2015-16 NFL Season Thread

[The Analog Cub]

Chuck Pagano reportedly getting the boot at the end of the season unless Indy sneaks into the playoffs (...really?)

 

Well that report was dead wrong.

 

Pagano gets 4 year extension with the Colts.

[HemiBeers]

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

 

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

 

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

 

Here's why....

 

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.

Move the Raiders and Chargers to LA and keep the Rams in St. Louis with a new stadium. Put the Rams in the same division as KC so you have a good regional matchup. Many of the divisions are a cluster and could use a good shakeup. You also gotta realize that the Chargers get a ton of support from the LA area.

 

Here's an idea that hasn't been discussed. Chargers and Rams in LA sharing a stadium. Leaves Oakland out in the wind with their shithole stadium. I don't think the Raiders would move to St. Louis.

Edited January 5, 2016 by 2112FirstStreet

[HemiBeers]

Chuck Pagano reportedly getting the boot at the end of the season unless Indy sneaks into the playoffs (...really?)

 

Well that report was dead wrong.

 

Pagano gets 4 year extension with the Colts.

wow four years! If I was him, I'd tell them to stick it since he's no longer under contract. Then again, as long as you have a decent QB, you can fix the rest so he probably realized the other open jobs were crap.

[troutman]

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

 

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

 

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

 

Here's why....

 

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.

Move the Raiders and Chargers to LA and keep the Rams in St. Louis with a new stadium. Put the Rams in the same division as KC so you have a good regional matchup. Many of the divisions are a cluster and could use a good shakeup. You also gotta realize that the Chargers get a ton of support from the LA area.

 

Here's an idea that hasn't been discussed. Chargers and Rams in LA sharing a stadium. Leaves Oakland out in the wind with their shithole stadium. I don't think the Raiders would move to St. Louis.

 

 

You,

 

Make a good point about the stadium in Oakland. I was talking with one of the drivers about the situation last week. No investment in upgrades for how many years? Or planning for and building a new stadium in the area? If they move again I am done with them. I mean, it's in my blood and would still have great memories ect. But this is just complete BS all over again!

[WorkingAllTheTime]

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

 

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

 

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

 

Here's why....

 

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.

Move the Raiders and Chargers to LA and keep the Rams in St. Louis with a new stadium. Put the Rams in the same division as KC so you have a good regional matchup. Many of the divisions are a cluster and could use a good shakeup. You also gotta realize that the Chargers get a ton of support from the LA area.

 

Here's an idea that hasn't been discussed. Chargers and Rams in LA sharing a stadium. Leaves Oakland out in the wind with their shithole stadium. I don't think the Raiders would move to St. Louis.

 

 

You,

 

Make a good point about the stadium in Oakland. I was talking with one of the drivers about the situation last week. No investment in upgrades for how many years? Or planning for and building a new stadium in the area? If they move again I am done with them. I mean, it's in my blood and would still have great memories ect. But this is just complete BS all over again!

 

Unless the league somehow forces a deal, the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium is not likely to happen. Kroenke has his own stadium project and is privately funding it as a real estate venture. The Chargers/Raiders stadium is a completely different funding model with some shared control. Plus, the fact there are a lot of Charger fans in LA actually hurts the chances of Kroenke wanting to share his venue with them. Kroenke won't join in the Chargers deal and he's likely not going to let anyone in on his deal.

 

As for the Raiders not going to St. Louis.... the Raiders fairly recently paid a visit to San Antonio to talk about the out-of-date Alamodome and potential upgrades in South Texas. If the Raiders would even flirt with the idea of moving into an older facility in a middle of the road non-NFL market that is dominated by Jerry Jones and the Cowboys, they would certainly ponder a move to a proven NFL market that is going to build them a shiny new stadium. I understand the idea of the Raiders in Missouri confounds many, but I think no one should be blind to the fact the Davis family is not loyal to Oakland, or any place for that matter. I am not saying that it will happen, but I am saying it likely has already been discussed as an option in NFL circles. The NFL does not care about fans or fan loyalty. They care about markets, TV shares, and merchandise sales. Moving TWO clubs this year would generate a fortune for the league.

[troutman]

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

 

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

 

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

 

Here's why....

 

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.

Move the Raiders and Chargers to LA and keep the Rams in St. Louis with a new stadium. Put the Rams in the same division as KC so you have a good regional matchup. Many of the divisions are a cluster and could use a good shakeup. You also gotta realize that the Chargers get a ton of support from the LA area.

 

Here's an idea that hasn't been discussed. Chargers and Rams in LA sharing a stadium. Leaves Oakland out in the wind with their shithole stadium. I don't think the Raiders would move to St. Louis.

 

 

You,

 

Make a good point about the stadium in Oakland. I was talking with one of the drivers about the situation last week. No investment in upgrades for how many years? Or planning for and building a new stadium in the area? If they move again I am done with them. I mean, it's in my blood and would still have great memories ect. But this is just complete BS all over again!

 

Unless the league somehow forces a deal, the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium is not likely to happen. Kroenke has his own stadium project and is privately funding it as a real estate venture. The Chargers/Raiders stadium is a completely different funding model with some shared control. Plus, the fact there are a lot of Charger fans in LA actually hurts the chances of Kroenke wanting to share his venue with them. Kroenke won't join in the Chargers deal and he's likely not going to let anyone in on his deal.

 

As for the Raiders not going to St. Louis.... the Raiders fairly recently paid a visit to San Antonio to talk about the out-of-date Alamodome and potential upgrades in South Texas. If the Raiders would even flirt with the idea of moving into an older facility in a middle of the road non-NFL market that is dominated by Jerry Jones and the Cowboys, they would certainly ponder a move to a proven NFL market that is going to build them a shiny new stadium. I understand the idea of the Raiders in Missouri confounds many, but I think no one should be blind to the fact the Davis family is not loyal to Oakland, or any place for that matter. I am not saying that it will happen, but I am saying it likely has already been discussed as an option in NFL circles. The NFL does not care about fans or fan loyalty. They care about markets, TV shares, and merchandise sales. Moving TWO clubs this year would generate a fortune for the league.

 

Thats,

 

All fine and dandy. My point is simple. If they move again, fu** em!! :madra:

[WorkingAllTheTime]

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

 

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

 

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

 

Here's why....

 

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.

Move the Raiders and Chargers to LA and keep the Rams in St. Louis with a new stadium. Put the Rams in the same division as KC so you have a good regional matchup. Many of the divisions are a cluster and could use a good shakeup. You also gotta realize that the Chargers get a ton of support from the LA area.

 

Here's an idea that hasn't been discussed. Chargers and Rams in LA sharing a stadium. Leaves Oakland out in the wind with their shithole stadium. I don't think the Raiders would move to St. Louis.

 

 

You,

 

Make a good point about the stadium in Oakland. I was talking with one of the drivers about the situation last week. No investment in upgrades for how many years? Or planning for and building a new stadium in the area? If they move again I am done with them. I mean, it's in my blood and would still have great memories ect. But this is just complete BS all over again!

 

Unless the league somehow forces a deal, the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium is not likely to happen. Kroenke has his own stadium project and is privately funding it as a real estate venture. The Chargers/Raiders stadium is a completely different funding model with some shared control. Plus, the fact there are a lot of Charger fans in LA actually hurts the chances of Kroenke wanting to share his venue with them. Kroenke won't join in the Chargers deal and he's likely not going to let anyone in on his deal.

 

As for the Raiders not going to St. Louis.... the Raiders fairly recently paid a visit to San Antonio to talk about the out-of-date Alamodome and potential upgrades in South Texas. If the Raiders would even flirt with the idea of moving into an older facility in a middle of the road non-NFL market that is dominated by Jerry Jones and the Cowboys, they would certainly ponder a move to a proven NFL market that is going to build them a shiny new stadium. I understand the idea of the Raiders in Missouri confounds many, but I think no one should be blind to the fact the Davis family is not loyal to Oakland, or any place for that matter. I am not saying that it will happen, but I am saying it likely has already been discussed as an option in NFL circles. The NFL does not care about fans or fan loyalty. They care about markets, TV shares, and merchandise sales. Moving TWO clubs this year would generate a fortune for the league.

 

Thats,

 

All fine and dandy. My point is simple. If they move again, fu** em!! :madra:

 

Well, it turns out old Silent Stan is trying to make certain no team ever relocates to St. Louis. His application for moving to LA was full of all sorts of slams and half truths (giving Stan even a half truth in his arguments, though, is being generous). He and his legal team used a variety of minimized data that ignored entire facets of the St. Louis regional community and economy to try to paint the area as lacking in viability for any NFL franchise. Keep in mind, St. Louis is quite statistically similar to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Tampa - all cities with three major sports teams, including the NFL. Sure, I get his application is really a pitch to sell his desire to move the club and he went all-in for that purpose, but anyone with a brain and the ability to do some basic research will know his application is largely fiction. He did not just file for a move, he filed for divorce from the St. Louis community.

 

Alas, as much as I believe no city or state should ever build a stadium for any team, I do think St. Louis will, under the guise of "civic pride", move forward with a funding proposal for a facility and try to get a team to relocate. I still believe the Raiders are one of the two likely targets. The other target is the Jaguars. In truth, Jacksonville makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. Shad Kahn, the owner of the Jaguars, originally tried to buy the Rams before Kroenke exercised his right to take the team majority. Kahn has deep ties to central Illinois and knows the Midwest well. Kahn also has a no-win situation facing him in Jacksonville. Realistically, though, Kahn likely has his eyes on moving his club to London and the league will certainly be more in favor of that than Jacksonville to St. Louis.

 

There's really no other club in a position to move. San Diego has too many ties to Southern California and something will likely come out of that. Buffalo is no longer in relocation play. New Orleans will eventually have to figure out a venue resolution as the Super Dome does not live up to its name, but the fact of the matter is the post-Katrina near move of the Saints will likely keep that club in the region for the very long term. All the other franchises are more or less stable.

 

So, yeah, I see St. Louis making a play for the Raiders and I see the league listening to the argument. Whether or not it happens, though, is a whole other story. I totally admit that. As I said in my first post, I think the league has pondered it. Pondering and committing are two different things.

[The Analog Cub]

Lovie Smith fired from the Bucs after 2 seasons

[laughedatbytime]

Lovie Smith fired from the Bucs after 2 seasons

This is why some organizations find themselves in a perpetual cycle of losing...no continuity. Not that Lovie's a great coach, but it's not like there's a home run hire out there.

[pjbear05]

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

 

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

 

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

 

Here's why....

 

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.

And somewhere, the ghost of Al Davis is laughing his ass off.

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Lovie Smith fired from the Bucs after 2 seasons

This is why some organizations find themselves in a perpetual cycle of losing...no continuity. Not that Lovie's a great coach, but it's not like there's a home run hire out there.

Hopefully the front office already has a "plan" and hopefully it will be to promote Dirk Koetter to HC then bring in a decent DC. Dirk was the only positve for the Buc's this year and Lovie's D & scheme SUCKED!!! The Glaziers need to be careful though because of their happy trigger finger no decent coach will want to come to Tampa just to get quickly fired. A coach really needs a 3 year period to get his vision and personnel in place. I thought Lovie had at least one more year as things were kinda on the up tick. But then again a lot of the games the Bucs lost that should've been won this season was the D's fault. Once again it's a new day in Tampa Bay!!

Go Bucs :madra:

Edited January 7, 2016 by Crimsonmistymemory

[Ancient Ways]

Lovie Smith fired from the Bucs after 2 seasons

This is why some organizations find themselves in a perpetual cycle of losing...no continuity. Not that Lovie's a great coach, but it's not like there's a home run hire out there.

Hopefully the front office already has a "plan" and hopefully it will be to promote Dirk Koetter to HC then bring in a decent DC. Dirk was the only positve for the Buc's this year and Lovie's D & scheme SUCKED!!! The Glaziers need to be careful though because of their happy trigger finger no decent coach will want to come to Tampa just to get quickly fired. A coach really needs a 3 year period to get his vision and personnel in place. I thought Lovie had at least one more year as things were kinda on the up tick. But then again a lot of the games the Bucs lost that should've been won this season was the D's fault. Once again it's a new day in Tampa Bay!!

Go Bucs :madra:

As long as we have a franchise QB coaches will come. As long as the glazers are willing to pay peopl a fortune to not coach they will come. Some reporters with "inside the organization sources" have said the glazers were shocked to hear Lovies plan to change almost nothing (other than hire a defensive "consultant" [i guess he's not a fpdefensive genius after all]) after the season that just ended. On top of that the killers were the collapse against Washington, the home record, the 4 game losing streak to end the season, and the apparent quitting of certain players the final games. Ultimately, a lackadaisical attitude and his players got him fired more than Dirk it now seems.

[The Analog Cub]

WOW. Dolphins get Adam Gase as head coach

 

http://www.nfl.com/n...-new-head-coach

 

While six other teams continue to search for new leadership, Miami has fallen for Adam Gase.

 

The Dolphins on Saturday made the Bears offensive play-caller their new head coach, the team announced. NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported that Gase has signed a five-year deal, per a source with knowledge of the situation. The first-time coach will be officially introduced during a 3 p.m. ET news conference.

 

"We did exhaustive research on all of the candidates ahead of time and conducted thorough and detailed interviews with each person,"Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said in a statement. "In the end, I was convinced and the search committee was unanimous Adam was the right leader for our football team who best met all of our priorities. He has high-energy is competitive and driven to win with a mindset of teaching and developing players."

 

Rapoport also reported the Dolphins are expected to pursue Bengals defensive backs coach Vance Joseph for their defensive coordinator.

 

Gase was one of the hottest names on the market after his promising handiwork with Bearsquarterback Jay Cutler, who threw just 11 interceptions this season after 18 picks in 2014. Chicago's offense was an up-and-down affair, but Cutler's career-high 92.3 passer rating only helped Gase's reputation as a quarterback whisperer. Gase also did fine work developing rookie running back Jeremy Langford for a Chicago offense that was hamstrung all year long by injuries to wideouts Alshon Jefferyand first-round pass-catcher Kevin White.

 

Gase has been talked about as head-coaching material since helping guide Peyton Manning and theBroncos to Super Bowl XLVIII. During his two seasons as Denver's coordinator from 2013 to 2014, the creative play-caller directed an attack that led the NFL in points, total yards and passing yards per game.

 

In Miami, his task is clear: fix the play of Ryan Tannehill. The Dolphins passer was on the rise before a troubling season in 2015. Tannehill met with Gase during the interview process, as did defensive behemoth Ndamukong Suh.

 

The Dolphins fired coach Joe Philbin following an early-season loss in London to the Bills. Interim coach Dan Campbell took over and performed well enough to net an interview for the gig, but Dolphins football czar Mike Tannenbaum made it clear this week that he and newly anointed general manager Chris Grier planned to spread a wide net to find their man.

Forget the wide net. Miami went fishing and found their guy in a hurry.

Edited January 9, 2016 by BowlCity

[The Analog Cub]

Gase was a bright spot in Chicago this year and came off of a great year with Denver. If he can work with Cutler he might be able to work with Tannehill.

 

I won't hold my breath, though.

[laughedatbytime]

Gase was a bright spot in Chicago this year and came off of a great year with Denver. If he can work with Cutler he might be able to work with Tannehill.

 

I won't hold my breath, though.

I was going to start a new thread on this later today. Foreshadowing: I like the move though it's short of a home run...

[The Analog Cub]

Gase was a bright spot in Chicago this year and came off of a great year with Denver. If he can work with Cutler he might be able to work with Tannehill.

 

I won't hold my breath, though.

I was going to start a new thread on this later today. Foreshadowing: I like the move though it's short of a home run...

 

As seen in Chicago this year, a new coaching staff alone, however great it might be, doesn't fix everything.

 

It was good choice I think, though. Gase was a hot commodity.

[laughedatbytime]

Gase was a bright spot in Chicago this year and came off of a great year with Denver. If he can work with Cutler he might be able to work with Tannehill.

 

I won't hold my breath, though.

I was going to start a new thread on this later today. Foreshadowing: I like the move though it's short of a home run...

 

As seen in Chicago this year, a new coaching staff alone, however great it might be, doesn't fix everything.

 

It was good choice I think, though. Gase was a hot commodity.

It's a process. Tannehill regressed big time, though the OL had a lot to do with it. Unfortunately, there's not really one position on the team that is significantly above average, and the secondary (except Rashad Jones) and the LBs are weak. Hopefully he can pull in a good DC (unfortunately, Mel Tucker is already taken :)) and turn that unit around but we spent so much on Suh that the cap is going to be an issue, I'm afraid.)

[The Analog Cub]

Gase was a bright spot in Chicago this year and came off of a great year with Denver. If he can work with Cutler he might be able to work with Tannehill.

 

I won't hold my breath, though.

I was going to start a new thread on this later today. Foreshadowing: I like the move though it's short of a home run...

 

As seen in Chicago this year, a new coaching staff alone, however great it might be, doesn't fix everything.

 

It was good choice I think, though. Gase was a hot commodity.

It's a process. Tannehill regressed big time, though the OL had a lot to do with it. Unfortunately, there's not really one position on the team that is significantly above average, and the secondary (except Rashad Jones) and the LBs are weak. Hopefully he can pull in a good DC (unfortunately, Mel Tucker is already taken :)) and turn that unit around but we spent so much on Suh that the cap is going to be an issue, I'm afraid.)

 

Signing Suh was a stupid f***ing decision.

[laughedatbytime]

Gase was a bright spot in Chicago this year and came off of a great year with Denver. If he can work with Cutler he might be able to work with Tannehill.

 

I won't hold my breath, though.

I was going to start a new thread on this later today. Foreshadowing: I like the move though it's short of a home run...

 

As seen in Chicago this year, a new coaching staff alone, however great it might be, doesn't fix everything.

 

It was good choice I think, though. Gase was a hot commodity.

It's a process. Tannehill regressed big time, though the OL had a lot to do with it. Unfortunately, there's not really one position on the team that is significantly above average, and the secondary (except Rashad Jones) and the LBs are weak. Hopefully he can pull in a good DC (unfortunately, Mel Tucker is already taken :)) and turn that unit around but we spent so much on Suh that the cap is going to be an issue, I'm afraid.)

 

Signing Suh was a stupid f***ing decision.

Yeah, I said so at the time but it turned out worse than I thought.

[liquidcrystalcompass]

Bengals/Steelers game. Over officiated.

[Ancient Ways]

Bengals/Steelers game. Over officiated.

The steelers sideline is acting terribly. I actually think thy let too much go. What munchak did is inexcusable. He should have been tossed IMO. Coaches need to coach not get physical with opposing players.

[blueschica]

Oh fudge, this game is not going well for the Steelers . .. bad karma for that nasty head hit Ryan Shazier gave to Bernard earlier. .

[Crimsonmistymemory]

What a crazy game!!!

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Big Ben is Baaaaack

[blueschica]

What a crazy game!!

 

Yeah,it's killing me!