NFL - NEWS & NOTES

The way the NFL dot com article was written is misleading, or just plain wrong if you want to be blunt about it. The Saints are $42 million OVER the cap, not under it. That's why Loomis is trying "to find more ways to fix the team's cap pains", as the article noted. If they were $42 million under the cap, there would be no pain to fix.

As it now stands, they have appx $238 million in spending and $12 million in dead money. Spotrac (which the article lists as their source) has their adjusted cap at $208 million, so the $42 million part is an accurate approximation - but it's OVER the cap, not under.

 

Report: Browns are willing to break the bank for David Njoku



Browns tight end David Njoku has never had a breakout season in the NFL. That won’t be stopping the Browns from breaking out the checkbook to keep him around.

Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Browns “definitely” want Njoku back with the team, and that the Browns “are prepared to pay him the double-digit millions he’ll get on the open market.” Cabot adds that the Browns have been talking to Njoku’s agents “for months,” and that the team will try to get a deal done before March 14, when Njoku officially can begin soliciting offers from other teams on the open market.


In 16 games last year, Njoku had 36 catches for 475 yards and four touchdowns. His best season came in 2018, when he caught 56 passes for 639 yards and four touchdowns.

George Kittle leads the tight-end market at $15 million per year. The Browns are currently paying tight end Austin Hooper $10.5 million annually. Hooper had 38 catches for 345 yards and three touchdowns in 2021.

Obviously, if the Browns are thinking about an eight-figure-per-year contract for Njoku, Hooper’s contract will require closer consideration. Hooper is due to make $9.5 million this year. His cap number is $13.25 million, and the cap charge from releasing or trading him before June 1 would be $11.25 million.

PFT

 

Another, Mary Kay gem?

 

Competition Committee ponders possible postseason overtime change



Two Sundays ago, during the Super Bowl pregame show, we pointed out that the owners may adopt this year a simple and straightforward solution to the inherently unfair postseason overtime procedures — each team would be guaranteed one possession.

This Sunday, via Mark Maske of the Washington Post, the Competition Committee is meeting in Indianapolis amid “at least some sentiment” within the committee to recommended the one-possession-each approach. Ultimately, however, the wishes of the committee don’t matter; the current rules will change only if at least 24 teams are willing to do so.


Moreover, individual teams can propose changes, even if the committee doesn’t. Rich McKay, chair of the Competition Committee, said Sunday that he has “no question that there will be a team or two that is going to suggest a rule change,” via Maske.

As noted in the days after the Super Bowl, if the NFL doesn’t make the change after the thoroughly unsatisfying ending to the Bills-Chiefs playoff game, the NFL likely never will. And the only solution that the powers-that-be regard as sensible entail a postseason-only alteration that gives the team that kicked off to start overtime a chance to match or beat an opening-drive touchdown.

In considering the various arguments in favor of promoting each team a possession in the playoffs, it’s important to note the arguments against making a change. Or lack thereof. The cries of jUSt pLaY DeFEnSe don’t fit with today’s game, where the rules are slanted toward gaining yards and scoring points. No one in their right mind would choose to kick to start overtime, which confirms the clear advantage of taking the ball and vowing to score.

Moreover, the fact that the Bengals defeated the Chiefs after kicking off to start overtime of the AFC Championship doesn’t prove the point. Overcoming an inherently unfair system doesn’t make the system any more fair. It just makes the outcome more impressive.

Given that the NFL has no appetite for gimmicks like spot-and-choose (proposed last year by the Ravens) or a two-point conversion shootout (my own personal favorite, for years), the best move would be taking the half-measure from 2010 and going the rest of the way.

As a compromise when it comes to length of game/amount of snaps, maybe the NFL should go back to sudden-death overtime for regular-season football. That was initially the case after the postseason-only change following the Vikings-Saints NFC Championship in 2009, but too many coaches felt compelled to have the same rules in the regular season and in the postseason. Even though the rules necessarily are different, because regular-season games can end in a tie.

PFT

 

Tweaking the OT rules is a 'no-brainer'... lets see if the NFL has a brain.

 

jUSt pLaY DeFEnSe

There are three phases of the game. If you can't keep the opposing team from scoring a TD on the opening drive... then you don't deserve to win. Does it suck if your team doesn't get to touch the ball? Yes. But there is no good rule and it's not like when your defense gives up a game winning touchdown at the end of regulation that you should just get another chance because the clock ran out!

Win in regulation or stop the other team from scoring a TD so you can earn the ball back. You had plenty of chances to win or lose by the time you got to that moment. The other team could close and yours couldn't.

 

Suggestion for competition committee:

Regular season: play a 10-minute overtime period. Never mind who scores first - play the full 10 minutes. If it's still tied after 10 minutes, it's a tie. Or just skip the whole thing and have it be a tie at the end of regulation.

Postseason: if it's still tied after 10 minutes, go to NCAA-style alternating possessions.

 

I disagree. It's clear the modern game favors the offense. I could go into statistics and all that, but I think we all know this, as astute observers of the game.

So, no one gets upset about the coin flip at the start of the game - the result of the coin flip is reversed every quarter (side of field) and half (first possession). It's acceptably equitable. That is not the case for overtime - people are upset because it's inherently inequitable.

If you want to make the coin flip equitable, let's give each team an equal chance. Maybe that's taking college rules and adding a kickoff (special teams counts, too). Maybe that's awarding the initial possession to a team based on a certain merit, rather than a coin toss (this feels stupid, but people hate college overtime for a reason I can't understand).

As it stands, the rules aren't equitable. I'm not saying we have to hold anyone's hands - defense matters, too - but when the game is titled towards offense, it's not fair to base the outcome of a game on only one team's offense.

 

I find all of this more palatable than the current rules.

 

I agree. Why not keep all the rules the same as current, except if the first team to possess the ball scores a TD, they treat it the same as they do with a FG in that situation. In other words, in the event of a score (FG/TD) by the first team, the team to get the ball 2nd gets a shot regardless..If the 2nd team to possess the ball is chasing a TD (7pts), they must go for two in the event of a score. And if they only chasing 6, they have option to kick PAT for the W.

 

How does that make it more fair?

 

because both offenses get a crack at it this way...that was the point, wasn't it? Ya can't just win the coin flip and drive down and win without the other team seeing the ball in this format. Both offenses will get an opportunity.

 

Report: Browns, Eagles planning joint training camp practices



It might feel like the offseason has just begun, but teams are already getting things in order for the 2022 season.

To that end, Zac Jackson of TheAthletic.com reports the Browns and Eagles are planning to have joint training camp practices during the summer.


The sessions would be held at the Browns’ facility where the club holds training camp each year with fans in attendance. And the Browns and Eagles would then play a preseason game. According to the report, Philadelphia put in a request to the league to play in Cleveland during August. The game would likely be in the first or second week of the preseason.

The Browns hosted the Giants for a pair of practices during last year’s training camp. Most of Cleveland’s starters did not play in the preseason game that followed.

Philadelphia had joint practices with New England last year as well.

The Browns and Eagles last played in the 2020 regular season and are not slated to play again until 2024.

PFT

 

I think his point was, one team gets to kick a FG, while the other is forced to attempt a 2 pt conversion. At that point it comes down to one play, which that team had no choice to make...In reality, they may be better off with a tie (See Pittsburgh 2021)

I agree 100% with you though! They definitely need to give both teams a possession since the league has forced them into an offense driven league. You can't hang the balance of the game on the defense, when all rules are driven to help the offense.

 

I know. It might not be perfect, but it does ensure that both offenses an opportunity. In a game like we saw with KC and Buffalo, I'm not sure I'd want to be the team that kicked the PAT.

 

One side unfairly has to follow up their touchdown by going for two.

And one team is still penalized for losing the coinflip in your scenario.

 

Both offenses deserve a chance. So OT should be an untimed quarter with just a play clock and you trade scores until someone offsets for a victory.

Team A wins the flip and gets the ball. They score a FG.

Team B has to either kick a FG to tie or score a touchdown to win.

Team A gets the ball back and has to punt.

Team B can kick a FG or score a touchdown to win.

If you want to make it a timed 15 minute quarter for the regular season and keep ties...then go for it. But that's how it should go for the playoffs.

There's no reason to overthink it. The answer is pretty simple.

 

Yeah, that's the same team cited as being unfairly treated in your first comment. You are just saying it in a different way. So what about the team being unjustly treated by the winds of mother nature? lol! geez...that's not fair!

Seriously though. We can forget the 2 point demand if ya want.. Coach's are probably going to go for it anyway if their offense can't be stopped.....I only put the 2 point demand in there because one of the NFL's biggest concerns is that the game could drag on too long, causing player fatigue, injuries and blah blah blah, and this would likely prevent that from happening..... You'd think at some point though, a defense could make a play, so I'm fine with no 2pt. demand.

 

This last part is where you lose me. The other team hasn't proven jack. The other team also had plenty of chances to win or lose in regulation, and regulation ended up with both teams equal. If they haven't had to play defense in the OT, they haven't proven they can close.

 

Hmmmm..... try this out:

Two five-minute overtime periods. Each team kicks off to start one of the two periods. You play them both (in their entirety). Each team gets one time out, and all reviews are booth. Change ends after the end of the first five minute period.

Still tied? Do it again.