Zero2Cool
10 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
+1
Smokey
10 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
10 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
+1
beast
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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.”
packerfanoutwest
10 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.
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (28m) : GameDay Chat is open. Posting bits an tids in there.
    Zero2Cool (29m) : Excellent Source: The Bears have a deal in place to move up to 5 if Jeanty is there.
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Probably not until 10pm will be making pick
    dfosterf (2h) : But it is still not tonight. Lol
    wpr (2h) : Today is finally here.
    dfosterf (3h) : I should have put it in quotes
    dfosterf (3h) : It is the title of a you tube video.
    dfosterf (3h) : I'm not assuming anything
    beast (9h) : If they aren't doing it, then why are you assuming they know how to do it?
    dfosterf (15h) : Mackelvie
    dfosterf (15h) : Michael Macelvie- NFL teams know how to draft- Why don"t they?
    dfosterf (15h) : Youtube
    Zero2Cool (20h) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.
    dfosterf (22h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo
    Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha
    wpr (23-Apr) : Tomorrow is almost here.
    packerfanoutwest (23-Apr) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?
    packerfanoutwest (23-Apr) : JW is done......stick a fork in him
    Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.
    packerfanoutwest (23-Apr) : don't care
    Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?
    packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
    Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
    wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
    wpr (22-Apr) : now 3
    Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?
    beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
    Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
    wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
    wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
    wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
    dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
    wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
    beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
    wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    34 - 0
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    25 - 27
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    22 - 24
    Recent Topics
    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    2h / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    22-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

    13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

    2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.