Reports: kaepernick wants out of SF

[rmw10]

25 minutes ago, Drew P said:

I question your understanding of the NFL's business model regarding revenue. Why does the owner care about filling in seats? The money is in the TV deal and the revenue sharing.

The Houston Astros just a few short years ago recorded the highest net profit for any sport team in history on a TV deal when the seats were empty and the viewership registered 0. That report is now in question but it is certainly possible. Seats are peanuts...

There's a thing called the blackout rule.  It was suspended in 2015 of course, but there's no confirmation if it's gone for good or not.  If it comes back in 2016, you need fans to fill those seats or that TV revenue goes away.

[ALI624]

You know what rich people really want?  More money.

[JoeyFlex5]

"hello citizens of LA, i am jeff fisher, the head coach of your brand new los angeles rams. you know that one qb that gets mercilessly ridiculed by every fan and media outlet in the country? the qb who ran for a bunch of yards as a rookie and then fumbled and intercepted his way into obscurity yet still brought controversy everytime he stepped out of the locker room? well we have decided to sign him to usher in the new era for this franchise and we are certain he can lead us to the promised land, we have decided that the other disfunctional team up north can have your beloved jared goff because we dont need him. we will do just fine with RG3 and then another linemen at 15th overall, i hope youre as excited as we are!"  

 

if Drew P was Jeff Fisher.

[Drew P]

10 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

without fan support the team has low ratings.

 

with low ratings the teams televised games are blacked out.

 

with blackouts the team doesnt receive the TV endorsements. 

 

with a massive billion plus dollar stadium you cant afford to squander a stacked team with nick foles at qb. i question if you can see the big picture in anything.

Blackouts (when in effect) can be lifted by the local team AND if its not a sellout they can easily fork over for pennies on the dollar to purchase any said unsold tickets. Sky boxes and premium seating are excluded.

I am quite certain Kroenke has this figured out. He isn't moving a team there hoping you show up lol.

Some of you guys actually kill me with these hypothetical fantasy land scenario's.

[Drew P]

18 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

There's a thing called the blackout rule.  It was suspended in 2015 of course, but there's no confirmation if it's gone for good or not.  If it comes back in 2016, you need fans to fill those seats or that TV revenue goes away.

As I mentioned before greedy owners could care less about you showing up. They got all the bases covered they didn't end up billionaires by dumb luck. A blackout is a scare tactic with numerous hedges baked into the cake to nullify the potentiality of a blackout even occurring.

[JoeyFlex5]

11 minutes ago, Drew P said:

Blackouts (when in effect) can be lifted by the local team AND if its not a sellout they can easily fork over for pennies on the dollar to purchase any said unsold tickets. Sky boxes and premium seating are excluded.

I am quite certain Kroenke has this figured out. He isn't moving a team there hoping you show up lol.

Some of you guys actually kill me with these hypothetical fantasy land scenario's.

some guys kill me when they literally act as if no team cares about fan support... 

 

with low ratings they will still get peanuts for tv endorsements. you need ratings, you need fan support, why do you think the NFC east teams are so successful in terms of revenue and locking up so many primetime slots, even though none of them can play better than .500 for more than 1 season at a time? because all 4 of them have some of the best fanfare in the entire league, even in bad seasons these people still buy tickets, buy merchandise, and generate enough buzz to entice the networks. trust me, no LA team is going to generate enough buzz with a mediocre or bad team, LA doesnt care about football, basketball is essentially the only sport that matters to them and if they arent fielding a strong team with a good buzz around it, they wont be getting all of that tv money. 

 

and what about a solid team, who needs to build up a fanbase in a new city, with no qb, trading up using 2 2nd round picks to snag a great candidate for franchise qb, is hypothetical fantasy land scenario? not only is it reasonable enough to discuss, but the idea really has some legs under it, the rams NEED a qb, no first round team wants to settle for connor cook, they arent mortgaging the future to move up, they are giving a couple of picks to get their qb, what is fantasy about that? you blow everything so far out of proportion i find it hard to even take you serious.

Edited February 3, 2016 by JoeyFlex5

[GrimCoconut]

54 minutes ago, Drew P said:

I question your understanding of the NFL's business model regarding revenue. Why does the owner care about filling in seats? The money is in the TV deal and the revenue sharing.

The Houston Astros just a few short years ago recorded the highest net profit for any sport team in history on a TV deal when the seats were empty and the viewership registered 0. That report is now in question but it is certainly possible. Seats are peanuts...

I understand NFL business principles and I'd normally agree with you but a franchise QB is an entirely different monster. Whether you want to admit it or not that's the position all teams search for in the draft. So yes, I absolutely think it makes sense for them because that's what's holding them back and Goff is a perfect fit in every way. Advertising and fan support would both increase as a result of Goff, a local product that can be the face of a franchise.

Edited February 3, 2016 by GrimCoconut

[Drew P]

2 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

I understand NFL business principles and I'd normally agree with you but a franchise QB is an entirely different monster. Whether you want to admit it or not that's the position all teams search for in the draft. So yes, I absolutely think it makes sense for them because that's what's holding them back and Goff is a perfect fit in every way.

Agreed on the value of a franchise QB. My point was Goff is the most polished turn key guy and is most likely heading to Cleveland. I just don't see the Rams tripping over themselves to swoop in and select from the next set of guys in Wentz and Lynch when one or the other will be there at 15.

[GrimCoconut]

3 minutes ago, Drew P said:

Agreed on the value of a franchise QB. My point was Goff is the most polished turn key guy and is most likely heading to Cleveland. I just don't see the Rams tripping over themselves to swoop in and select from the next set of guys in Wentz and Lynch when one or the other will be there at 15.

True. I think Goff could go to the Browns and make all this moot. I just think if he's there then they'll get him. If not, then they won't obviously lol. I just see them trading up to get Goff if he makes it to us. 

[Drew P]

1 hour ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

some guys kill me when they literally act as if no team cares about fan support... 

 

with low ratings they will still get peanuts for tv endorsements. you need ratings, you need fan support, why do you think the NFC east teams are so successful in terms of revenue and locking up so many primetime slots, even though none of them can play better than .500 for more than 1 season at a time? because all 4 of them have some of the best fanfare in the entire league, even in bad seasons these people still buy tickets, buy merchandise, and generate enough buzz to entice the networks. trust me, no LA team is going to generate enough buzz with a mediocre or bad team, LA doesnt care about football, basketball is essentially the only sport that matters to them and if they arent fielding a strong team with a good buzz around it, they wont be getting all of that tv money. 

 

and what about a solid team, who needs to build up a fanbase in a new city, with no qb, trading up using 2 2nd round picks to snag a great candidate for franchise qb, is hypothetical fantasy land scenario? not only is it reasonable enough to discuss, but the idea really has some legs under it, the rams NEED a qb, no first round team wants to settle for connor cook, they arent mortgaging the future to move up, they are giving a couple of picks to get their qb, what is fantasy about that? you blow everything so far out of proportion i find it hard to even take you serious.

The fantasy pie in the sky is within the very core of the title of this thread. The fact it was created from a knee-jerk reaction from a tabloid report about an alleged comment that an overpaid unwanted QB made.

From your comment I am to believe the Rams financial success is contingent on potentially selecting a QB early through the draft? The other 52 men on the roster are non-factors? A free agent QB is not an option? The opposition they play, the tailgate parties and the media frenzy over an LA squad are non-factors?

The LA market currently supports baseball and hockey not just basketball lol. As a matter of fact Anaheim's hockey stadium is located within the vicinity as well. I don't think 3 teams would be coming to that town if they didn't perform their due diligence.

[ravensnation5220]

http://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/2016/2/1/10892006/insidious-draft-myths

 

I really like the way this article was written. Really supports the idea of trading down if our guy isnt there at 6.

[JoeyFlex5]

2 hours ago, Drew P said:

 

From your comment I am to believe the Rams financial success is contingent on potentially selecting a QB early through the draft? The other 52 men on the roster are non-factors? A free agent QB is not an option? The opposition they play, the tailgate parties and the media frenzy over an LA squad are non-factors?

.

no, youre further proving my point about blowing things way out of proportion, you are picking and choosing words to fit your agenda and then blatantly overstating everything. those other 52 men WONT be a factor if you have nick foles making it rain picks, or rg3 doing god knows what which is apparently what you think would be the best move the financial success of the team is going to hinge on the typical factors, revenue generated, and you cannot sustainably generate revenue with a garbage team because you need fanfare, you need some kind of buzz. if the rams decide to play nick foles another year or sign rg3 like you suggest(lol) then the novelty buzz of a new LA team will die down real quick when they have another average or bad season, that remaining buzz will die even quicker a few years later when their big name guys leave or get older and decline. 

 

so while we are hopeful that the rams, moving to LA, may want to get a good qb in this draft and give up a little extra to do so, your solution is basically "lol stop talking about it because its a ridiculous thought, the rams dont need a qb nor do they need to have any fanfare or wins because they dont care about any of that". you would make one hell of a gm.

[lgcs27288]

I think the trade back with the Rams could be a real possibility. The Rams are being included in a lot of rumors circling QBs lately. They've reportedly be considered in Manning if the Broncos let him go, and Manziel said the Rams were also interested in him.

 

If these rumors are true, they are definitely looking to upgrade at the QB position and could be a likely trade partner in the draft if they do not address that need in free agency.

[Drew P]

33 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

no, youre further proving my point about blowing things way out of proportion, you are picking and choosing words to fit your agenda and then blatantly overstating everything. those other 52 men WONT be a factor if you have nick foles making it rain picks, or rg3 doing god knows what which is apparently what you think would be the best move the financial success of the team is going to hinge on the typical factors, revenue generated, and you cannot sustainably generate revenue with a garbage team because you need fanfare, you need some kind of buzz. if the rams decide to play nick foles another year or sign rg3 like you suggest(lol) then the novelty buzz of a new LA team will die down real quick when they have another average or bad season, that remaining buzz will die even quicker a few years later when their big name guys leave or get older and decline. 

 

so while we are hopeful that the rams, moving to LA, may want to get a good qb in this draft and give up a little extra to do so, your solution is basically "lol stop talking about it because its a ridiculous thought, the rams dont need a qb nor do they need to have any fanfare or wins because they dont care about any of that". you would make one hell of a gm.

Interesting that 98% of a team doesn't matter according to your logic. So on that philosophy draft a QB each round and sign UFA's to fill the out the remaining roster slots.

Didn't say a peep about not acquiring a QB not sure where you read that. Scroll up where I clearly wrote there are others options available.

It's downright silly to insinuate the teams downfall in a gold mine of market when they even haven't stepped onto the field of play yet lol. The facts are FA hasn't started and the combine and the draft will play major roles in whatever the hell they decide.

[JoeyFlex5]

1 minute ago, Drew P said:

Interesting that 98% of a team doesn't matter according to your logic. So on that philosophy draft a QB each round and sign UFA's to fill the out the remaining roster slots.

Didn't say a peep about not acquiring a QB not sure where you read that. Scroll up where I clearly wrote there are others options available.

It's downright silly to insinuate the teams downfall in a gold mine of market when they even haven't stepped onto the field of play yet lol. The facts are FA hasn't started and the combine and the draft will play major roles in whatever the hell they decide.

once again, you completely disregard any point i made or spin the words and blow it out of proportion.

 

you sound ridiculous, one post after another, failing to understand the point of any of this, spewing ignorance about how we shouldnt even be allowed to discuss this and how we all might as well be morons for doing so. 

 

your "other options" were connor cook in the first and rg3 .... i have stated repeatedly, that the rams are a good team and they NEED a qb, and likely they wont be competing for anything more than 3rd in the west until they address the position, because while you seem to be ok with treating the position as an afterthought, everyone who even tunes in on sunday knows that qb is the most important position on a team, but squandering a relatively strong roster with rg3 or connor cook is obviously the better move. and right, a gold mine of a market, you say this as if multiple teams moved out of LA as quickly as they moved in. you are so certain that the rams have absolutely no intentions of even considering a qb in the draft, when everybody and their mother knows they are already actively scouting options and the ones they have checked out in FA dont appear to be any kind of long or even short term answer. 

 

im done with this, you cant even comprehend a post enough to form a single coherent response, its like talking to a pompous brick wall.

[ArsenalRaven666]

What are the chances of the 49ers trading Kaepernick to the Rams !?

[DomMcRaven]

3 minutes ago, ArsenalRaven666 said:

What are the chances of the 49ers trading Kaepernick to the Rams !?

I'd laugh if that happens.

[Cillmatic]

This is a false report according to B/R.

[PurpleCity5]

I think what some people forget is that a HC could push for a franchise QB if they feel that their job is in danger, it can increase the amount of years they'll be able to coach. You can think of it as a cop out. 

 

The way I see it, Jeff Fisher has to find a QB. The NFL is a what have you done for me lately league, and Jeff Fisher's resume with St.Louis seems empty. The one position that's seemingly holding him back is the QB position, I'm certain he's on the hot seat and he's desperate. 

[thieverycorporation]

12 hours ago, January J said:

It actually Makes alot of sense. That was a diffrent time and a diffrent scenario and has zero To do with this upcoming draft. Theyre Not "trading away their future"..its 2 second round picks to possibly get the quarterback for Their future. And even the Possibility of the rams trading with Us could get san Fran worried enough to offer up a 2nd and a 4th..which i Would consider taking over the other offer to move one spot and still get the same player.

That's exactly the point in trades and trade bait. We are in a prime position do something to go up or down. I think some team will get antsy and ask for the swap. It just has to be implied that someone wants what they want and we hold some decent cards to facilitate the hurry up strategy. It doesn't even have to be a team needing a QB but say a Bosa or Tunsil. I'd fleece them for those two prospects as well. Now we can't get two greedy but I'm currently thinking we won't be picking @ 6 @ all. Bosa isn't the be all end all. He has tremendous upside but if Ozzie gets more picks he's taking them. He would be able upgrade and get younger much quicker and @ a nominal cost. I have to think it would sway him away from any prospect on the board. After the combine the offers will flow and a deal will get cut. But stand by my convictions _ There is no one in this draft that Ozzie can't live without. No one. No Tunsil, Bosa, Hargreaves, Ramsey No one.

[PurpleCity5]

Even if Chip keeps him, that doesn't mean he'll commit to him long term. If you're a team like San Fran, you can cut loose with Kaepernick any time you feel like, would you want to miss out on Goff in this case? I can imagine San Francisco pursuing Goff regardless if Kaepernick stays or goes. I don't think its conclusive that he'll pass on Goff or Wentz(Who is mobile) because of Kaepernick who he can cut anytime he feels like it. 

[thieverycorporation]

11 hours ago, Drew P said:

Agreed on the value of a franchise QB. My point was Goff is the most polished turn key guy and is most likely heading to Cleveland. I just don't see the Rams tripping over themselves to swoop in and select from the next set of guys in Wentz and Lynch when one or the other will be there at 15.

I guess what he's trying to tell you DrewP is it isn't written in stone what your pro porting to be fact. And other factors way heavily on any moves. Free agency/combines has yet to play out and no one really knows how any of it will play out. I think he's suggesting for the readers to look at all the possibilities and not discount one view because of another. 

[thieverycorporation]

1 hour ago, PurpleCity5 said:

Even if Chip keeps him, that doesn't mean he'll commit to him long term. If you're a team like San Fran, you can cut loose with Kaepernick any time you feel like, would you want to miss out on Goff in this case? I can imagine San Francisco pursuing Goff regardless if Kaepernick stays or goes. I don't think its conclusive that he'll pass on Goff or Wentz(Who is mobile) because of Kaepernick who he can cut anytime he feels like it. 

He can't cut Kap with a bloated cap hit and survive the media frenzy, dead money implications etc. 

It's about to get hot in San Fran. Chips era isn't getting off to a smooth transition. They will have to name starter, bench him, or find a trade partner. I just hope it's not the Rams currently that takes the bait. I think Cleveland may make a play for him as I think that was the intent with Johnny Nothing so Far. They could work a deal if the Brown Bags eat some of the cap/salary or have him restructure his contract to get out of dodge.

Edited February 4, 2016 by thieverycorporation
spelling

[RaineV1]

Chip would honestly be better off sticking with Gabbert rather than trying to keep or to start Kaep. As for where Kaep could go, the Browns might take him if they don't want to draft a qb. Seems like a typical move they would make.

[Winchester]

On 2/3/2016 at 10:20 PM, JoeyFlex5 said:

Kaepernick vocally wants out of SF, citing the front office as a problem to him, he Reportedly doesn't trust the organization and is still bitter about them running harbaugh out of town, and with a totalitarian coach like Kelly he may feel uneasy, and I can't say I blame him. 

 

The more vocal he becomes about this, the more our trade value rises, if all of this becomes a headline then suddenly we have tons of options. Without a bosa or Ramsey available at 6th, then our top goal should be to trade back for the rams 2 second rounders. 

 

I think the obvious target there becomes spence, then with 3 second rounders, just imagine the haul... A first 2 rounds consisting of spence, and Then with our original 2nd we can go strictly bpa and grab who ever may have fell, possibly a Corey Coleman, kevin dodd, shaq lawson, and Then later on with our new picks we can possibly land some combination of boyd, fuller, and maybe a Jason spriggs or eli apple. 

 

This news on kaepernick is huge and I hope this plays itself out in our favor, this team could use a break like this.

The rams would not trade 2 round2 picks along with a round1 for the ravens pick. The QBs are very solid but not that kind of good for a move up that costs 2 round2 picks as well as the round1. Would be cool but that is very wishful thinking. Most rams would give up is one of the roumd2 picks with their round1.

[ALPHA]

Leaving a dumpster fire only works if you're not the actual dumpster fire.

[ALPHA]

3 hours ago, Winchester said:

The rams would not trade 2 round2 picks along with a round1 for the ravens pick. The QBs are very solid but not that kind of good for a move up that costs 2 round2 picks as well as the round1. Would be cool but that is very wishful thinking. Most rams would give up is one of the roumd2 picks with their round1.

The talent grade has a steep drop where we draft so if our guys aren't there then trading back for an additional 2nd would be worth it, we're essentially rebuilding so we could use more picks on the front end.

[JoeyFlex5]

5 hours ago, Winchester said:

The rams would not trade 2 round2 picks along with a round1 for the ravens pick. The QBs are very solid but not that kind of good for a move up that costs 2 round2 picks as well as the round1. Would be cool but that is very wishful thinking. Most rams would give up is one of the roumd2 picks with their round1.

I may be wrong but I don't recall listing a future 1st, and if I did it was just a "wouldn't that be cool?" type of mentioning. 

 

2 2nd rounders this year is absolutely plausible though, and the rams could see it as a very worthwhile investment for a franchise qb, they know all they really need is a qb, and they have the perfect ammo, throw in those seconds this year to get you don't have to feel the pain of mortgaging your future in the 2017 draft.

[January J]

22 hours ago, Drew P said:

5 hours ago, Winchester said:

The rams would not trade 2 round2 picks along with a round1 for the ravens pick. The QBs are very solid but not that kind of good for a move up that costs 2 round2 picks as well as the round1. Would be cool but that is very wishful thinking. Most rams would give up is one of the roumd2 picks with their round1.

I 

I would do it just for the two 2nds.

[Jaybirds]

Just so we're clear:  is Winchester talking about next year's first round pick, or this year's, the #15.  I think he's saying the Rams won't give up #15 plus two second round picks for #6.  I'm not sure everyone is disagreeing on the same thing.