Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Oakland Raiders Invade San Diego To Maul Chargers
That's what's going to happen. The Oakland Raiders are going to maul and manhandle the San Diego Chargers. Get tickets for the game here -- NFL Tickets Exchange
Monday, October 08, 2007
Jerry Jones - Cowboys Owner Jones Part Of NFL Network Committee - NFLMedia.com
JERRY JONES NAMED CHAIRMAN OF NFL NETWORK COMMITTEE - NFLMEDIA.COM
COMMITTEE NOW INCLUDES PAT BOWLEN, ROBERT KRAFT, STAN KROENKE & MARK RICHARDSON
The NFL announced today the appointment of Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones as the new chairman of the NFL Network Committee, which acts as the executive board of the league’s year-round television service.
“NFL Network is an important long-term asset for the NFL,” said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. “It is critical we ensure broad and affordable access to NFL Network to help better serve and grow our fan base.”
The Cowboys appear twice on NFL Network’s live game schedule this season (Nov. 29 vs. Green Bay; Dec. 22 @ Carolina) and as a result, Jones is keenly aware of fan interest in NFL Network.
"My immediate and primary objective is to ensure broad distribution of NFL Network to our millions of fans across the land,” said Jones. “Today there are more options than ever before for consumers in terms of choosing a television provider. Satellite companies like DirecTV and Dish Network and telecommunications companies like Verizon and AT&T offer NFL Network on broad packages without extra costs to consumers. Those fans whose access to NFL Network is still being blocked by their cable provider will have both the opportunity and the incentive to switch providers if cable continues to deny customers the programming they want.”
Joining Jones on the NFL Network Committee are:
· Denver Broncos President and CEO Pat Bowlen
· New England Patriots Chairman and CEO Robert Kraft
· St. Louis Rams Owner/Vice Chairman Stan Kroenke
· Carolina Panthers President Mark Richardson
“Steve Bornstein and his team have launched a high-quality, must-see, year-round network for football fans,” added Jones. “As a committee, we plan to help the broader NFL ownership harness the value that our clubs can provide locally to NFL Network distribution partners. NFL Network is extremely important to the future of the NFL and our fans.”
NFL Network, the 24-hour, 365-day programming vehicle of the NFL, has taken on greater importance to the league and its long-term goals as the digital media landscape continues to evolve.
From content deals with Apple’s iTunes, Sprint NFL Mobile, Sirius Satellite Radio, Verizon FiOS, MyNetworkTV, and ION Networks, to the recent move bringing the NFL’s Internet operations in-house and utilizing NFL Network video at the center of the new NFL.com, the strategic use of NFL Network’s content requires important decisions to be made on a regular basis.
Recently, the NFL filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) drawing attention to large cable companies’ regular practice of content discrimination, where they use their market power to deny independent channels they do not own broad distribution on their systems. Like many other independent programmers, NFL Network supports a mandatory arbitration process to ensure that content disputes are resolved in a timely manner so that consumers have access to the channels they want on fair terms.
NFL ownership committees are made up typically of four to six principal owners. Committees meet regularly to analyze issues and recommend strategy and policies to the Commissioner and broader ownership.
NFL Network airs seven days a week, 24 hours a day on a year-round basis and is the first television network fully dedicated to the NFL and the sport of football. For more information, log onto www.nfl.com/nflnetwork.
# # #
Friday, October 05, 2007
Jeffrey Kessler - Michael Vick Can Retain $22 Million Due To New Collective Bargaining Agreement
Jeffrey Kessler, NFL Players Association Lawyer acting in representation of Michael Vick, made the argument that the extention of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibited returning $22 Million to the Atlanta Falcons.
From what I read of the NFL CBA, Kessler's right. Look at this:
Section 9. Limitations on Salary Forfeitures:
(a) No forfeitures of signing bonuses shall be permitted, except that players and Clubs may agree: (i)
to proportionate forfeitures of a signing bonus if a player voluntarily retires or willfully withholds his
services from one or more regular season games; and/or (ii) that if a player willfully takes action that has
the effect of substantially undermining his ability to fully participate and contribute in either preseason
training camp or the regular season (including by willfully withholding his services in either preseason
training camp or during the regular season or willfully missing one or more games), the player may forfeit
the greater of: (a) 25% of the prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable League Year for the
first time such conduct occurs after the beginning of training camp until the end of the season for his Club,
and the remaining 75% prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable year for the second time
such conduct occurs during that period that year; or (b) the proportionate amount of his signing bonus
allocation for each week missed (1/17th for each regular season week or game missed).
(b) If a player with a signing bonus forfeiture clause voluntarily retires and misses the remainder of
the season, and the player then reports back to the Club in the subsequent season, then the Club must either
(i) take the player back under his existing contract with no forfeiture of the remaining proportionate signing
bonus allocation, or (ii) release the player and seek repayment of any remaining proportion of the signing
bonus allocated to future League Years.
(c) No forfeitures permitted (current and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years
already performed, or for other salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.
(d) A player’s right to receive and/or retain a signing bonus may not be conditioned on the player’s
participation in voluntary off-season programs or voluntary minicamps, or for adverse public statements,
provided that the Club may have non-proratable participation bonuses for its off-season workout program.
(e) Player Contracts may not contain individually negotiated provisions for forfeiture relating to
violations of the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances or the NFL Policy and Program for
Substances of Abuse (which policies will address this issue), or for failing any drug test.
(f) Except as provided above, existing contract forfeiture provisions entered into before the end of
the 2005 regular season will be in full force and effect for the duration of the current contract, and any
extensions resulting solely from effectuation of existing contract provision (e.g., option years). If a Player
Contract with a forfeiture provision entered into before the end of the 2005 regular season is otherwise
extended or renegotiated, the amount of Salary agreed to in the contract prior to its extension or
renegotiation shall be subject to forfeiture to the same extent as provided prior to such extension or renegotiation.
(g) For purposes of this Section 9, the terms “proportionate forfeitures” and “proportionate amount”
mean 1/17th of that year’s signing bonus allocation for each regular season week or game missed.
If you take a look at this, there's a particular section that could doom the Falcons attempts to recover the $22 million signing bonus. It's this:
(c) No forfeitures permitted (current and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years
already performed, or for other salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.
The issue is over bonus money Vick's already made based on performance, not money he's due to collect. So the Falcons are going to lose this round. Indeed, I personally think they're being terrible in their pursuit of this money he deservedly earned under the CBA.
From what I read of the NFL CBA, Kessler's right. Look at this:
Section 9. Limitations on Salary Forfeitures:
(a) No forfeitures of signing bonuses shall be permitted, except that players and Clubs may agree: (i)
to proportionate forfeitures of a signing bonus if a player voluntarily retires or willfully withholds his
services from one or more regular season games; and/or (ii) that if a player willfully takes action that has
the effect of substantially undermining his ability to fully participate and contribute in either preseason
training camp or the regular season (including by willfully withholding his services in either preseason
training camp or during the regular season or willfully missing one or more games), the player may forfeit
the greater of: (a) 25% of the prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable League Year for the
first time such conduct occurs after the beginning of training camp until the end of the season for his Club,
and the remaining 75% prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable year for the second time
such conduct occurs during that period that year; or (b) the proportionate amount of his signing bonus
allocation for each week missed (1/17th for each regular season week or game missed).
(b) If a player with a signing bonus forfeiture clause voluntarily retires and misses the remainder of
the season, and the player then reports back to the Club in the subsequent season, then the Club must either
(i) take the player back under his existing contract with no forfeiture of the remaining proportionate signing
bonus allocation, or (ii) release the player and seek repayment of any remaining proportion of the signing
bonus allocated to future League Years.
(c) No forfeitures permitted (current and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years
already performed, or for other salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.
(d) A player’s right to receive and/or retain a signing bonus may not be conditioned on the player’s
participation in voluntary off-season programs or voluntary minicamps, or for adverse public statements,
provided that the Club may have non-proratable participation bonuses for its off-season workout program.
(e) Player Contracts may not contain individually negotiated provisions for forfeiture relating to
violations of the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances or the NFL Policy and Program for
Substances of Abuse (which policies will address this issue), or for failing any drug test.
(f) Except as provided above, existing contract forfeiture provisions entered into before the end of
the 2005 regular season will be in full force and effect for the duration of the current contract, and any
extensions resulting solely from effectuation of existing contract provision (e.g., option years). If a Player
Contract with a forfeiture provision entered into before the end of the 2005 regular season is otherwise
extended or renegotiated, the amount of Salary agreed to in the contract prior to its extension or
renegotiation shall be subject to forfeiture to the same extent as provided prior to such extension or renegotiation.
(g) For purposes of this Section 9, the terms “proportionate forfeitures” and “proportionate amount”
mean 1/17th of that year’s signing bonus allocation for each regular season week or game missed.
If you take a look at this, there's a particular section that could doom the Falcons attempts to recover the $22 million signing bonus. It's this:
(c) No forfeitures permitted (current and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years
already performed, or for other salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.
The issue is over bonus money Vick's already made based on performance, not money he's due to collect. So the Falcons are going to lose this round. Indeed, I personally think they're being terrible in their pursuit of this money he deservedly earned under the CBA.
Pittsburgh Steelers Receiver Hines Ward Out - Knee Injury
Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward will miss his second game in a row Sunday because of a right knee injury.
The Steelers star has been unable to practice since he was hurt Sept. 23 against San Francisco. Before sitting out last weekend’s 21-14 loss at Arizona, Ward had missed only three games to injury in his 10-year NFL career.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Jets ticket holder sues Patriots and coach Belichick, seeks damages of more than $184 million
By DENNIS WASZAK Jr., AP Sports Writer
September 28, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York Jets season-ticket holder filed a class-action lawsuit Friday against the New England Patriots and coach Bill Belichick for "deceiving customers."
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J., by Carl Mayer of Princeton Township, N.J., stems from the Patriots being caught illegally videotaping signals from Jets coaches in New England's 38-14 season-opening win Sept. 9.
"They violated the integrity of the game," Mayer's attorney, Bruce Afran, told The Associated Press. "This is a way of punishing Belichick and the Patriots."
Mayer is seeking more than $184 million in damages for Jets ticket holders.
Belichick was fined $500,000 by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and the team was fined $250,000 for violating a league rule that prohibits clubs from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose -- including recording signals relayed to opposing players on the field. New England also must forfeit a first-round draft pick next year if it makes the playoffs or a second- and third-rounder if it doesn't.
"They were deceiving customers," said the 48-year-old Mayer.
"You can't deceive customers."
The lawsuit maintained that because other teams found illegal videotaping by the defendants, Jets ticket holders should be compensated for all games played in Giants Stadium between the Jets and Patriots since Belichick became head coach in 2000.
The two calculated that because customers paid $61.6 million to watch eight "fraudulent" games, they're entitled to triple that amount -- or $184.8 million -- in compensation under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
"How many times have the Patriots done this? We find it hard to believe they did it just once," Mayer said. "We just want to get to the truth of the matter of what the Patriots did to the Jets. I think the ticket holders are genuinely concerned about it. This is a type of misrepresentation."
Patriots spokesman Stacey James declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Mayer and Afran, who consider themselves public interest lawyers, have been thorns in the side of New Jersey politicians for years, filing lawsuits and demanding investigations to advance their grievances. They are well known in the state but generally have had little success in their causes.
Both have lost bids for elected offices, and Mayer once served as a presidential campaign adviser to Ralph Nader.
Their demand in March for a probe of Gov. Jon S. Corzine's gifts to a former girlfriend was rejected by a federal prosecutor. In 2006, a judge vetoed their effort to block Corzine's appointment of Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to fill the governor's seat in the U.S. Senate.
They also failed to get a court to order a special election to replace Gov. James E. McGreevey when he resigned in 2004.
Now, they're taking on the Patriots.
Their latest lawsuit asserted that the secret videotaping violated the contractual "expectations and rights" of Jets ticket holders "to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations."
The actions of Belichick and the Patriots violated federal and state racketeering laws, as well as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and New Jersey Deceptive Business Practices Act, according to the lawsuit.
"Having been a lifelong Jets fan, as soon as I heard this, I was completely outraged," Mayer said.
"The NFL just slapped them on the wrist. I'm a consumer lawyer, and this is consumer fraud."
Associated Press Writer Jeffrey Gold in Newark, N.J., contributed to this report.
September 28, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York Jets season-ticket holder filed a class-action lawsuit Friday against the New England Patriots and coach Bill Belichick for "deceiving customers."
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J., by Carl Mayer of Princeton Township, N.J., stems from the Patriots being caught illegally videotaping signals from Jets coaches in New England's 38-14 season-opening win Sept. 9.
"They violated the integrity of the game," Mayer's attorney, Bruce Afran, told The Associated Press. "This is a way of punishing Belichick and the Patriots."
Mayer is seeking more than $184 million in damages for Jets ticket holders.
Belichick was fined $500,000 by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and the team was fined $250,000 for violating a league rule that prohibits clubs from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose -- including recording signals relayed to opposing players on the field. New England also must forfeit a first-round draft pick next year if it makes the playoffs or a second- and third-rounder if it doesn't.
"They were deceiving customers," said the 48-year-old Mayer.
"You can't deceive customers."
The lawsuit maintained that because other teams found illegal videotaping by the defendants, Jets ticket holders should be compensated for all games played in Giants Stadium between the Jets and Patriots since Belichick became head coach in 2000.
The two calculated that because customers paid $61.6 million to watch eight "fraudulent" games, they're entitled to triple that amount -- or $184.8 million -- in compensation under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
"How many times have the Patriots done this? We find it hard to believe they did it just once," Mayer said. "We just want to get to the truth of the matter of what the Patriots did to the Jets. I think the ticket holders are genuinely concerned about it. This is a type of misrepresentation."
Patriots spokesman Stacey James declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Mayer and Afran, who consider themselves public interest lawyers, have been thorns in the side of New Jersey politicians for years, filing lawsuits and demanding investigations to advance their grievances. They are well known in the state but generally have had little success in their causes.
Both have lost bids for elected offices, and Mayer once served as a presidential campaign adviser to Ralph Nader.
Their demand in March for a probe of Gov. Jon S. Corzine's gifts to a former girlfriend was rejected by a federal prosecutor. In 2006, a judge vetoed their effort to block Corzine's appointment of Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to fill the governor's seat in the U.S. Senate.
They also failed to get a court to order a special election to replace Gov. James E. McGreevey when he resigned in 2004.
Now, they're taking on the Patriots.
Their latest lawsuit asserted that the secret videotaping violated the contractual "expectations and rights" of Jets ticket holders "to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations."
The actions of Belichick and the Patriots violated federal and state racketeering laws, as well as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and New Jersey Deceptive Business Practices Act, according to the lawsuit.
"Having been a lifelong Jets fan, as soon as I heard this, I was completely outraged," Mayer said.
"The NFL just slapped them on the wrist. I'm a consumer lawyer, and this is consumer fraud."
Associated Press Writer Jeffrey Gold in Newark, N.J., contributed to this report.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Griese to replace Grossman at QB for Bears
NFL.com Wire Reports
The NFL Network's Adam Schefter has confirmed that Brian Griese will start at quarterback Sunday for the Chicago Bears.
Griese will replace Rex Grossman, who threw three interceptions as the Chicago Bears fell to the Dallas Cowboys 34-10 on Sunday night and did not get a vote of confidence from his coach a day later.
"Will Rex Grossman start Sunday?" coach Lovie Smith asked on Monday, repeating the question. "Well, our evaluation process is going on right now, and if you come out to practice Wednesday, you'll have a better idea of who will be starting at all positions."
Smith gave his usual answer when asked Sunday night about Grossman -- "Rex Grossman is our quarterback" -- but his tone was different on Monday, fueling speculation Brian Griese might start Sunday against Detroit.
Grossman's supporters would have a hard time arguing against the move, considering he ranks 23rd in the league with 500 yards, has a 45.2 passer rating and is 47-of-89 (52.8 percent) with a league-leading six interceptions and just one touchdown.
But is Griese the answer?
A Pro Bowl pick with Denver in 2000, he has passed for 16,564 yards, but has also been released three times -- by the Broncos, Miami and Tampa Bay.
"I have confidence in our entire football team," Smith said. "Brian is a part of that. After you have a loss like that, we all feel bad. We should."
And Smith realizes something needs to change -- quickly.
At 1-2, the Bears are certainly not living up to those soaring expectations after last season's Super Bowl appearance. Besides Grossman's struggles, injuries are mounting.
They lost former Pro Bowl safety Mike Brown and starting nose tackle Dusty Dvoracek to season-ending knee injuries in the opener at San Diego. And on Sunday, Bears were falling like dominoes.
Linebacker Lance Briggs (groin), cornerback Nathan Vasher (groin) and defensive tackle Tommie Harris (knee) all left the game with injuries. Offensive lineman Ruben Brown suffered what was announced as a game-ending ankle injury, although he returned near the end.
"All of these injuries we're evaluating right now," Smith said. "I can't give you anything else."
As for the evaluation at quarterback, Grossman's troubles are well-documented and they explain why the Bears let him enter this season with an expiring contract rather than an extension.
He was the NFC Offensive Player of the Month last September. Now, he may not be the starting quarterback when September ends.
There certainly is blame to pass around, but the focus is on the quarterback.
The Bears were hoping Grossman would play the way he did the first five weeks last season and ditch the inconsistency he showed the rest of the way.
Well, he is more consistent.
The problem is "Bad Rex" keeps lining up behind center, and that's bad news for the Bears.
Smith stuck with Grossman last season, but that leash appears to be growing shorter with each pass into double or triple coverage; there were a few of those on Sunday night.
Like the one that Anthony Henry picked off early in the fourth quarter.
Dallas' Nick Folk had just kicked a 44-yard field goal when Grossman tried to hit Muhsin Muhammad in triple coverage. Henry intercepted and ran it back 28 yards for a touchdown that made it 27-10 and put away the Bears.
Grossman didn't get much help.
"All the way around the whole offense, it was one of those days where it seemed like we'd get something going and it'd fall back, and we just couldn't get anything going," wide receiver Bernard Berrian said.
The NFL Network's Adam Schefter has confirmed that Brian Griese will start at quarterback Sunday for the Chicago Bears.
Griese will replace Rex Grossman, who threw three interceptions as the Chicago Bears fell to the Dallas Cowboys 34-10 on Sunday night and did not get a vote of confidence from his coach a day later.
"Will Rex Grossman start Sunday?" coach Lovie Smith asked on Monday, repeating the question. "Well, our evaluation process is going on right now, and if you come out to practice Wednesday, you'll have a better idea of who will be starting at all positions."
Smith gave his usual answer when asked Sunday night about Grossman -- "Rex Grossman is our quarterback" -- but his tone was different on Monday, fueling speculation Brian Griese might start Sunday against Detroit.
Grossman's supporters would have a hard time arguing against the move, considering he ranks 23rd in the league with 500 yards, has a 45.2 passer rating and is 47-of-89 (52.8 percent) with a league-leading six interceptions and just one touchdown.
But is Griese the answer?
A Pro Bowl pick with Denver in 2000, he has passed for 16,564 yards, but has also been released three times -- by the Broncos, Miami and Tampa Bay.
"I have confidence in our entire football team," Smith said. "Brian is a part of that. After you have a loss like that, we all feel bad. We should."
And Smith realizes something needs to change -- quickly.
At 1-2, the Bears are certainly not living up to those soaring expectations after last season's Super Bowl appearance. Besides Grossman's struggles, injuries are mounting.
They lost former Pro Bowl safety Mike Brown and starting nose tackle Dusty Dvoracek to season-ending knee injuries in the opener at San Diego. And on Sunday, Bears were falling like dominoes.
Linebacker Lance Briggs (groin), cornerback Nathan Vasher (groin) and defensive tackle Tommie Harris (knee) all left the game with injuries. Offensive lineman Ruben Brown suffered what was announced as a game-ending ankle injury, although he returned near the end.
"All of these injuries we're evaluating right now," Smith said. "I can't give you anything else."
As for the evaluation at quarterback, Grossman's troubles are well-documented and they explain why the Bears let him enter this season with an expiring contract rather than an extension.
He was the NFC Offensive Player of the Month last September. Now, he may not be the starting quarterback when September ends.
There certainly is blame to pass around, but the focus is on the quarterback.
The Bears were hoping Grossman would play the way he did the first five weeks last season and ditch the inconsistency he showed the rest of the way.
Well, he is more consistent.
The problem is "Bad Rex" keeps lining up behind center, and that's bad news for the Bears.
Smith stuck with Grossman last season, but that leash appears to be growing shorter with each pass into double or triple coverage; there were a few of those on Sunday night.
Like the one that Anthony Henry picked off early in the fourth quarter.
Dallas' Nick Folk had just kicked a 44-yard field goal when Grossman tried to hit Muhsin Muhammad in triple coverage. Henry intercepted and ran it back 28 yards for a touchdown that made it 27-10 and put away the Bears.
Grossman didn't get much help.
"All the way around the whole offense, it was one of those days where it seemed like we'd get something going and it'd fall back, and we just couldn't get anything going," wide receiver Bernard Berrian said.
Atlanta Falcons' DeAngelo Hall Goes Off In Loss To Panthers
I don’t know why Atlanta Falcons Cornerback De Angelo Hall went off in the game againt Carolina, but I’m sure it was related to the kind of year he’s had thus far. D-Hall’s been torched. He was taken to school by Chad Johnson in the second game of the season, and the Panther’s Steve Smith wasn’t so kind either. Still, he’s been beaten before, so that can’t be the only reason for his actions that producd not one but two personal foul penalties.
But after reading the AJC, it seems that Hall’s got a hot head, and Smith may have figured out how to get to him. It certainly worked, as the Panthers scored on the critical three-penalty-drive that led to their victory over the Falcons 27-20. For his part, Hall’s facing a team-given punishment and is going to take it like an adult: "I made a mistake. I promise it won't happen again, no matter what."
We’ll see.
Monday, September 24, 2007
1. The Oakland Raiders Finally Win - Beat Browns
After a streak of 11 straight losses, the Oakland Raiders, coached by Lane Kiffin, finally won a game. They beat the Cleveland Browns 26 to 24, and with a tactic used against them the following week at Denver.
In that game, the Raiders lined up to kick what would be the game winner in overtime, only to have a successful field goal attempted whistled dead because Denver Broncos Head Coach Mike Shanahan called a time out just a tick of the clock before the snap of the ball. When the Raiders lined up again, they missed the attempt.
This week Kiffin used the same maneuver against the Cleveland Browns when they lined up to kick what would have been the game winning field goal; the Browns came up short.
Yes, Kiffin’s a fast study. But lost in the discussion of the strategy used was that the Raiders were competitive in each game they played in, and so were bound to get a win.
The main difference is the offense. The combination of timed passes, varied formations, short drops, and zone-blocking has formed an offense that can move the ball and keep the defense off the field, which is a good thing because this Raiders defense isn’t the driving killing force of 2006.
Last year, I called for then-Raiders Offensive Coordinator Tom Walsh to be fired even before the season started, no so this year. Last year, the Raiders were a study in offensive ineptitude --- this year, the system they use is state of the art. I predicted a 9 and 7 season for the Silver and Black. I’ll stick to that.
