NFL Thread

[grommit2]

Hmm...exclusive.  So, you can see the game ONLY if you have Peacock. 
Well, clearly, the NFL wants MORE money...and is willing to annoy fans of two teams to get it. Oh well.

[Salacious Kitty]

It's the Saturday night wild card game, so ouch. 

[Carey]

That's sorta dumb that they went with the Saturday wild card.  It would have made more sense to go with the Sunday game, especially since the return of the Saturday early day game was a one-year thing prior to the move to Monday night.  So it's basically 1-3-1 in terms of free NFL.  Yes I'm aware many people are off on the Monday after WC Sunday, but that's not going to be the case next season

[merylinkid]

Isn't there a rule that the teams playing at least have to be on broadcast tv.   Because sure the NFL wants more money but they also want the ratings to justify the huge tv contracts.   If you artificially limit who can watch that hurts that number.   

I think this is going to get tweaked as the game gets closer when they realize everyone isn't rushing to sign up for Peacock to just watch one game.

 

CBS has the broadcast so its not even that NBC will be using this as a way to get people onto streaming for the Super Bowl.

Edited May 16, 2023 by merylinkid

[mojoween]

The deal is also only for one year so what do you think the chances are of people not signing up to watch the game, to make a point to the NFL that we don’t want to do that?

I mean, it’s really all going to come down to *who* is playing and if the game tickles a fan base, or a national audience.

[bluegirl147]

I already have Peacock and I think this sucks.  

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

I think this is going to get tweaked as the game gets closer when they realize everyone isn't rushing to sign up for Peacock to just watch one game.

Maybe they will allow a one time guest sign up.  What about people who go out to watch the game?  Do sports bars have Peacock subscriptions?   What about people who don't have WIFI?  Those people do exist. I don't think the NFL thought this through. As of right now this looks to be a version of Pay Per View.

13 hours ago, Carey said:

Yes I'm aware many people are off on the Monday after WC Sunday,

I'm not.  And that is why I hate when the Steelers have night games.  I'm lucky if I make it to halftime.  But a Sunday night playoff game I would  have to stay up for. 

5 minutes ago, mojoween said:

I mean, it’s really all going to come down to *who* is playing and if the game tickles a fan base, or a national audience.

Peacock did have an ad supported plan that was free but I don't know if that is still the case.  I wonder if they will schedule the best matchup that weekend for the Saturday night slot.  To try to bully people into signing up.

[nickp1991]

I have peacock for WWE and supercross 

[Black Knight]

12 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Isn't there a rule that the teams playing at least have to be on broadcast tv.

Yeah, reading the link provided upthread for the Peacock deal, that will be the case. The "exclusivity" refers to being the only streaming service to have the games and being the only way to watch outside of the participating teams' home markets. From the link: "The Peacock exclusive Wild Card game and regular season game will be broadcast on NBC stations in the two competing team cities, and available on mobile devices with NFL+. The NFL is the only sports league that presents all regular-season and postseason games on free, over-the-air television in local markets."

[Bastet]

11 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

Peacock did have an ad supported plan that was free but I don't know if that is still the case. 

I have that, but I think they stopped offering it (meaning those of us who already have it can keep it - for now, anyway - but no one new can sign up).  It's not a situation where you can watch anything available on Peacock, you just have to do it with ads, though -- the free version does not grant access to a lot of programs.  So this game very well might not be available to those with the free version of Peacock, only the paid versions.

It's some deep-fried bullshit to make a playoff game only available on a damn streaming service.

[merylinkid]

10 hours ago, nickp1991 said:

I have peacock for WWE and supercross 

Supercross is the only reason I kept it after the Super Bowl this year.   Hubby watches.

I don't think this is going to result in the rush of sign ups that Peacock is hoping for.

[bluegirl147]

10 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I don't think this is going to result in the rush of sign ups that Peacock is hoping for.

I think it's a trial run to see if they could get away with this for Super Bowl.

I love my team but I don't think I would subscribe to a streaming service just to watch one game.  I do wonder if Peacock will have a new subscriber special for Wild Card weekend. And if they do that is probably going to piss off existing subscribers, myself included.  But this is par for the course with the NFL. Always chasing people who aren't football fans while alienating the fans they already have. 

11 hours ago, Bastet said:

It's some deep-fried bullshit to make a playoff game only available on a damn streaming service.

If you are fans of the teams playing the game is going to air on your local NBC station.  If you don't live in that local market I just don't see fans paying for Peacock to watch one game.  And if you aren't fans of the two teams I really don't foresee many people paying for Peacock to watch one game.  

[Carey]

10 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I think it's a trial run to see if they could get away with this for Super Bowl.

I doubt it.  I'm not sure how they'd profit with that game on a streaming service.  No way a program that's taken each of the Top 10 spots in terms of most watched TV shows is going to go in that direction.  Plus, the Super Bowl networks are set (though not really since CBS and NBC recently swapped but I wouldn't worry about it).

I agree there's a trial run.  In some sense.  The trial run for this year's wild card game on Peacock actually takes place in Week 16.

However, this could work; to be fair, this would be a test for whenever free TV, broadcast television, and other stuff are done away with.  The move toward streaming platforms is the thing so who knows what's next.  I just don't think it's happening within a few years or so

[Black Knight]

Note that per the link, Peacock has TWO games this season - first time exclusive for both a regular season game and a playoff game. They have the Bills vs. Chargers primetime game on December 23rd. That could be a real showdown with playoff implications if both teams are doing as well as their talent suggests.

So people subscribing would not be doing so for only one game, but two.

[JTMacc99]

The Peacock topic is creating quite a bit of chatter on the NFL radio shows. It's getting me worked up because nobody seems to look at it objectively. 

First of all, it's not Peacock, it is NBC. Peacock is just a different name for NBC so people don't feel like they're paying for the same thing twice, just like Paramount is CBS.

NBC's deal with the NFL through 2033 is approximately $2 Billion annually. They get Sunday Night Football, three Super Bowls 2025, 2029, 2033, and playoff games in the wildcard and divisional rounds. They probably also get some miscellaneous other games on Saturdays and so on.

NBC coughed up an extra $110 million to put one of their wildcard round playoff games exclusively on their streaming service. I'm assuming the conversation went like this:

• NBC: We'd like to put one of our wildcard round games exclusively on Peacock.
• NFL: No.
• NBC: We'll kick in an extra $110 million if you let us.
• NFL: I'm listening...

BY FAR, the biggest reason NBC wants to do this is to get people to sign up for their streaming service by making things people want to see exclusively available on Peacock.  Here's why:

In 2016, there were 95 million homes with cable or satellite bundles. In 2023 there are 75 million. NBC and their affiliates collect (round numbers to make this easy for me) $5.00 per month from every home with a bundle. So you pay Spectrum $200 every month, and they turn around and send NBC $5 just for that channel.

Well, the fact that they've lost 20 million homes to cord cutting means they are short 20 million times $5/month, times 12 months, or $1.2 Billion of revenue they used to get.  So they started up Peacock to hopefully regain that lost revenue to cord cutters.

However, not everybody who cut the cord will just turn around and sign up for Peacock. So what they need to do is get people who are already paying them $5/month through their cable subscription to ALSO pay them $5/month for Peacock.  

But nobody is going to do that unless Peacock has stuff that you can't get already on NBC. CBS did this with their Paramount service by doing things like dropping all new Star Trek content ONLY on Paramount. NBC hasn't really done a good job identifying "must see" content and making it exclusive to Peacock.

And that's where the NFL comes in. NFL games are the biggest "must see" thing on TV by a wide margin. So NBC coughed up a LOT of money to get the NFL to let them put one game on the service. 

It's that straightforward. NBC needs people to sign up for Peacock to offset the massive drain of revenue from cord cutting, and they decided to use the NFL games, which they already paid a fortune to broadcast, as way move the needle for Peacock. 

 

[merylinkid]

20 hours ago, JTMacc99 said:

t's that straightforward. NBC needs people to sign up for Peacock to offset the massive drain of revenue from cord cutting, and they decided to use the NFL games, which they already paid a fortune to broadcast, as way move the needle for Peacock. 

I mentioned this above.   But I don't think it is going to work the way people think it will.   They will sign up for the free trial (if they need two they will use different email addresses) and then drop it.   Or they will sign up just long enough to get the games and drop it.   This will not result in long term subscribers which is NBC's aim here.  

[Moose135]

22 hours ago, JTMacc99 said:

Some stuff about NBC, Peacock, and such...

Almost sounds like you know a little bit about the cable business... 😉

[JTMacc99]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

I mentioned this above.   But I don't think it is going to work the way people think it will.   They will sign up for the free trial (if they need two they will use different email addresses) and then drop it.   Or they will sign up just long enough to get the games and drop it.   This will not result in long term subscribers which is NBC's aim here.  

Agreed. As a one-off game, it would be unlikely to move the needle much.

But coughing up $110 million for just that one game without a plan to move the needle just doesn't feel like something they would do. 

What NBC might do, give or take the ideas of people smarter than me, is to advertise the hell out of the sports that are available on Peacock, especially on Sunday Night Football all year. I took a quick look, and most of their sports seems to already be on cable somewhere. They have premier league soccer, which I would think isn't something that will draw new NFL viewers. Ditto for the wrestling. If you are a fan of either, you already know about Peacock. They also have a weekly exclusive MLB game on Sundays.

If NBC wants to use the NFL to bring in Peacock viewers, then they should really develop more NFL programming. I see something called NFL360 on Peacock. Not sure what that is. If they could have a channel that just plays old games all day long, that would be something. 

Aside from the football programming I think they should add to Peacock, they'll also need to make a big deal about the upcoming 2024 Olympics, which for sure is going to be a reason to subscribe to Peacock. They need to let all of the Sunday Night Football NFL viewers know that Peacock will have all of the Summer Olympic events covered, from Track and Field, to Swimming, to wall to wall coverage of Gymnastics.

I mean, it shouldn't be too hard for NBC to add some cool sports programming that is only available on Peacock, but if they don't, I can't see how just putting one NFL playoff game would be enough to entice people to subscribe to a recurring service. 

 

[mojoween]

Jim Brown passed away and even at 87 and knowing his problematic past, it’s still a tough one.

[roamyn]

1 hour ago, mojoween said:

Jim Brown passed away and even at 87 and knowing his problematic past, it’s still a tough one.

He was still our sports God.  Even moreso than LeBron.

[Carey]

Jim Brown was the GOAT outside of the Super Bowl Era.   Period.

[merylinkid]

Jim Brown was a great football player.

If he had played more recently we would wonder if his off field problems were caused by CTE.   They probably were.   He played HARD and did not shy from contact.   Not an excuse, just an explanation.

But yeah, a part of NFL history is gone.

[mojoween]

Up until 1965 the Browns were one of the premiere teams in the league. So what happened?

[Carey]

38 minutes ago, mojoween said:

Up until 1965 the Browns were one of the premiere teams in the league. So what happened?

Art Modell happened.  And in the meantime, the city of Baltimore's Super Bowl total moved to 3.  Just life in the world of the National Football League

Edited to add: The Steelers decided to actually play the role of big brother.  The rest is history.  Also, more teams started to join including the merge, several of whom featured great culture from top to bottom.  In addition, and to be fair, the Browns were still okay from the mid/late 80s to the early/mid 90s.  That early part after New York won it's second Superbowl in a half-decade wasn't great, but there were signs of success until the success travelled East

[roamyn]

I blame it all on Art Modell.

[Johannah]

You should start with Irsay for sneaking away the Colts, without whom the other move wouldn't have happened.  Funny how everyone curses the Model move when Cleveland got to keep its name, colors and stats and forgets that Baltimore was stripped of all that when the Colts left. 

But to be honest, I'm glad the name and ugly colors stayed in Cleveland.

[merylinkid]

Jim Brown left and there wasn't much of a team around him.   Art Modell was the reason Jim Brown retired BTW.   Brown was shooting a movie that with delays meant he would miss the start of training camp.   Now back in those days, you didn't have OTAs and such.   Nor were players really training year round.   So you needed training camp to get players back in to football shape.  But this is Jim Brown, we are talking about so how much he really needed training camp is an open question.   Modell threatened to fine Brown $1500 a day for every day he missed.   So Brown said "Fine I'm retired, see ya."

Just now, Johannah said:

You should start with Irsay for sneaking away the Colts, without whom the other move wouldn't have happened. 

Following myself but Johannah posted while I was typing and this is kinda different.

Irsay HAD to leave with the team.   The NFL FULLY supported the team because of the precedent it would have set.   The State of Maryland was stupidly threatening eminent domain and seizing the team.   Now I am not a big fan of taxpayer funded stadiums with most of the revenue going to teams (okay I flat out hate it and support any city that says no to this extortion), but threatening eminent domain is not a good move either.   Any sports team would be nervous after that.   Getting out of Dodge (Baltimore, Owings Mills) was the safest thing they could.

[mojoween]

Welp the Yankees game today is exclusively on Peacock so they already got me.  Fuckers.

[Carey]

I totally wasn't thinking about Thursday Night Football until a second ago.  To be more specific, 24 votes would have been the minimum to allow a TNF flex.  The final vote to allow for flexing into TNF?  24-8

[mojoween]

As a strictly TV watcher flexing on any game doesn’t really impact me, but I can see how it would for people who make plans to go to one specific game.  48 hours is not always going to be enough time to pivot.

[Carey]

Same here.  The TV flex stuff does not affect me at all.  FWIW, having gone to a boatload of reality television finale parties, I would have had experience making sure I was not missing a big game.  So if & when they get to a point where they start flexing matchups to different weeks, I'll be ready.

If you're one to attend a game, I would take the time off from the start of the league week to the end of the league week.  That way, if a game gets moved, you're covered, and if you feel like it, you can rescind the extra PTO that you're not going to need and all is good!

It does suck, and it might hinder the success of the local businesses that might rue the day on a weekend instead of some Thursday night in less than average weather.  It is annoying that this barely passed right now when I thought it would pass at a (near) perfect level in 2024, 2025, or beyond

[roamyn]

On 5/21/2023 at 9:48 AM, Johannah said:

You should start with Irsay for sneaking away the Colts, without whom the other move wouldn't have happened.  Funny how everyone curses the Model move when Cleveland got to keep its name, colors and stats and forgets that Baltimore was stripped of all that when the Colts left. 

But to be honest, I'm glad the name and ugly colors stayed in Cleveland.

Irsay had nothing to do with Modell's decision to steal the team.

If not Baltimore, he would've taken the team somewhere else.

The difference is the City of Cleveland had warning in advance of Modell's plans, so we had the chance to rally sources and make waves.

Baltimore never got that chance with the Colts.

[Carey]

It's been nearly 40 years so I'm not going to know (or remember) off the top of my head.  Maybe someone else can recall those details from Circa March 1984.

Was it a situation where people were living their lives normally one day in March, where they'd go to bed one day, waking up the next day without a thought of the Colts being elsewhere?  Only to wake up, turn on the TV, and watch the news with people saying, "We're not here anymore; where in Indianapolis now."

Not sure if it was completely out of nowhere or if there were some rumblings that they'd just disappear in one second.  Where as the Browns were leaving, but at least the 1995 season came and went before moving to Baltimore.  At which point when that move, the Browns became the Ravens.

Of course, no one could pull off what Irsay did in today's world, and even if it didn't happen in 1984, I'm not sure Modell would've snuck away overnight without anyone seeing it.  Definitely not in this current millennium.  The consequences would at least be severe, and laughable 

[Moose135]

2 hours ago, Carey said:

Was it a situation where people were living their lives normally one day in March, where they'd go to bed one day, waking up the next day without a thought of the Colts being elsewhere?  Only to wake up, turn on the TV, and watch the news with people saying, "We're not here anymore; where in Indianapolis now."

No, it was going on for a while. Ownership was looking for a new stadium or renovations on Memorial Stadium for a number of years, but couldn't get government funding for either. They began exploring moves to other cities, and Maryland Senate passed legislation giving the city of Baltimore the right to seize ownership of the Colts by eminent domain. With that threat, Irsay moved the team before the Legislature passed the bill and sent it to the governor for final approval. The actual move that night was a surprise, but it had been known for a number of years that ownership was looking to make a change, whether in Baltimore or elsewhere.

[mojoween]

Stop fucking with the kickoffs, league.  A fair catch for a shitty kickoff moving to the 25 is dumb as hell.  

[Carey]

Meh.  It's not a big deal.  Whatever helps with player safety is okay for me.  At least it's just the kickoff & not a punt

[Fukui San]

People keep throwing around the idea about replacing onside kicks with a one shot possession play. You score a touchdown, you want the ball again, you opt to attempt a 4th and 10 or 4th and 15 or 4th and 20 or whatever. To which I say, that just further advantages the teams with elite QBs/passing attacks vs. every other aspect of your team. If you must replace onside kicks, at least make your defense make one play. The other team gets a 4th and 1 at midfield to retain the ball. Make your defense make one, single, solitary play to help your team come back 16 points in the 4th quarter.

[JTMacc99]

I really don't like messing around with the kickoffs the way they're going about it. I guess we'll see what NFL teams do with this rule in 2023. Do they just kick it out of the back of the end zone now, rather than trying to land the ball on the 2 to force a return which will now just be fair caught? Do they squib kicks forcing teams to run it back? Do they figure out a way to kick the ball super high and try to land it on the 20 in a way that the coverage team could possible get in the way of fair catches?

The reports are that all 32 special teams coordinators opposed the fair catch change.

[mojoween]

Back off, Goodell. 

 

[Carey]

2 hours ago, mojoween said:

Back off, Goodell. 

As mentioned, I'm okay with the new rule, but that is messed up if he had to beg to get them to agree with such nonsense.  And mojo, just when things couldn't get any worse, people can look forward to (similar) nonsense for a long time, at the very least.

Roger is not going anywhere.  I'm not thrilled about all of these changes, from the Thursday Night Football stuff to a watered down kickoff segment.  It's really hypocritical that people can get moved to TNF, while not being limited to one TNF a year.  Then in those Thursday games along with Sunday / Monday / Saturday / Friday games, no kickoff returns.  "We have to keep our players safe!  It's all about player safety!"

There are a ton of things the league should do to trend toward player safety.  They've been okay, but just because the QB is the most important spot doesn't mean it's fair game for everyone else.  Nevertheless, changes to the game are the norm, and that's here to stay

[merylinkid]

"PLayer Safety" but you may play on a Thursday Night with a quick turnaround.

Although the TNF flex might not be as bad as it appears for fans.  There has to be 28 days notices of a flex.   Which gives you a chance to hold off your travel plans until 27 days before the game.  Airfare/hotels might not be as expensive as last minute changes.  Also its a one year experiment.   If it does not get used in 2023, it does rollover to 2024.   If it is used in 2023 it has to be voted on for 2024.   If it rollovers it has to be voted on for 2025.   If it is not used in 2  years, then it is clearly not needed.  

For the kickoff, I am holding off my opinion.   The players and special team coaches hate it.   So probably a bad idea.   On the other hand, this happens in college ball and the world has not ended.   It just means a change in strategy.   Just like the penalties for leading with your helmet meant a change in strategy.  

[JTMacc99]

In case anybody cares, I just got an email with an offer for a full year of Peacock for $19.95 with the code SUMMEROFPEACOCK

I'll probably take that offer. They give access to movies that were recently in theaters, which is worth the $20 for a year. The football games would just be a bonus.

 

[Carey]

That is definitely a great deal.  For me, it's that extra content, which helps promote the product to get people to sign up for Peacock when it comes to those 2 games later on this upcoming season

[JTMacc99]

9 hours ago, Carey said:

That is definitely a great deal.  For me, it's that extra content, which helps promote the product to get people to sign up for Peacock when it comes to those 2 games later on this upcoming season

My only regret about taking that deal is that my year will run out before the 2024 Olympics coverage. I'll likely want to keep it through the Olympics before making the call on it's value to me at the retail price.

 

I've been seeing a bunch of chatter about Sam Darnold with the 49ers, mostly about the potential he has to do really well there. I was recently thinking that it is a freaking miracle that Daniel Jones played well enough to get a real contract after starting his career with 3 different head coaches and 4 different offensive coordinators. History tells me that it is REALLY hard to overcome that kind of start.

Look at the best quarterbacks in the league, including a couple who weren't so hot last year but have been great previously:

• Mahomes
• Burrow
• Allen
• Hurts
• Herbert
• Rodgers
• Jackson
• Prescott
• Brady (tossing him in since he was still very good last year.)
• Russell Wilson / Deshaun Watson

Almost every single one of them started their career on a team with a stable head coaching situation. Herbert had a head coach change in his second year, and so did Hurts. Hurts wasn't really the starting QB his rookie year, so it's essentially just Herbert who started a whole year under one regime and then had to start over the next year.

But other than him, the rest of these guys have the same thing in common. They didn't start their careers on a team with a revolving door of coaches and front offices.

I've been thinking about it, and it's pretty hard to find ANY quarterbacks who went on to have excellent careers who started out that way.  Even Matt Stafford got to start his career with the same head coach for five years (which is another miracle given Detroit's history.)
 

[merylinkid]

22 hours ago, JTMacc99 said:

But other than him, the rest of these guys have the same thing in common. They didn't start their careers on a team with a revolving door of coaches and front offices.

Good teams don't need to change coaches often.   Functional teams know that a revolving door of front office/coaches is not good for stability.   It's not just the QBs who benefit from it but the whole team and the organization.   It's about the attitude of the team.   If you know the guy you are playing for might not be there next year why bother to try hard for him?   Yes the players are competitive, but they are human too.   Also, new HCs/GMs tend to want "their guy" there.   if you weren't picked by the new guy and aren't amazing, you start to wonder if you will even be around.   Which messes with your head.   Then you gotta learn a new system to please the new guy and you worry you can't.   You get the yips.  

But also it comes down, temas with revolving doors don't attract the best.   You notice how many go elsewhere and do okay to even great?   Its because they have gone to a functional team that attracts decent to good coaches.

[bluegirl147]

All this talk made me wonder how many teams over the past 20 years that have won multiple Super Bowls did so with more than one head coach. The first one that came to mind was the Steelers.  But probably only because Cowher retired. He could have easily been the head coach when they won another SB a couple years later.

[Carey]

I guess I'd count Tampa Bay.  Of course a couple teams came close, including Indianapolis and definitely Philadelphia

[Carey]

FYI: Here are the teams that were in the minority when it came to the recent votes for the Thursday Night Football Flex as well as the fair catch rule:

TNF Vote (Losing End): Giants, Jets, Packers, Bears, Raiders, Lions, Bengals and Steelers

25 Yard Start Vote (Losing End): Ravens, Patriots, Bengals, Bears and Lions

Las Vegas abstained on the second one, which passed 26-5-1.  The Raiders did not vote yes on either vote, nor did Chicago, Cincinnati, and Detroit (those 3 voted no twice).

As mentioned, it's wait & see.  For the TNF flex, those 8 teams that voted against it would have a valid reason to complain if New Orleans and Los Angeles got flexed out of TNF, but other than that, there really isn't too much to complain about.  I'd rather it happen this year so that the chances of it being done forever are on the ASAP level.

I still don't have a problem with the kickoff rule right now.  Most people can kick it out of the endzone.  Some might be skilled not to, and some can't (including Pittsburgh who I guess will catch a break with this rule change).  While we're at least a year or two away from doing away with kickoffs, that would be my biggest issue down the road.

The biggest example is 4th & 15 replacing the onside kick.  I might not like it, but it'll depend on how a penalty is enforced.  If the defense makes a stop, but they get called for holding, if the offensive team gets 1st & 10, that would not be cool.  On the other hand, if it's a do-over, then the defensive team would intentionally cause a penalty.  So I could see why the league would go with 1st & 10.  Hopefully the NFL will make it so that 3 penalties on a 4th & 15 try results in a first down.

Or, you keep the onside kick in, but the kicking team would have to notify the officials.  When the ball is caught & secure, then the play ends immediately (at that spot).  No chance to run it for extra yardage.

Either way, it's a long way to go with that, but while I imagine I might not like the end of kickoffs I'll adjust & adapt to it

[mojoween]

Why did Le’Veon Bell feel the need to tell us he toked up before games?

[bluegirl147]

15 hours ago, mojoween said:

Why did Le’Veon Bell feel the need to tell us he toked up before games?

I have a coworker who kept saying the Steelers should have given Bell what he wanted when he held out and didn't play for a year. I will ask him if he has changed his mind.  I was never all in when regarding Bell. And his latest disclosure confirms I  was right.

[JTMacc99]

5 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I have a coworker who kept saying the Steelers should have given Bell what he wanted when he held out and didn't play for a year. I will ask him if he has changed his mind.  I was never all in when regarding Bell. And his latest disclosure confirms I  was right.

I've heard a couple of quotes about what he said recently on a Steelers Podcast.

First, is this bit from NFL . com:

Quote

 

Le’Veon Bell just admitted what has long been evident since his 2019 departure from Pittsburgh -- he never should have left.

"Yeah, it was a little petty, the little guarantee stuff," Bell said Friday on the Steel Here podcast regarding his infamous contract dispute. "I'm thinking like, damn, could I have really just ate it? Yeah, I probably could've. Probably could've really ate it."

 

I think your coworker was kind of right, but also kind of wrong. It was Bell who should have backed down a bit. He can't change what he did, but at least he realizes that his actions back then really didn't work out in his favor in the long run.

I also saw him taking about the difference a coach makes, which again, he never would have learned the hard way had he not held out the way he did:

Quote

 

“Bro, we get to New York, and that’s when you instantly find out that head coaches make a huge difference,” Bell said. “As soon as I get to New York I find that out like the first week. … 

“Bro, the team wasn’t that great, don’t get me wrong, but I feel like if Coach Tomlin was coaching that team, we win nine games at least. It’s to the point where Sam Darnold don’t even know like the actual line’s protections because he’s so confused about our offense because the coach is confusing him.” 

 

Mike Tomlin is a pretty great coach. Adam Gase, not so much.