NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?!! - Week 16

[Ben Kenobi]

What? Sproles is credited for the yards he gains... at least in every single statistics page.

Yes, but you'd hardly say that Sproles is the better Running back, even though he has more yards. Tomlinson started the game and ran for 120 before Sproles came in. As much as I like Sproles (which is quite alot), I don't think he would run for 120 without Tomlinson. The reason why they put Sproles in is that Tomlinson would be fresh for later games in the season.

Like Jag said, it's easier to run better when you are fresh and splitting carries between running backs means they are less tired then if they carry the load alone.

All this doesn't diminish that Taylor does have more yards than Addai and only about 35 less carries (which is less than 3 carries a year fewer).

Couple things here. Addai isn't the focus of the Indy offense, it's Peyton Manning. Indy runs the ball much less then the Jags who rely upon the run. This is why Fred only has 3 carries a game fewer then Addai.

If MJD does the "heavy lifting", why does MJD have fewer carries? And fewer yards?

Short downs are much harder on running backs then first and 10.

Oh, and MJD has a yards per carry of 4.6. Which isn't as good as Taylor, but 0.5 yards per carry better than Addai.

Which raises another question, is it Fred Taylor who is having a career year or the line?

So are saying that Taylor doesn't excel in those situations? I'm sure if he had the explosive supporting cast offense Addai does

It's been a fixture through his career, and why they got Jones-Drew in the first place.

IMO, the best pro bowl argument for Fred Taylor is that the man has 10k and has never been to the pro bowl before. It's unlikely he is going to have a season like this again.

[Lord Avalon]

Senators threaten to reconsider antitrust exemption over cable dispute

WASHINGTON -- Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the NFL on Wednesday threatening to reconsider the league's antitrust exemption if it doesn't make games on the NFL Network available to more viewers.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., expressed concern that many fans in their home states will not be able to see games on the channel involving the New England Patriots or the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Leahy is the committee's chairman, and Specter is its ranking member.

"Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks," they wrote, "Congress may need to reexamine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the Nation's antitrust laws."

Eight games air this season on the NFL Network, which is available in fewer than 40 percent of the nation's homes with televisions. The league has been feuding with several major cable companies over whether they should carry the channel as part of a basic package.

Games are simulcast on free TV locally for each team, but that doesn't include regional markets such as Vermont for the Patriots or parts of Pennsylvania for the Steelers. NFL officials have repeatedly said they will not agree to any distribution arrangement that only involves games and not year-round broadcast of the channel.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3162011

In other news Mr. Horsecollar Tackle himself, Roy Williams, lost his appeal and is still suspended for Saturday's game for a third infraction.

And TO was just kidding about Jessica.

[SlowwHand]

There's a lag of maybe 3-5 minutes on local broadcast, so that part isn't actually "simulcast".

[Dis]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TL78T00&show_article=1

Yeah TO was kidding about Jessica, but I feel we need some pics to fully understand the nature of the problem.

hmm, well I'm having trouble finding hot pics of Jessica. She's just not my type of babe.

[SlowwHand]

.

[Lord Avalon]

From the game:



Nice bod, but I don't particularly like her face.

However, perhaps I haven't seen her from the right perspective (looking down at the top of her head).

[Dis]

face isn't bad. Typical blonde slut type of face. too much eye shadow though.

[-Jrabbit]

"Blonde"??

Look at the roots in that photo.

[Lord Avalon]

Well, he did say "typical blonde slut." Isn't bleached implied?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, but you'd hardly say that Sproles is the better Running back, even though he has more yards. Tomlinson started the game and ran for 120 before Sproles came in. As much as I like Sproles (which is quite alot), I don't think he would run for 120 without Tomlinson. The reason why they put Sproles in is that Tomlinson would be fresh for later games in the season.

Like Jag said, it's easier to run better when you are fresh and splitting carries between running backs means they are less tired then if they carry the load alone.

You be completely forgetting that whole yards per carry thing? You know, the stuff we was talking abouts? In that game, Sproles had 4.88 ypc while LT had 7.73.

As for your second point, we'll address that below.

Couple things here. Addai isn't the focus of the Indy offense, it's Peyton Manning. Indy runs the ball much less then the Jags who rely upon the run. This is why Fred only has 3 carries a game fewer then Addai.

So... it's a bit harder to justify the whole Fred Taylor is more "fresh" comments, isn't it? If Taylor has run about the same amount as Addai, whether it be because of offensive focus or who gets the carries, the carries are the thing, right? So if Indy is more of a passing team, why would Addai would necessarily more fresh?

Which raises another question, is it Fred Taylor who is having a career year or the line?

Shall we discuss Indy's line and how Addai would be on, say, a team like Atlanta?

Oh, and this is decidedly NOT a career year for Taylor.

It's been a fixture through his career, and why they got Jones-Drew in the first place.

Jones-Drew was not drafted for short yardage situations. If you watched UCLA when he was there, you'd have known that. He was drafted to replace Taylor, who wasn't supposed to still be this good (or supposed to be more injured as sometimes happens in his career).

[SlowwHand]

Judas Priest. Y'all are still at it? Persistent little devils.

[-Jrabbit]

I know. It's amazing.

fortunately, FWP broke his leg tonight, so Fred Taylor can make the Pro Bowl team and everyone can relax.

[Donegeal]

NFL Network Sucks

A terse exchange of letters from at least three U.S. senators and between NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the head of Time Warner Cable could lead to an ugly fight over the league's plan to put games on its in-house program, The NFL Network.

In short, if the NFL doesn't find a way to have the potentially historic New England-New York Giants season finale Dec. 29 seen across the country instead of being made available only to those who pay, at least two senators said they plan to challenge the league's anti-trust exemption, the lifeblood of the league's ability to operate.

On Wednesday, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) sent a letter to Goodell. The letter was a follow-up to a letter sent Dec. 14 from the Vermont delegation of Leahy, Senator Bernard Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch, who expressed deep concern about the citizens of Vermont not being able to see the Patriots-Giants game.

That game could feature the Patriots going for what would be a historic undefeated regular season if New England defeats Miami on Sunday. New England is currently 14-0.

The Leahy-Specter letter, which also came after attempts by the league to lobby the federal government in November and early December, questions the NFL's justification for restricting the distribution of game programming to cable outlets and the senators urged Goodell to take prompt action to make games more broadly available.

"The NFL appears to be moving incrementally closer to limiting distribution of its programming to subscription television," the senators wrote. "Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks, Congress may need to reexamine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the Nation's antitrust laws."

In a press release regarding the letter, Leahy's office wrote: "Actions taken by the NFL may mean that residents of Vermont and Western Pennsylvania, for example, may not be able to watch the potentially-historic New England Patriots v. New York Giants game."

In addition, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) wrote a letter to Goodell earlier this month urging compromise so that people throughout his state could see the game.

The game will be seen on broadcast in the Boston and New York metropolitan areas because of the NFL's rule forcing games to be seen locally if the game is sold out. However, the game will not be seen on broadcast television outside those areas.

In response to that, the NFL offered Time Warner Cable a deal on Thursday and even sent out a press release about the offer. Time Warner Cable is one of three companies the league has jousted with over the past two years regarding the NFL Network. The others are Cablevision and Comcast.

According to the letter from Goodell, if Time Warner agreed to go to binding arbitration, the NFL would allow the cable company the chance to carry the NFL Network starting immediately. Time Warner cable has approximately 13 million customers, including roughly 10 million outside the Boston and New York areas who will be unable to see the game.

Binding arbitration would allow a third party to hear arguments from both the NFL and Time Warner about the potential price for the NFL Network.

Time Warner's response was a simple rejection, made in a matter of hours.

"As I'm sure you are aware, over the years we've been able to successfully reach agreements with hundreds of programming networks without the use of arbitration. We continue to believe that the best way to achieve results is to privately seek a resolution and not attempt to negotiate through the press or elected officials," wrote Glenn Britt, the President and CEO of Time Warner Cable.

"We already have several standing offers for carriage of NFL (Network), and we remain willing to meet with you and your associates at any point to reach an agreement that benefits both companies and our customers," Britt continued. "To reiterate, we have offered to carry the NFL Network games available to our customers on a per-game basis, a retail price sent by the NFL, with 100 (percent) of the revenue collected for this programming going to the NFL. While carries with no mark-up to us is far from ideal from our point of view, we are willing to take this step to make sure no interested fan is unable to watch these games on our systems. To date, you and your colleagues have been unwilling to seriously discuss any of these proposals.

"In the interim, we strongly urge you to consider moving the Patriots-Giants game to a broadcast network to ensure the broadest possible distribution of this potentially historic game for fans. If the NFL is unwilling to make the Patriots-Giants game available through a national broadcast network, (Time Warner Cable) stands ready to explore the possibility of offering the game on a digital cable channel on a "freeview" basis, similar to the way we carried last year's Texas Bowl in some markets pursuant to an arrangement with the NFL."

On Friday, NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky issued a response on behalf of the network and the league.

"We are disappointed but not surprised. We remain committed to finding a compromise that puts fans first and gets NFL Network on the air. It is clear Time Warner does not want to give what millions of their customers want. More than 240 other TV providers have listened to their customers and negotiated. Time Warner won't negotiate and only wants independent programming if it is free," Palansky wrote.

The bottom line to all of this is that the league has had increasing difficulty getting cable operators to budge. Cable companies have preferred to put the NFL Network on a sports tier package which costs an additional charge while the NFL wants the network offered as part of a basic package. However, the NFL also wants to be paid for the rights to the network on a per-customer basis.

The league had hoped to get help from the Federal Communications Commission. However, any discussion of the NFL was tabled during a Nov. 27 meeting of the FCC after other members of the FCC questioned FCC Chairman Kevin Martin about an accusation that he "cooked the books" regarding data he gathered in a fight for more control of cable companies.

Thus, instead of help from the government, the NFL could be staring at one nasty fight from the feds.

[Dis]

The article doesn't mention Cox cable. I'm not sure what the agreement is with cox cable. But I believe NFL network is part of a digital tier or something (don't quote me on that ). All I know, is I don't get it. But the game can be bought on a pay per view type deal, as I see the games listed as being purchasable on an information channel.

[SlowwHand]

I think Barber officially "took over" tonight.