The better pass rushers often do get moved around. Jason Taylor, for example, rushes from both end position and even lined up as a rush linebacker, for example.
Freeney lined up at weakside LB a handful of times last season.
When Simeon Rice was in his prime, the Bucs sometimes used an overloaded line on passing downs, where Rice would line up on the left (his usual spot), then move all the way to the right and line up outside the RDE.
I think the problem is that NFL players other than QBs and the defensive leaders- usually a linebacker or safety- learn only enough of the playbook to know their own responsibilities. There aren’t many other defenders who know every assignment, or even 2 or more.
In order to move a player around on the line, he needs to know his usual assignment plus the other guy’s, and so does the other guy.
Bingo. They know when they move the guy around. They’d have to adjust the offensive blocking for him. The fun comes when you disguise how he’s being used, usually with a stunt.
I was wondering about the justification for this a while back, thinking of it in terms of championships as opposed to market sizes. I don’t actually know how these numbers will end up, but I suspect the NFC East will be at or near the top.
11 NFC East (Cowboys 5, Giants 3, Redskins 3)
6 AFC East (Patriots 3, Dolphins 2, Jets 1)
6 AFC West (Raiders 3, Broncos 2, Chiefs 1)
6 NFC West (49ers 5, Rams 1)
6 AFC North (Steelers 5, Ravens 1)
4 NFC North (Packers 3, Bears 1)
2 AFC South (Colts 2)
1 NFC South (Bucs 1)
22 NFC
20 AFC
Obviously the teams weren’t always in these divisions, or even conferences. Still, I find this an interesting list. If the Eagles, Chargers or Bills didn’t suck, maybe there would be a division with four Superbowl winners.
The NFC East’s huge lead in Lombardi Trophies (nearly doubling second place) at least lends somes legitimacy to favoring it for primetime matchups. Having the biggest markets doesn’t hurt either.
That list is interesting, but I don’t think who won the superbowl 10 to 38 years ago is a big factor in deciding these things.
I’d imagine they wouldn’t be doing it if it wasn’t profitable, so people must like those games. I’d like to see more variety myself, especially as someone who doesn’t particularly care about anyone in the NFC East.
Although I’ve been warming up to the Giants despite my general hatred of New York teams. You and, IIRC, Hal Briston wrote some flattering things about the Giants organization that made them sound pretty likable as an old school franchise.
You guys don’t have cheerleaders, right?
Edit: That sounds like a weird question to ask. A lot of the teams that I consider old school, hardcore football cities/franchises don’t. The Browns don’t and the subject often comes up in offseason discussions - most people object to the idea. Essentially - we’re there for the football, we don’t need gimmicks to keep our attention. Green Bay, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Chicago - all places I’d consider old school hardcore football towns.
I have no idea why you think that past Super Bowls have anything to do with meriting primetime exposure. What happened in 1960-2000 has as much bearing ESPN and NBC’s decisions as the quality of the host cities’ strip clubs.
I’ll grant that past success lends itself to a greater national fanbase, which is a factor, but it’s only one component of that equation.
The networks only care about what will generate the greatest viewership. This is a factor of 4 things. Size of the broadcast markets of the teams playing, size of those team’s national audience, the quality of the teams playing and that the matchup has a compelling storyline. The networks have been historically bad at predicting the last two items so they tend to err on the side of caution and schedule heavy on NFC East teams. Those teams are in some of the largest TV markets, are some of the oldest teams and have large numbers of transplants across the country. These teams draw reliably good rating based on sheer volume of people.
The problem with this is that for much of the country it has an adverse effect. The NFL, IMO, has been shortsighted in force feeding the rest of the country these games. Much of the country tunes out when watching the same match-up and the same rehashed talking points year after year, we can only hear about the Giants-Eagles and Redskins-Cowboys rivalry history so many times. The even greater problem is that they miss opportunities to create new storylines and introduce new players and new franchises to the country. They could be creating new stars and drawing in viewers in less traditionally deep football markets instead of beating tried and true games into the ground.
Never have, never will, and I don’t find it a weird question at all.
I think the thread you’re thinking of was where a Lions fan – I want to say LOUNE but am not positive and don’t want to offend – was so dispirited they wanted to choose a new team to root for.
When it comes to cheerleaders, I have long wanted the Giants to get them for financial reasons. In a nutshell, cheerleaders bring in a couple million a year in calendar sales. (And I’d be all over that.) This money would help offset not selling stadium naming rights.
The way I see it, having cheerleaders is more oldschool than selling out your stadium name. So if it were a question of one or the other, I say load up GIANTS STADIUM to the rafters with cheerleaders.
Sadly, this is now a moot point, since those stupid Jets shoehorned their way into the new stadium deal, and as such it can’t be named after the team(s). Thus my worst case scenario will happen in 2010; the Giants will become corporate shills by virtue of their stadium name. Booooo!
No word on what the sponsor will be yet, but my money’s on Wachovia.
Here’s the basic list of how teams make extra money, all of which I consider distasteful:
Cheerleaders (calendar sales and corporate appearances)
Stadium naming rights
Change uniforms (jersey sales)
I hate all three of those options. But if you have to do one of them, I’ll take the cheerleaders every time.
The biggest problem is that NFL teams are so insanely profitable that they don’t need to do any of this stuff. It’s just owners wringing the last couple drops juice from the fruit, even if they do it at the expense of alienating their fans.
Agreed, though I hold the bigger markets to a higher standard. I can’t really kill the Bills for having cheerleaders, selling the stadium naming rights* or remaking their uniforms. They just don’t have the money, as evidenced by their need to play some of the 2009 season in Toronto.
Interestingly, the Bills were one of the first to sell their stadium naming rights, striking a deal with Rich Products back in 1972. Even more interesting is that they were one of the first to go back, reverting to a meaningful stadium name when the Rich deal expired in 1998. This nugget courtesy of wikipedia.
A reasonable assessment - although you don’t have to do any of them. I’m sure the NY Giants are quite profitable and it’s not like the organization will go under if they don’t enact one of those revenue generating measures.
I’m pretty happy with Lerner, the owner of the Browns. The stadium name is Cleveland Browns stadium, there are no cheerleaders, the last time our uniform saw any substantial change was 1948 or so. We had a throwback uniform day last year and there was a slight difference in the striping and the helmets had the player numbers on them - that was it. It was awesome.
There’s always a small push from asshats who need to be stabbed in the face multiple times to put a logo on the helmet, and it’s always met with fierce resistance. It’s unique, it’s our symbol and our history. Thankfully the owner seems to get that.
They sold the rights to all four gates to seperate companies. You only notice it when actually passing through that gate. Much better than selling the stadium name, IMO.
I originally read it in either Forbes or WSJ, but on the net I’m reduced to AskMen.com for a cite:
*The 25 NFL teams that have cheerleaders aren’t making a killing from the women on the sidelines, but the side venture does bring in a decent $1 million per season.
The Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders appear in an annual swimsuit calendar that sells for $15.99 in the team’s online store. Fans with the gift of the gab took to a set of seven pre-paid phone cards, each with 10 minutes of talk time and a photo. The package had a suggested retail price of $34.95. In addition, the Cowboys run a camp every summer for aspiring cheerleaders where participants pay $189 for the three-day session.
Divisional-rivals Philadelphia also know that cheerleading can be a small cash cow. In 2003, the Eagles produced a lingerie calendar featuring topless cheerleaders, a risky first in what has been dubbed the “No Fun League.” The team printed 20,000 copies, which retailed for $12.99 – or a little more than $1 a month – for the experience of gawking at the fine specimens.
During the season, Eagles cheerleaders attend approximately 10 corporate gigs per week, at a price of $200 per hour, per woman. According to reports, the team makes about $500,000 from these appearances.*
Interesting. I’d always been under the impression that the Cowboys cheerleaders were the only ones who actually made money for the team (and obviously they’re a special case).
I can’t believe you didn’t notice what I called your team in that list
Absolutely. That’s actually a great solution, though I suspect those deals net far less than a deal naming the entire stadium would.
You’re absolutely right about the Giants not needing it. That Forbes article I originally read was written about either Steve Tisch or John Mara as they were getting ready to take over. This must’ve been 2004. Anyway, the idea was that with the biggest market in the country, there was no excuse for being the 20th (or so) most profitable team. So the discussion was about the standard ways that NFL teams increase revenue. (The other two main sources are luxury boxes and tv networks, like the Yankee’s “Yes Network,” but I was just listing the ones I find distasteful.)
The basic gist of the article (which I can’t seem to find) was that the Giants ownership was ultra-conservative, and would never consider any of these measures under Wellington Mara. You’re talking about a guy who agreed to effectively give money away via revenue sharing. His first love was Blue, not green.
One thing I was reminded of while trying to find that article is that one of the reasons the Giants aren’t on the Cowboys level of profitability is that the Giants (and Jets) are building their stadium without taxpayer money.
ETA: I have no objections to associating the Giants with New Jersey. The reason I always refer to teams by their nicknames and never by location is that the two Jersey teams break the pattern, and pattern-breaking bugs me. It has nothing to do with disassociating from Jersey.
That might be true, but then they also get to keep 100% of the revenues. AFAIK the city of Arlington gets a cut of whatever the 'Boys make at Texas Stadium.
Still, I appreciate what Mara did. He always seemed like one of the owners who “got it”.
I don’t have the numbers but I wager that Arlington’s revenue from the lease (and maybe concessions/parking depending how sweet the deal is) never comes close to equaling the taxpayer investment.
I wish the US Government would pass a federal restriction on states/municipalities using tax dollars to fund Professional Stadiums. That would mean that pro franchises would have to build their stadiums make relocation decisions based on sound business principles.