 

44 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

So in all his time playing so far, he's never taken a real hit?

 

 

Oh, I'm sure he has. 

 

Can you tell me what's going to happen the next time he gets hit? Or the time after that? 

 

Or what his brain is going to do the first time he gets what would be a mild concussion for anybody else?

 

The epilepsy is adding an extra layer of uncertainty onto what is already an uncertain future for a quarterback.

[unclevlad]

The Bronco season ticket prices are about average, and won't go down.  Even if they charged an extra 10% or so, that's MINOR.  Broncos average $105 per season ticket.  I don't know how much of that they keep;  they don't own the stadium.  Call it 80%, tho, for argument.  Gross ticket sales are about $7.5M per game, or $60M per year.  TV rights are $300M.

Now, luxury suites are somewhat separate from this, and do help, but most of that is gravy for the owners.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193553/revenue-of-national-football-league-teams-in-2010/

 

Discount the Cowboys;  their fan base is provably insane, and Jerry has them suckered.  They're the massive outlier.  The Pats are a mild outlier, but their success has been unprecedented.  For the most part, the spread for the bulk of teams below that isn't that great.

19 minutes ago, archer said:

 

 

Oh, I'm sure he has. 

 

Can you tell me what's going to happen the next time he gets hit? Or the time after that? 

 

Or what his brain is going to do the first time he gets what would be a mild concussion for anybody else?

 

The epilepsy is adding an extra layer of uncertainty onto what is already an uncertain future for a quarterback.

 

But he's been hit a ton, so if it's *likely* to have happened, it would have happened.  I think you're exaggerating the risk greatly.  Also, while one can reasonably be cynical about team doctors:  if there was a plausible risk, would the high school and OSU doctors let him play?  Maybe...to be sure, I'd never say NO, but if it's that clear-cut a risk, there has to be a reasonable chance they wouldn't let him play.  OR, conversely, that he'd fail the physical.  Due diligence *does* come into play, for sure;  the teams should ensure Fields' issues don't come with a seriously increased risk.

Now:  CBS Sports' mock draft had the Pats trading up to 7 to grab Fields.  I can see them potentially reconsidering that, because of the dual nature of the cost...there are some elevated risk issues, to be sure, and might deter the Pats from that strategy.

Draft's in a week.  We shall see.  Or read about the next day.

[archer]

32 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

 

But he's been hit a ton, so if it's *likely* to have happened, it would have happened.  I think you're exaggerating the risk greatly.  Also, while one can reasonably be cynical about team doctors:  if there was a plausible risk, would the high school and OSU doctors let him play?  Maybe...to be sure, I'd never say NO, but if it's that clear-cut a risk, there has to be a reasonable chance they wouldn't let him play.  OR, conversely, that he'd fail the physical.  Due diligence *does* come into play, for sure;  the teams should ensure Fields' issues don't come with a seriously increased risk.

Now:  CBS Sports' mock draft had the Pats trading up to 7 to grab Fields.  I can see them potentially reconsidering that, because of the dual nature of the cost...there are some elevated risk issues, to be sure, and might deter the Pats from that strategy.

Draft's in a week.  We shall see.  Or read about the next day.

 

Well, it's known that concussions can cause epilepsy and there's at least anecdotal evidence that getting a concussion can make an existing case of epilepsy more severe. It's also known that a lot of NFL players have played in games without even being aware that they have a concussion.

 

Zoning out for a second or two in an epileptic fit in the middle of a play could get a QB seriously injured in a way that has nothing to do with epilepsy.

 

It's definitely something that any team would be concerned about. Exactly how concerned is another matter.

[unclevlad]

Sure, but since it hasn't happened, the risk that it will happen is slight.  This isn't something coming up out of the blue from a medical standpoint;  we, the fans, are just learning about it but it's been in his history for some time.  This isn't like, oh...the kid who played basketball for, IIRC, Baylor...big tall kid, big NBA prospect...but *poof*!  Heart condition was diagnosed.  Basketball career *over*.  Or Hank Gathers, of course.  Or the NCAA ref who collapsed on the court...blood clot in the lung.  Treatable, but you can be sure he'll be monitored when he goes back onto the court.

 

And, heck, every QB is one play away from following down the RG III path.

[Old Man]

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

And, heck, every QB is one play away from following down the RG III path.

 

You mean the Joe Burrows path.

[Pariah]

Joe Montana was taken at the end of the third round in 1979. Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round in 2000. JaMarcus Russell was drafted first overall in 2007.

 

Anyone claiming they know who the next franchise QB in the NFL is going to be is lying, or delusional, or both.

[archer]

Doug Flutie was drafted in the 11th round. Of course that was a special case because he was flirting with playing in another league. But still, no one took a chance on him until the 11th round?

 

Played 12 seasons in the NFL, 8 seasons in the Canadian FL, and one season in the USFL.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

Joe Montana was taken at the end of the third round in 1979. Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round in 2000. JaMarcus Russell was drafted first overall in 2007.

 

Anyone claiming they know who the next franchise QB in the NFL is going to be is lying, or delusional, or both.

 

Russell Wilson...3rd round.
Ryan Leaf:  #2 pick.

We could probably keep that up for a week....

 

You forgot trolling, tho.  As in, most "debate show" talking heads.  I turned on the TV a couple days ago;  it happened to be on FS1, which isn't all that common.  Daytime...FS1.  Ohhh...not good.  And, yes indeed, it fell on one of the absolute worst...Bayless and Sharpe.  Sharpe was refuting a Bayless position:  that Trevor Lawrence will be a game changer on a par with how Steph Curry changed basketball.  Quite thoroughly dumping a few flechette rounds through that dummy of a position.  

 

MAYBE Trevor Lawrence will work, but there's still a huge number of questions, starting with Urban Meyer's actual dedication to the job, and whether he'll be able to work with pros.

The bigger question with Flutie was pure and simple:  size.  "Too short!"