Lmao it depends how he fucks up. Im expecting him to be in position to make plays, if not… he ass for sure..He might be hesitant his rookie year to avoid mistakes but after that, he better be ready.
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
2025 Offseason Thread
- Thread starter Dom McRaven
- Start date
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
I mean a) nobody really cares who the #1 pick is, and the expectations for the Titans are super low, b) Cleveland doesn't have a terrific defense by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not one that warrants primetime consideration. Putting them in primetime against Cincy or BAL is basically hoping that Burrow or Lamar smash them so the networks can salivate over that. You're not putting them on for a "competitive" game.
As for Atlanta, I don't think they deserve five. Then again, one of those games is a home game in a foreign Country at a time where the west coast isn't even awake yet, which isn't exactly something I'd "want" as a fan of my team or any other team. Three others are true road games, which sucks, and one is a late season game against a division foe that could easily decide the division.
What's appealing about putting the Browns or Titans in primetime in December?
Or the better question... what benefit is provided to CLE or TEN to play road primetime games, or to host primetime games at 930am ET in a foreign country? Where's the "win"?
Baltimorican
Pro Bowler
It's 2 SNF, 1 TNF, and 2 MNF. The international game is on top of that. International games aren't prime time games, 9:30 am EST is not prime time. As for CLE & TEN, you could say the same about the Panthers or Jags, yet they got prime time games. The NFl has like 60 prime time games /yr, there simply is no excuse for all 32 teams to not have an appearance. It's just bad schedule making, period. CLE/CIncy is a perfectly good TNF/MNF game. So is TEN/HOU.
redrum52
Hall of Famer
You can't put trash product out there and expect to get primetime slots. Networks are bidding for these games. Low viewership is bad for business.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
1. IF international games, where they're the only team playing, aren't considered "primetime games", then if you live on the West Coast, there are basically never any "primetime" games, since even SNF and MNF kickoff before 530pm, which is not "primetime" for anybody except local news channels regurgitating the "story of the day".
2. CAR and JAC both got a whopping one primetime game each. Jacksonville gets a MNF home game as the clear b side against the Chiefs, and CAR gets a road MNF game across country.
Carolina would absolutely be better off not playing a primetime game at all if the only game they're going to get is a road game against a west coast team. That's the point you're missing. If you're viewing the NFL has a charity organization, rather than a for-profit enterprise, then yes, all 32 teams should get a "primetime" game. If you're viewing them as a money making machine, then like 1/3 of the league should get minimal, or no, primetime games. Just doesn't equate to anything.
In a best case scenario, CLE or TEN would get a road primetime game against a division rival that's way better than them. That's the optimal scenario. It completely fucks over that team of course, but you already admitted you don't care about that.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
And the sad part is... these were the same fans bitching about the product. Years ago they tried the whole "everybody gets a TNF" game. The games were tragically bad. They're already bad because of the short week, but when you start putting JAC @ TEN in a TNF game, people just stop watching. Primetime games should be for teams that are worthy of watching nationally, with a track record of showing it.
it is true that the morning international games are not considered prime time and 5:30 on the west coast for Sunday, Monday and Thursday games is absolutely prime time. Teams don't get more than 5 prime time games and Atlanta has 5 of them. The international game isn't included in those numbers.
Baltimorican
Pro Bowler
The B side of a MNF game would have been perfectly fine placement for either team. And the whole charity/meritocracy spiel is ridiculous. This is the friggin NFL, not some 2nd tier soccer league or the WNBA. The Cleveland Browns are 30th most valuable sports franchise in the WORLD (Falcons btw, 29th), more valuable than Manchester City, Boston Red Sox or Dallas mavericks. Fantasy Football is a larger economy than small countries. The only reason TNF even exists is because people will watch NFL no matter what and the NFL got this way by employing an aggressive salary cap, rookie scale and reverse draft that ensured a parity league where anybody can turn it around in 1 year.
It's bad schedule making, falcons should have had 3 and everybody should have had at least 1. There's simply too many primetime opportunities for a league where every franchise is valuable to do otherwise.
Last edited:
Baltimorican
Pro Bowler
Well yeah they had all of the bad teams on TNF. That doesn't excuse the inability to scatter each of the 10 worst teams across ~120+ opportunities. Today's NFL is a far, far cry from the old timey days when teams actually had to earn 1 of the 32 spots on MNF.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
"Prime time" for who? Do people on the West Coast just skip dinner and watch football from 530-830? I can tell you from somebody who lived there that a large contingent of people, even today, are stuck on freeways during that time of day. It is purely "primetime" based on how the NFL views it, because the NFLs definition of "primetime" is designed specifically for a single time zone.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
So it doesn't matter how valuable the Browns are, because many of the franchise more valuable play in the same league as them. There's no point in comparing the Browns to non-football organizations, because they have nothing in common for them.
The biggest fallacy you have here is that you think this is really up to the NFL. It's not. Which organization pays $1B annually for the rights to stream TNF? Do you think that Amazon will continue to pay $1B annually in the future if the NFL just keeps putting an intentionally inferior product out there on TNF? Of course not. The NFL isn't in the business of fucking over its major TV network providers, especially when a player like Amazon has a very real chance of becoming an exclusive provider of football in the future. Its the same thing they do with Disney and NBC, who both pay gigantic sums of $ to effectively broadcast one game per week. On a per game basis, they pay a shitload more than FOX and CBS do.
Look at the TNF schedule for the year. Every single week either has a big market team, a top tier QB that people will pay a lot of $ to watch and see, or a potential key matchup within the division or within conference. And you'll note that some of the less marquee matchups are later in the season, when they're available to be flexed.
lol not only is it not a far cry, it's actually swung further in the direction of "we're only giving primetime games to teams that people want to see play". That's why there's a sizeable gap in quantity of games between teams like KC and teams like CAR.
They're giving the better matchups to networks that pay more $ and have the highest likelihood of being long-term players in that space.
Your entire interpretation of what is happening is literally the exact opposite of what the NFL is actually doing. They're making it very clear and direct what they care about and what they don't.
And I'm still pretty amused that you haven't even acknowledged that if these teams are going to be the b side in a road "primetime" game, that they'd all, universally, tell you they'd rather not be. It doesn't benefit them in any way. So not only is the league telling you they don't want it, the teams are too.
those 8:30 east coast games are prime time games, like it or not. I agree with you, the NFL is considering prime time for 1 time zone. Sure it's 5:30 on the west coast and yes many are stuck in traffic, but it's still considered a prime time game because it's 8:30 on the East Coast. No it's not Prime time on the west coast, but again......Atlanta the last time I checked, was still on the East Coast and Atlanta is who we are talking about.
Last edited:
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
They're primetime games for the market that the NFL cares about, which is the East coast. There's virtually no "primetime" games on the West Coast, which has historically always been true.
Hence why most analysts in the business equate "primetime" games to individual games, with no other NFL competition in the same timeslot. Even the European games are "primetime" for other Countries that are viewing the games. They just have a less impactful audience than the East coast does.
Baltimorican
Pro Bowler
You're being batshite revisionist. Back in the day when MNF was the only primetime game of the week, teams would go entire DECADES without a night game. MNF was a showcase event where non football fans would tune in and get hooked on the best pro football had to offer. Nowadays you've got a half dozen packages getting sold for a total of ~60 prime time games and it shouldn't be hard AT ALL to spread the bottom 10 teams across 3 SEPARATE 15-18 game packages.
The NFL got to where its at because of parity. No other league in the world has eschewed the rich teams v.s poor teams dynamic like the NFl has. They got to where they are because they lift all boats and all 32 franchises are financially competitive with each other. That SHOULD include at least a singular prime time game for each team.
The disparity for Falcons v.s Browns/Titans means you are not doing EITHER. you're not giving us the best football available AND you're failing to showcase all 32 teams. That's a scheduling F up.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
OK so yeah, again, lots of things wrong with this:
1. By "back in the day", you're talking 35 years ago. 1990 was the year Sunday Night football became a thing. At that point in time, there were four less teams in the league than there is today, there, quite literally, was no such thing as free agency, or the NFLPA, when that happened. So suffice it to say that, both structurally and financially, things were a lot different.
2. Nobody suggested it was "hard" to put every team in primetime. It just doesn't make financial sense to do so. Again, different views between a "utopian" view that you have, and a business-success view, which the NFL has.
3. Parity existing in the NFL is a measurement of financial success, not on-field success. They're different things. Individual teams make more $ than others, and draw higher TV ratings than others. The redistribution of wealth after the fact only bolsters the financial statements of the org, it doesn't bolster the TV ratings or their ability to draw $. Hence why they favor certain teams over others for primetime games.
Parity on-field, in terms of team performance, really isn't any better or worse than the three other major sports.
4. Showcasing all 32 NFL teams isn't an objective of the league, nor should it be. Their objective is to give the consumers what they want, not push agendas on to consumers that they didn't ask for.
I don't think the Falcons are the best possible product either. But then again, if the objective is purely to put the best possible product on the field in primetime each week, then at least 5-6 teams every year wouldn't get any primetime games, because they're dog shit and barely watchable, and the only entertainment value to the consumer is to possibly watch them get destroyed by a better team.
The true objective is to maximize ratings for the networks that pay billions to broadcast such games.
redrum52
Hall of Famer
If you're mad at teams for not getting primetime @Baltimorican be mad at their owners. It's now up to them to improve their team or sell to someone who will.
there was absolutely free agency in 1990, it just wasn't the same as it is today. It was literally called "Plan B Free Agnecy". Free agency as we know it began in 1993. It basically started after a class action lawsuit from Reggie White, known as the White Settlement.
It wasn't that long ago that all teams were guaranteed a Thursday Night Game and they changed it due to low viewership, starting in 2023.
Falcons are definitely not the best one either and they end up with 5 primetime games. That's a bit ridiculous, whether the Titans or Cleveland have a primetime game or not.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
OK, but then again, I don't understand why the Falcons are the problem. I'm looking at the list of teams with 4, and the only one that makes the list that even stands out as a) a significantly better team or b) would have the national media audience to do significantly better ratings wise is the Ravens. And then we're haggling over a single prime time game. Me personally, I'd be asking why the Dolphins have 5 before I ask why the Falcons have 5, but I think its largely baseless to argue either side. All the teams with 5+ make perfect sense to me in the context of the teams with less.
And as I've suggested multiple times already, I'd love to hear the argument that a primetime true road game is beneficial for that team in any possible way. In a revenue sharing model, the individual teams are propped up by the teams that draw bigger TV audiences, which is why they should have the majority of primetime games, and the road team doesn't get any ticket or merch/stadium sales boost from being on the road.
I think an actual argument would be the distribution of true HOME primetime games by team. That, of course, increases the number of teams with zero, and also sheds more obvious light on matchups and how they view home stadium crowds as impactful to TV ratings. And from a distribution standpoint:
4: KC, WAS
3: SF, PHI, MIA, LAC, BUF
2: ATL, BAL, DAL, DEN, DET, GB, HOU, LAR, LV, NE, NYG, PIT, SEA
1: TB, MIN, JAC, IND, CIN, CHI, ARI
0: NO, CLE, TEN, CAR
So there's four teams that have zero home primetime games, and 11 with one or less. And the teams dominating the home primetime game markets are either huge market teams (WAS, SF, LAC, MIA) or teams that were, and figure to be, exceptionally good this year (KC, PHI, BUF).
If you are expected to be not good, and aren't in a big market, you're not getting more than 1 home primetime game.
And this is fairly consistent with prior years also.
Last edited:
Baltimorican
Pro Bowler
Mad is a bit of a stretch, I'm critical of what I see as a scheduling flaw. Bored on a thursday/monday night I would have tuned in to Cam Ward's 1 night game. Any divisional game with the Browns on primetime has my attention. There is no way in hell I'm tuning in to the Falcons more than 1-2 times. And I get the Falcons receiving a tad more love than they deserve, a sneaky big market team with a couple fantasy stars, but that's way too much Falcons. They didn't even put them on for their best rivalry, the always wacky games v.s the Saints (whom also have no prime time games).
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
I think the flaw is, while this is your viewpoint, its a minority viewpoint. Fans nationwide would rather watch the Falcons than watch the Browns (by a wide margin) and, at least for this year, likely the Titans. The NFL is vested in the majority, not the minority.