NFL Offseason: What's a Chris Collins Worth?

[Kalbear]

My personal view is the one that Spencer Hall put out - which is that you can very easily get, like, 90% of the entertainment value of football games while not watching any at all now. Between fantasy apps,  twitter alerts that show you highlights at real time, discussion groups and reactions you get basically all of the highs and lows and don't have to turn on a damn thing. 

And let's face it, watching a football game is often dull from minute to minute. 

[dbunting]

12 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

I live in Oklahoma, where pretty much everything is the oil and gas business, and the same things happen. When times are good, like 5 years ago, these companies fatten up. And there's a good reason for it, as every company is flush with cash and needs to expand to capitalize on high prices, so they get into bidding wars for talent. But it goes past it's logical extreme.  My old roommate at the time was a perfect example. Great dude, and capable worker, but he was in a non-engineering role with a fortune 100 player in the industry, was 27 years old and making $90k a year working 40 hours a week, and getting a golf membership paid for. Those numbers don't add up when the price of oil cuts in half.  Exxon went from 486 billion in revenue in 2012 to 246 billion in 2016.  ESPN is suffering the exact same type of thing.

Pretty fair comparison to oil except does anyone expect ESPN / cable to boom again?

To me ESPN is just the new MTV. They had a great innovative idea , expanding it's content way beyond what it's core viewership wanted and rode it to the end, now it's dead/dying.

I can't see how anyone didn't realize ESPN paying billions upon billions to broadcast stuff was going to work long term.

[sperry]

1 minute ago, dbunting said:

Pretty fair comparison to oil except does anyone expect ESPN / cable to boom again?

To me ESPN is just the new MTV. They had a great innovative idea , expanding it's content way beyond what it's core viewership wanted and rode it to the end, now it's dead/dying.

I can't see how anyone didn't realize ESPN paying billions upon billions to broadcast stuff was going to work long term.

 

Sports are more popular than ever, they just need to figure out a better way to monetize. People are more comfortable than ever with the subscription model, so I don't think that's the issue either. While they were being subsidized by the people out there who had no interest in sports, that subsidy was likely allowing the avid sports fan to be undercharged. There worry has to be just getting cut out by the leagues. I mean, in 10 years will the NFL need broadcast partners?  Why wouldn't they just sell tiers of streaming packages, where you could do: just your favorite team's game every week >>> the old model of the 3 network games, plus Thursday, Sunday, and Monday night games >>> Every game Sunday ticket style. I guess that there are probably enough old people out there who will refuse to learn technology that they will want to keep television games alive for a while, but that has to end relatively soon.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

My personal view is the one that Spencer Hall put out - which is that you can very easily get, like, 90% of the entertainment value of football games while not watching any at all now. Between fantasy apps,  twitter alerts that show you highlights at real time, discussion groups and reactions you get basically all of the highs and lows and don't have to turn on a damn thing. 

And let's face it, watching a football game is often dull from minute to minute. 

Pretty much. IIRC the average NFL games has something like 11 minutes of actual action spread out over the course of 3 hours. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

 

A lot of people seem to think treating non-whites and gay people with dignity is "political."

Word

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Pretty much. IIRC the average NFL games has something like 11 minutes of actual action spread out over the course of 3 hours. 

yeah.  Doesn't the average QB have the ball in his hands for like 4 minutes per game or something?

[sperry]

The dipshit leagues have also been cutting off their nose to spite their faces re: gambling.  Still not sure why they've been fighting that battle.

[JonSnow4President]

Per TMZ, Chris Conley's accuser is seen on video leaving a club with Conley.  That goes against her accusation that they met in the elevator of the hotel.  Still conceivable he did something non-consensual and she simply has drunken details wrong, but it is a bad look early on. 

[briantw]

1 hour ago, JonSnow4President said:

Per TMZ, Chris Conley's accuser is seen on video leaving a club with Conley.  That goes against her accusation that they met in the elevator of the hotel.  Still conceivable he did something non-consensual and she simply has drunken details wrong, but it is a bad look early on. 

Sounds like she's just trying to make some money, honestly.  Or maybe he pissed her off and she's getting back at him by trying to ruin his draft stock and cost him a ton of money.  I'm normally inclined to side with the victim in cases like this, but there are multiple witnesses, one of them female, and video evidence that goes against her claim.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

19 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Pretty much. IIRC the average NFL games has something like 11 minutes of actual action spread out over the course of 3 hours. 

While it's true that there's way too much downtime and commercial breaks in an NFL game, I think that's a little misleading. I think the players lining up, and motioning while the defense runs around and the QB points things out and audibles should count as action. It's certainly pretty exciting to me. At the very least, it helps to build anticipation, like the kick to the stomach that presages the Stone Cold Stunner.

 

Also, given that it's draft day,

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

While it's true that there's way too much downtime and commercial breaks in an NFL game, I think that's a little misleading. I think the players lining up, and motioning while the defense runs around and the QB points things out and audibles should count as action. It's certainly pretty exciting to me. At the very least, it helps to build anticipation, like the kick to the stomach that presages the Stone Cold Stunner.

I agree. The point of the stat is that it makes it a lot easier to boil games down to 15 minutes on Redzone and what not rather than invest 3+ hours on a game. 

[dbunting]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree. The point of the stat is that it makes it a lot easier to boil games down to 15 minutes on Redzone and what not rather than invest 3+ hours on a game. 

Personally I hate red zone. When I watch a game I scan the entire field or tv screen to see what the def is doing, are they sliding left or right on the line, did the QB audible and if so did the def react to it etc. If I didn't have that stuff to watch, the experience wouldn't be nearly the same.

[dbunting]

So the draft is tonight. Being a Dallas fan I am hoping they draft basically all def. This draft is said to be deep in def so lets try to hit on 2-3 players who can contribute this season.

My slanted hope is they get Taco Charlton, slanted because I am a UM fan and that may skew my view of him.

The only way I think I would be ok with off pick in the first round is if everyone was on drugs and Mike Williams fell to them.

[Maithanet]

20 hours ago, Swordfish said:

yeah.  Doesn't the average QB have the ball in his hands for like 4 minutes per game or something?

I'd be pretty surprised if it's even that high.  Aren't there like 70-90 offensive plays in a game?  An average dropback is like 3 seconds before he throws, and the time from snap to handoff is only like one second.  That would work out to less than 3 minutes.  Pretty crazy. 

[JonSnow4President]

42 minutes ago, dbunting said:

So the draft is tonight. Being a Dallas fan I am hoping they draft basically all def. This draft is said to be deep in def so lets try to hit on 2-3 players who can contribute this season.

My slanted hope is they get Taco Charlton, slanted because I am a UM fan and that may skew my view of him.

The only way I think I would be ok with off pick in the first round is if everyone was on drugs and Mike Williams fell to them.

I want Watt.  Think his big brother's character is a good indication of what the younger brother will be.  Depending on how risk averse they are, if Conley is there in the second or third, I want him.  Upper first round talent, and the first evidence post accusation suggests it's wrong.  

But I want to come out of this draft with either a TE or complementary WR.   I'd love Kittles as a mid round pick, or a guy like Reynolds in the third/fourth (I'm an Aggie too, which is why I always mention Reynolds).  

[Rhom]

I'll put in my preference now too.

If the Niners keep the pick (and it doesn't sound like there's that much action on teams needing to move up that high), then I would prefer Jamal Adams.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I'll put in my preference now too.

If the Niners keep the pick (and it doesn't sound like there's that much action on teams needing to move up that high), then I would prefer Jamal Adams.

On the radio this morning there was a lot of buzz that apparently both Shefter and McShay both thought it was possible/likely that the Browns took Trubisky #1.  If that were the case, the offers for SF would get a whole lot sweeter.  Or you could just take Garrett. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

On the radio this morning there was a lot of buzz that apparently both Shefter and McShay both thought it was possible/likely that the Browns took Trubisky #1.  If that were the case, the offers for SF would get a whole lot sweeter.  Or you could just take Garrett. 

Keep hearing that the Browns want that second pick as well so they can just go Garrett then Trubisky.

[briantw]

T-minus five hours until I find out if I'm still a Browns fan.

[Rhom]

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

On the radio this morning there was a lot of buzz that apparently both Shefter and McShay both thought it was possible/likely that the Browns took Trubisky #1.  If that were the case, the offers for SF would get a whole lot sweeter.  Or you could just take Garrett. 

 

11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Keep hearing that the Browns want that second pick as well so they can just go Garrett then Trubisky.

If the Browns are determined to do Browns things, then I say let them... move back to their pick at 12 and get a bunch of other picks from them.

If I'm the Browns though... I take Garrett at number 1 and then look at someone a bit further down for Trubisky.  Unless they think Chicago will take him, I don't see anyone until the Jets that are in the market for a QB.   

But yes, if the Browns take Mitch first and don't make a sweetheart deal at two; then I take Garrett and laugh all the way to the bank.