Zero2Cool
9 years ago
The NFL owners are paying Roger Goodell over $40 million.

We have heard the Calvin Johnson rule, and then the Dez Bryant catch not a catch and the NFL has agreed to modify some of the language. There is an easy solution to determining a catch and to make it black and white. The NFL does not want this and this is further evidenced by the lack of following through with Bill Belichick proposal of adding four cameras in the end zone as to provide more angles for reviews.

I have a lot of respect for Belichick and think he's one of the top head coaches of all time. He irks the media often and that is something I admire quite a bit. And I fully agree with him that more cameras would make more for more accurate decisions on reviews.

The NFL sees value in paying Scapegoat Goodell $40 million to take the heat for their decisions or lack thereof. When it comes to spending cash on improving the accuracy of the game, that's a no no because it means less arguing would means less headlines.

We're in March and still talking about blown calls, that's essentially free publicity for their product. Why spend dollars that could minimize some of those headlines and that attention?
UserPostedImage
Smokey
9 years ago
I would not agree to be NFL Commissioner for anything less than $100million per year. That's 3.125 million per team, and they can afford it many times over. Cap be damned, the teams make much more than that . As for drama, any publicity ,good or bad, is good for business .

:cat:
UserPostedImage
dhazer
9 years ago
I was wondering if anyone else caught the fact that one coach wants more cameras, and it just happens to be the coach of spygate lol.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
beast
9 years ago

I was wondering if anyone else caught the fact that one coach wants more cameras, and it just happens to be the coach of spygate lol.

Originally Posted by: dhazer 



I've heard some suggest that's why teams are voting it down... not because it's a bad idea but because it's Belichick is the one proposing the idea. Well that and the owners as a whole are lazy and cheap.

I think it should also be noted, that it normally takes the NFL years talking about an issue, until they start taking the subject more serious. Expanding the playoffs for example... about all teams seem to be on board with the idea last year... but still haven't gotten it done.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
9 years ago
I have a hard time remembering a time when there were not enough camera angles of a play at or in the endzone or even in the regular field of play. Typically if something cannot be seen, it is because there are bodies in the way which will happen no matter where the cameras are placed. What more camera angles would do is give the home team more chance to show angles that don't show anything on the big screens so the opposing coaches have less to go on if they might want to challenge.

What is an easy solution to put in black and white what is a catch or not? that rule as written has had a small handful of plays where there has been controversy, yet every "solution" I have heard would result in more bad results in the opposite direction. non-catches that really should not be catches being ruled complete which would be far worse for the game.

The number of "bad" calls when looking at the total number of calls that get made each game is incredibly small.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Cheesey
9 years ago
I think it's a slippery slope. I mean, where does it end? Put a camera every 10 yards to make sure a WR got both feet in?
I think it's OK where it is now. And Belichek? To me, he's been caught cheating too many times, so I have a hard time respecting the guy.
He might be a great coach, but the cheating crap over rules that fact in my view.
UserPostedImage
sschind
9 years ago

I was wondering if anyone else caught the fact that one coach wants more cameras, and it just happens to be the coach of spygate lol.

Originally Posted by: dhazer 



Maybe that's why he suggested it. He has a bunch of used cameras just lying around in the equipment shed and he figures if he can get the new rule passed maybe he can unload them.

sschind
9 years ago

The NFL owners are paying Roger Goodell over $40 million.

We have heard the Calvin Johnson rule, and then the Dez Bryant catch not a catch and the NFL has agreed to modify some of the language. There is an easy solution to determining a catch and to make it black and white. The NFL does not want this and this is further evidenced by the lack of following through with Bill Belichick proposal of adding four cameras in the end zone as to provide more angles for reviews.

I have a lot of respect for Belichick and think he's one of the top head coaches of all time. He irks the media often and that is something I admire quite a bit. And I fully agree with him that more cameras would make more for more accurate decisions on reviews.

The NFL sees value in paying Scapegoat Goodell $40 million to take the heat for their decisions or lack thereof. When it comes to spending cash on improving the accuracy of the game, that's a no no because it means less arguing would means less headlines.

We're in March and still talking about blown calls, that's essentially free publicity for their product. Why spend dollars that could minimize some of those headlines and that attention?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Just curious as to what your easy solution is and how it takes the subjectivity out of it?

nerdmann
9 years ago

I would not agree to be NFL Commissioner for anything less than $100million per year. That's 3.125 million per team, and they can afford it many times over. Cap be damned, the teams make much more than that . As for drama, any publicity ,good or bad, is good for business .

:cat:

Originally Posted by: Smokey 



Hell I'd agree to do it.

But I'd stop changing the game to Madden 2.0 and put it back together like it used to be.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
9 years ago
[quote=beast;308976]I've heard some suggest that's why teams are voting it down... not because it's a bad idea but because it's Belichick is the one proposing the idea. Well that and the owners as a whole are lazy and cheap.



You did? and who said this? your co-workers? Cameras on the goal line should be there. The things greedy bastards don't do.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (2h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (3h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (5h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (6h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (9h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (10h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (20h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.