Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Do we get flexed to prime time next week?


Mage
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I don't have a "deal". If anything, the Saints/Panthers game would be the "one to move". I highly doubt the Bucs are losing to Arizona so it will come down to us beating NO to get in.

Also, flexing Panthers/Saints won't make sense unless the Saints beat the Eagles.  If the Eagles win, then a Bucs loss in Week 18 would mean the Panthers have nothing to play for in the night game as win or lose they would hold the tiebreaker over the Saints (who need to win out).  And Falcons are eliminated.  NFL won't risk the Week 18 SNF being meaningless so Panthers and Bucs will play their games simultaneously.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a buddy who is in the sports TV business and he said if the networks were given the chance to only show Packers, Cowboys and Steelers games all year long...they would take it.

So I'm going to just spitball random crap and see if any of it sticks.  The Cowboys are already on Thursday Night Football.  The Packers are playing a 4pm game on CBS against the Vikings.  That is an all NFC matchup that got "cross flexed" from Fox to CBS so that CBS could show 1 intriguing game that afternoon.  Which means CBS is going to fight to keep that game.  Taking it a step further, the other 2 afternoon games are Jets @ Seahawks and 49ers @ Raiders.  So moving the Rams/Chargers game down to the 4pm slot would mean that there would be all west coast games on at 4 with only the New York Jets bringing an audience from the east.

At the 1pm slot CBS also has the Ravens/Steelers game.  As much as they might want that one, I think they might let it go because they also have the Chiefs at 1pm.  CBS has been leaning heavy into all Chiefs games and broadcasting them nationally, even when they are playing a team like the Texans.

Here are some additional rules to flexing that I was not aware of but google'd it.  Apparently when the networks protect their games from being flexed, its something that has to happen by week 5.  And it can only be 1 game per week.  So if we are going to keep overthinking this like I am in this post, we would have to also ask ourselves what games would have looked compelling enough to protect in week 17...way back in week 5.  Which leads me to believe there is an off chance that CBS chose to protect Chiefs/Broncos. Which leads them open.

https://sports.morganwick.com/category/football/nfl/snf-flex-scheduling-watch/

Edited by Wes21
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mage said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/12/20/no-decision-yet-on-week-17-sunday-night-football-game/

Currently the SNF game is Chargers/Rams, which won't stick.  

No matter the result of tomorrows game, Bucs/Panthers will have huge implications.  BUT, and I know this is unlikely but you never know... if the Bucs lose to the Cardinals, then they face an elimination game vs the Panthers.  They are done if they lose.  And no way Brady plays a meaningless game in Week 18.  And who knows what his plans are?  It isn't a stretch to think that it could very well be his final NFL game ever and the NFL knows this.  So I think if the Bucs lose tomorrow this make the game a lock to be flexed to SNF.  

A Sunday Night Panthers game in late December with the division hanging in the balance would make me a very happy man. 

I hope not I have to fly to Oregon most likely at 5am Monday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to competete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...