Skip to content

John Mara’s arguments confirm the NFL has returned to the pre-Ray Rice mindset

FILE - In this Sunday, Nov. 29, 2015 photo, New York Giants co-owner John Mara walks across the field before an NFL football game against the Washington Redskins in Landover, Md. A visibly shaken Giants owner John Mara said Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2016 he was fine with the NFL's suspension of placekicker Josh Brown for one game, despite allegations Brown abused his ex-wife as many as 20 times prior to the Giants signing Brown to a two-year extension last spring. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File) AP

After the Ray Rice video rocked the NFL to its foundation and nearly toppled a Commissioner, the NFL reacted to immense public pressure by making big changes. And now that the PSI has reduced (yeah, I went there), the NFL has retreated to it pre-Ray Rice reality.

That’s exactly what happened in the Josh Brown case. Arrested in May 2015 for a domestic violence incident that the NFL saw fit to discipline with a one-game suspension, the NFL still has provided no explanation as to why the league deviated from the six-game baseline that was adopted in an effort to put out the post-Ray Rice firestorm.

Mitigating factors are required to reduce the six-game suspension. So what were they?

The NFL has made no effort to identify the mitigating factors or to even say that there were any. The only real explanation provided in support of the action taken came from the inability of the NFL’s investigators to fully investigate the case, blaming their failure to get to the truth (under the low standard of “more probable than not”) by pointing out that Brown’s former wife refused to cooperate and that law enforcement officials likewise wouldn’t talk, outcomes that scream out “red flag” more than they say “dead end.”

Good investigators figure out ways to get people to tell the truth. Good investigators don’t shrug and say “oh well” and create a blueprint for all other players who are accused of domestic violence: If you can convince the witnesses not to talk, the league will have no choice but to go easy on you.

The bigger problem in this case is that the Giants also went easy on Brown. Although it wouldn’t be right for the team to look the other way if a key player on offense or defense were involved in a similar situation, at least it would make sense. Why are the Giants opening themselves up to criticism and scrutiny for a kicker? As one G.M. told me earlier this year, there are three great kickers, three bad kickers, and the other 26 are all the same. Brown is one of the other 26, and the Giants easily could have found another one of those 26.

“These are not easy decisions,” Giants co-owner John Mara said Wednesday, finally breaking the organization’s silence on the subject. “Very easy to say, ‘Guy’s been accused, get rid of him. Terminate him.’ But when you’re sitting at the top of an organization and you’re responsible for a lot of people, you’d better make more informed decisions than that.”

That’s fine, but in this case the Giants didn’t have to fire Brown. His contract had expired, they knew about the allegations, and instead of finding another kicker they hired Brown again.

Some may say that the Giants were being merciful or giving the player a second chance or whatever, but it’s impossible to reconcile the Giants’ actions with these words from Mara, uttered at a time when the league was under heavy siege: “Everyone in our league, players, coaches, front-office people, need to understand there is no excuse for domestic violence ever and there is going to be severe consequences.”

The fact that the NFL imposed a one-game suspension on Brown shows that some degree of domestic violence occurred. His ex-wife claimed, before clamming up, that there had been up to 20 prior incidents of violence.

“There is no excuse for domestic violence,” Mara said in 2014. In 2016, Mara sounds like a guy making multiple excuses for Brown.

“There’s a big difference between allegations and convictions or indictments,” Mara said Wednesday. “And a lot of times there’s a tendency to try to make these cases black and white. They’re very rarely black and white. You very rarely have a Ray Rice video.”

Those are all excuses for Brown’s domestic violence, for which the consequences were minimal — and which the Giants decided to ignore when re-hiring a player with whom the organization technically had no employment relationship.

The inescapable message is this: With the Ray Rice incident nearly two years old, the NFL and its teams have assumed the pre-Ray Rice posture. Unless, of course, there’s any chance a video exists that TMZ may eventually buy.

Permalink 42 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Statement from Joey Bosa’s representatives

San Diego Chargers rookie defensive end Joey Bosa trains during an NFL football rookie training camp Friday, May 13, 2016, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull) AP

[Editor’s note: CAA, the firm that represents Chargers defensive end Joey Bosa, issued a statement on Wednesday night in response to a statement issued and comments made by the team on Wednesday.]

It is unfortunate the San Diego Chargers have decided to manipulate facts and negotiate in the media.  The team surely is not strengthening its relationship with Joey Bosa by taking this stance and making their position public.

We have decided that we will not engage in public negotiations or discuss numbers and/or terms in this negotiation.

We will say, that it is ironic that the team now takes issue with the timing of Joey’s arrival, since the Chargers unilaterally decided to remain silent for the first 14 days of training camp instead of replying in a timely fashion to the proposal we made on the eve of training camp on July 28th.

At this point, all we can do is continue to fight for a fair contract on behalf of our client, as we do for all of our clients.  The Chargers can focus on trying to sway public opinion, but our focus will remain on our client and securing a contract for him that is fair and consistent with his draft position.

Permalink 49 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Chargers statement on Joey Bosa

[Editor’s note: The Chargers have issued a statement regarding the stalled contract talks with defensive end Joey Bosa. The full text of it appears below.]

The San Diego Chargers issued the following statement regarding the contract negotiations with 2016 first-round selection Joey Bosa:

Our contract discussions and offers to the representatives of Joey Bosa have been both fair and structurally consistent with the contracts of every other Chargers player.

Our offer included:

1. An initial signing bonus payment that is larger than any player in the League has received in the last two drafts.

2. More money in this calendar year than every player in this year’s draft except one (QB Carson Wentz).

3. The largest payment and the highest percentage of signing bonus received in the first calendar year of any Chargers’ first-round selection since the inception of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (2011).

We gave Joey’s representatives our best offer last night, which was rejected today.  The offer that we extended was for Joey to contribute during all 16 games and beyond.  Joey’s ability to contribute for an entire rookie season has now been jeopardized by the valuable time he has missed with his coaches and his teammates. Since Joey will not report at this time, his ability to produce not just early in the season, but throughout the entire season, has been negatively impacted.

As a result, we will restructure our offer since Joey will be unable to contribute for the full 16 game season without the adequate time on the practice field, in the classroom, and in preseason games.

Permalink 91 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Familiar stories, not much sizzle in “Hard Knocks”

OXNARD, CA - MAY 06:  Head coach Jeff Fisher of the Los Angeles Rams takes to the field during a Los Angeles Rams rookie camp on May 06, 2016 in Oxnard, California.  (Photo by Harry How/Getty Images) Getty Images

Three weeks in, the most memorable line of this year’s “Hard Knocks” documentary series on the Rams remains coach Jeff Fisher telling his players he’d cut Deon Long for participating in “some 7-9 b——t” and that Fisher would not be putting up with 7-9 b——t.

The show is still good. The cast is just very, um, 7-9.

The unfiltered access is great. The F-bombs thrown around by Fisher and defensive line coach Mike Waufle have been great. But the stories are just OK.

The Rams can’t have Todd Gurley get hurt. Case Keenum is the quarterback until Jared Goff is ready. A bunch of guys are chasing dreams. Being in LA means getting to go to Disneyland on an off day.

There just hasn’t been a whole lot in the way of new or dramatic.

Tuesday night’s third episode — the halfway point, essentially — did provide some unscripted and gut-wrenching television when undrafted rookie wide receiver Paul McRoberts sat in Fisher’s office not long after learning his stepbrother, with whom he’d grown up, had been murdered.

“My teammates and my coaches let me know it’s OK to cry,” McRoberts said in probably the most powerful moment of the series to date.

The highlight of the third episode, or at least the most colorful moment, came when Rams defensive lineman Ethan Westbrooks was talking with trainers during last weekend’s preseason game. Westbrooks had been hit low and high by Chiefs blockers, and though a chop block penalty was called, the Rams were not pleased.

Cameras caught Fisher on the field staring in the direction of the Chiefs bench and caught Waufle yelling at Chiefs tackle Jah Reid, who had hit Westbrooks somewhere near the knee.

“What the f— is that No. 75? You f—–g a—–e,” Waufle screamed. “You shouldn’t be in the league.”

Westbrooks limped off and said he wanted to go back into the game, which was at least a bit of good news.

This edition of “Hard Knocks” has become more about those moments and stories of players dealing with dreams that could soon be over than it’s been about colorful characters or stars. Even Goff, the No. 1 pick in the 2016 draft, played a bit part in the third episode.

He’s the future. That much is clear. But for the next two weeks, he’s still a backup — and the show will probably continue to focus on guys who might not be in the team’s plans.

Permalink 5 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Goff, “Hard Knocks” both coming along slowly

OXNARD, CA - MAY 06:  Jared Goff #16 of the Los Angeles Rams runs a drill during a Los Angeles Rams rookie camp on May 06, 2016 in Oxnard, California.  (Photo by Harry How/Getty Images) Getty Images

This year’s “Hard Knocks” featuring the Los Angeles Rams is understandably going to feature quarterback Jared Goff, the No. 1 overall pick in the 2016 draft, and the other recognizable Rams.

Like Todd Gurley. And Aaron Donald. And…


Considering that Goff isn’t yet the team’s starter and that his preseason debut last weekend was cut short after he took a big hit, the “Hard Knocks” producers had their work cut out for them in the season’s second episode, which aired Tuesday.

We got the standard montages of Goff hamming it up for the cameras, of teammates and coaches being asked about Goff, and even 30 or so seconds of Goff throwing lasers followed by the obligatory soundbites.

“We’re seeing the competitiveness,” Rams quarterbacks coach Chris Weinke said of Goff. “He wants to be great. His physical skills, they flash every day.”

After one pass, cameras caught Rams defensive coordinator Gregg Williams say, “that was a f—–g NFL throw right there. He hummed that one.”

The cameras caught Rams coach Jeff Fisher twice muttering to himself, “Get up Jared, get up Jared,” when Goff was hit during last Saturday’s game vs. the Cowboys. Fisher took Goff out of that game as a precaution, and he should be fine.

The show is going to be fine, too, despite a lack of real stars or known characters. Defensive Line Coach Mike Waufle can string F-bombs and other obscenities together with the best of them, defensive end William Hayes seems pretty hellbent on convincing his teammates that dinosaurs never existed, and Fisher’s son, defensive backs coach Brandon Fisher, introduced an interesting acronym, NAF. Or, non-athletic f—.


For the second straight week the cameras and producers struck a little TV gold when they first caught Fisher telling his players to be careful with their bikes, golf carts and other vehicles on the UC-Irvine campus, then caught wide receivers Kenny Britt and Brian Quick driving fast before turning over and falling out of something that looked like a dune buggy.

Fisher later called them “Dumb and Dumber” in front of the team, drawing laughs.

Expect more chuckles — and a bunch more Goff — in the three episodes to come.

Permalink 15 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

August 15 letter from NFL to NFLPA over Al Jazeera PED allegations

[Editor’s note: On August 15, the NFL sent a letter to the NFLPA regarding the pending PED investigation regarding Packers linebacker Clay Matthews, Packers linebacker Julius Peppers, Steelers linebacker James Harrison, and free-agent defensive lineman Mike Neal. PFT has obtained a copy of the letter. The full text appears below.]

As you know, the league has been investigating a nationally televised report concerning potential violations of the collectively bargained Policy on Performance-Enhancing Substances.  There can be no question that the league has a good faith basis for conducting this investigation; moreover, the league and NFLPA have a shared interest in ensuring that our jointly developed policy is not being violated.

Nevertheless, since the initiation of our investigation in January the league has made at least seven attempts to arrange interviews of Messrs. Harrison, Matthews, Neal and Peppers.  On each occasion, the NFLPA has communicated the players’ refusal to participate.  Most recently, the NFLPA has attempted to prevent the interviews by submitting for each player a half-page statement, which you advised should be treated as a sworn statement given in a legal proceeding, and which you contend should fulfill the players’ acknowledged obligation to cooperate with the investigation.  The statements, however, are wholly devoid of any detail, and we were quickly able to determine that Mr. Neal’s statement includes an assertion that is demonstrably false.  Rather than eliminate the need for interviews, the players’ plainly deficient statements simply underscore the importance of obtaining their full cooperation.

You were so advised on July 29, when we again wrote to offer the players another opportunity to participate in an interview, beginning with Mr. Neal.  In that letter, you were expressly notified that continued noncooperation could result in discipline up to and including a suspension.  In response, you provided a revised statement and letter which acknowledged Mr. Neal’s prior steroid policy violation and that his previous “sworn statement” is in fact untrue.  Most important, you advised that Mr. Neal had again refused to cooperate with our investigation by participating in an interview.

There is no dispute that players are obligated to cooperate with the league’s investigation, as you have repeatedly acknowledged.  This obligation includes not only the responsibility to submit to an interview but also the duty to provide meaningful responses to the questions posed.  Nor is there a dispute that a failure to cooperate or an attempt to obstruct the investigation may result in discipline, including suspension from play, for conduct detrimental under Article 46 of the CBA and the NFL Player Contract.

We cannot accept your unilateral assertion that the cursory, untested statements you have submitted satisfy the players’ obligation.  Accordingly, the Commissioner has directed that Messrs. Harrison, Matthews, Neal and Peppers be given until Thursday, August 25 to provide interviews.  For those players whose interviews do not take place on or before that date, or who fail meaningfully to participate in or otherwise obstruct the interview, their actions will constitute conduct detrimental and they will be suspended, separate and apart from any possible future determination that they violated the steroid policy.  The suspension for each such player will begin on Friday, August 26 and will continue until he has fully participated in an interview with league investigators, after which the Commissioner will determine whether and when the suspension should be lifted.

To avoid this outcome, please promptly contact my office to make arrangements for the interviews.  As previously stated, we will make every effort to accommodate the NFLPA’s availability, within the outlined time period.

Permalink 5 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Window closes on potential trade of Joey Bosa in 2016

Ohio State’s Joey Bosa poses for photos with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell after being selected by the San Diego Chargers as the third pick in the first round of the 2016 NFL football draft, Thursday, April 28, 2016, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast) AP

It’s official. In 2016, defensive end Joey Bosa will play for the Chargers or for no one.

As first explained last week by PFT, the window for trading Bosa closed at 4:00 p.m. ET today, 30 days before the start of the regular season. He can’t be traded until the 2017 league year opens, at the earliest.

The Chargers had shown no inclination to trade Bosa, in large part because no other team had the rookie pool space to absorb his contract. Without that, a trade couldn’t have happened.

As first explained here last week (but co-opted without credit by a certain four-letter network on Sunday), the two sides haven’t spoken since July 28. Indeed, a source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that, as of this posting, the two sides still haven’t spoken in 12 days, and counting.

The ball, as previously explained, remains in the team’s court. The latest offer from the Chargers came on the morning of July 28, Bosa’s camp responded within 90 minutes, and the team has still not countered.

The team presumably hasn’t countered because there’s nothing to say. The Chargers want offset language to be attached to the guaranteed contract, preventing double-dipping from Bosa if he’s cut during the next four years and signs elsewhere. The Chargers also want to defer a significant chunk of the signing bonus to March of 2017, while Bosa wants the full signing bonus to be paid out this year.

Bosa is willing to concede either point. The Chargers want both offset and deferral language.

The impasse must be resolved, at the latest, by the Tuesday after Week 10. If a deal isn’t reached by then, Bosa can’t play in 2016, and he’ll remain the property of the Chargers until the start of the 2017 draft.

Again, it’s hard to see it getting to that point. It also was hard a few weeks ago to see it getting to this point.

Permalink 70 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Michael and Martellus Bennett, unplugged and unhinged

SEATTLE, WA - SEPTEMBER 27:  Defensive end Michael Bennett #72 (L) of the Seattle Seahawks is greeted by his younger brother  Martellus Bennett #83 of the Chicago Bears after the game at CenturyLink Field on September 27, 2015 in Seattle, Washington.  (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images) Getty Images

Michael Bennett may have some more apologizing to do.

The Seahawks defensive end, who made waves with critical public comments of Cam Newton for which Bennett later apologized privately, gave an extended interview (along with his brother, Patriots tight end Martellus Bennett) to Mina Kimes of ESPN The Magazine. The entire article should be read. Appearing below are some of the comments others most likely to generate laughter, provoke thought, and/or prompt one brother or the other (or both) to issue an apology.

Martellus, on a visit to the house of Cowboys owner Jerry Jones: “Once you get rich, you start collecting weird sh-t like silverware.” (Martellus and Michael both said, simultaneously, that they would collect people — for blood transfusions and kidney transplants.)

Martellus, on former teammate and Cowboys TE Jason Witten: “I hated Jason Witten. I appreciated his game, but I always hated him.”

Michael, on his willingness to be blunt: “I’m not gonna go up there and give a Russell Wilson answer.” (Michael’s criticism of Newton implicitly criticized Wilson, since Michael was calling out players who take big dollars but remain silent on social causes.)

Michael, on Bears quarterback Jay Cutler: “Worst quarterback in the NFL.”

Martellus, on Cutler: “I’d be open and he’d throw into double coverage.”

Martellus, on Giants QB Eli Manning: “He’s like a normal white guy you see at the park trying to teach his kids how to play soccer and you know he can’t really play soccer himself.”

Michael, on the lack of prominent players taking leadership of the union: “In the NBA, LeBron James, Chris Paul . . . they’re at the forefront. There’s no Peyton Manning standing up for the rest of the players. He’s a great player, but what has he done for the league?”

Martellus, on Rams coach Jeff Fisher: “If a QB went 7-9, he’d never be able to find a job.”

Michael, on Fisher: “Make sure he’s in the NFC West.”

Michael, on Commissioner Roger Goodell: “A–hole. Nah, I’m just joking — you can’t say that. Overpaid.”

Martellus, on Texans defensive end J.J. Watt: “Corny. Half of the NFL is corny, though.”

Michael, on Watt: “People love J.J. Watt, but they don’t really like J.J. Watt, know what I’m saying?”

And, lastly, when Michael is asked what he grows in the garden at his house in Hawaii, Marcellus leans in and drops the name of a presidential candidate.

Permalink 51 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Who’s left? Exploring the remaining free agents

GLENDALE, AZ - DECEMBER 27:  Linebacker Dwight Freeney #54 of the Arizona Cardinals walks off the field following the NFL game against the Green Bay Packers at the University of Phoenix Stadium on December 27, 2015 in Glendale, Arizona. The Cardinals defeatred the Packers 38-30.  (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images) Getty Images

Quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick is playing golf. Without a contract, he’s not going to training camp this week.

Fitzpatrick hasn’t said much about his situation, and the Jets basically issued a gag order six weeks ago. So, we’ll see what happens with camp starting and teams across the league getting back to work.

PFT has put together a list of other players who are still unsigned as camps open. Most of them are older players who might wait until the regular season begins or end up atop the emergency call list various player personnel departments keep as they shuffle their 90-man camp rosters and deal with various injuries and situations. Past Fitzpatrick, who’s clearly the most intriguing unsigned player, the players are listed in no particular order…

Fitzpatrick – His staredown with the Jets continues. It could get really interesting if Geno Smith has a great start to camp or if some other team that believes it’s a contender loses its quarterback to injury in August.

Dwight Freeney – He’s made a few visits and figures to eventually have some real suitors given how well (eight sacks in 11 games) he played last season for the Cardinals. Waiting last year seemed to work, so Freeney, 36, probably will have no problem being patient as he awaits a call and a chance to play a 15th season.

Greg Hardy – Hardy brings baggage, but lots of teams are looking for pass rushers. He recently visited the Jaguars, but reports say no signing is imminent. A team would have to be convinced that Hardy can still be an impact player before taking him on.

Anquan Boldin – Boldin is 35, but it’s not like he was ever a speed burner. He knows how to get open and how to catch passes in traffic, and he’ll eventually land with a team that wants him to play in the slot and help keep the chains moving.

Omar Bolden – While most players on this list are on the wrong side of 30, Bolden is 27. He signed with the Bears in March but was cut last week. Bolden can help in the return game as well as playing as a backup defensive back, and he probably won’t be unemployed for long.

Brian Hartline – Released by the Browns in the spring, Hartline had a productive 2015 before an injury ended his season. He’s not going to be a starter, but like Boldin he’s probably near the top of the call list for teams who either lose a receiver in camp or are looking to upgrade the slot position.

Antonio Cromartie – He’s 32, but he’s missed very few starts over his 10-year career and has generally been around the ball. He went without an interception in 15 starts last season, so teams might be wondering if he can still keep up.

Michael Vick – After subbing with the Steelers last season, Vick recently has been campaigning for a job and saying he’d like to play one more season. He signed during camp last summer, and it would likely be a similar scenario this time around if he’s going to land with a team.

John Kuhn – The longtime Packers fullback has said he’s confident he’ll get a call soon, even if it’s not from the Packers.

Mike Neal – It’s surprising that Neal, who just turned 29, remains unemployed given that he had four sacks for the Packers last year, has starting experience and can play both defensive end and outside linebacker.

Leon Hall – The former first-rounder and longtime Bengals cornerback has taken some visits but has not yet found a home. If Hall, 31, doesn’t return to the Bengals, look for him to sign with another contender and play as a third or fourth cornerback.

Percy Harvin – Harvin reportedly has chosen retirement and doesn’t plan to play in 2016, but there’s never been much predictable about Harvin.

Joique Bell – If Bell is healthy, he can contribute in some team’s running back rotation. Given his injury history, it might be a while before a team gives him a call.

Donte Whitner – The Browns released Whitner after the start of free agency. He’s 31 and didn’t have a strong 2015 season, but he was good in 2014 for the Browns. He’s likely atop the emergency call list of many teams if a need at strong safety arises.

Randy Starks – Like Whitner, Starks was released by the Browns in the offseason. Starks, 32, had a quiet season on a bad team last year, but his ability to rush the passer and play multiple positions across the defensive line make him an attractive target for a team that decides it wants to boost its depth.

Stephen Tulloch – Finally released by the Lions earlier this month, Tulloch, 31, figures to be on the call list of a few teams if a need at inside linebacker arises — and if Tulloch is healthy.

Roddy White – His breakup with the Falcons came as no surprise. White will turn 35 in November, but it wouldn’t be a surprise to see a team give him a look in late August or early September.

James Jones – Jones ended up playing a pretty important role for the Packers last season. It’s no surprise that the team is going young at wide receiver, but Jones, 32, will eventually get a call from some team.

Andre Johnson – He’s 35, but remains hopeful some team will give him a shot.

Permalink 11 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Market for game-worn memorabilia could grow dramatically

508993122 Getty Images

The long-pending lawsuit against the Giants over allegedly fraudulent game-worn memorabilia exposes a pair of truths about this industry: (1) it could be extremely lucrative; and (2) items must be harvested and sold in a way that ensures authenticity.

Agent Neil Schwartz is spreading the word about the potential benefits of selling game-worn jerseys, helmets, cleats, and other equipment, both at the NFL and college level. He estimates that, currently, the market for game-work memorabilia accounts for $100 million of a broader memorabilia industry (trading cards, autographs, etc.) that generates $1.5 billion per year. Schwartz believes that the market for game-worn memorabilia eventually could be worth $1 billion per year on its own.

The key, according to Schwartz, is the authenticity of the items.

“If people are truly buying a piece of history so that they can feel connected to that moment in time, the NFL and its players need to make sure that memorabilia is genuine,” Schwartz said.

The best way to ensure authentication is to identify reputable companies that specialize in ensuring that, for example, a jersey worn by Von Miller in Super Bowl 50 really was worn by Von Miller in Super Bowl 50. Apart from the money that players could make by selling game-worn memorabilia in the immediate aftermath of a memorable game or performance, fans will know with full confidence that they are purchasing an item that legitimately and actually was used during a specific game by a specific player.

The NFL and NFL Players Association likely would have to work out some of the details, given that the teams technically own the jerseys. Still, game-worn jerseys have no additional value unless they are (duh) worn by a specific player during a game.

As applied to college football, retaining and later selling game-worn memorabilia could help ensure that players who aren’t being paid find a way to obtain compensation for their services, albeit on a belated basis. Put simply, college players can take steps to properly preserve game-worn gear and then sell it after their eligibility has concluded.

Schwartz believes that agents could become involved in facilitating game-worn memorabilia sales, with a cut of the proceeds potentially replacing the agent’s fee on, for example, the player’s first NFL contract. Or (more likely) the schools and the NCAA could create a system that gathers, retains, and markets the game-worn gear after the player’s eligibility expires.

Consider the potential value of, for example, jerseys and other gear worn each and every week by the player who eventually wins the Heisman Trophy, or by the player who becomes the No. 1 pick in the draft. If there were a way for fans to bid on those items close in time to, for example, a dominant performance in a major bowl game, the value of the item could skyrocket.

Last year, one jersey worn by LSU running back Leonard Fournette drew a high bid of $101,000 at an auction benefiting South Carolina hurricane victims. How much would each of Fournette’s 2016 jerseys and other equipment be worth if he sold at auction if promptly after his eligibility expires?

Currently, items often are sold under the table by still-eligible players, who end up getting far less than the items would be worth through a process of competitive bidding. An organized system for gathering and selling game-worn gear at the appropriate time would maximize the return, and minimize the chances of a player’s eligibility being undermined by trading gear for something of value, like tattoos.

If done properly, players will be able to buy their own tattoos along with plenty of other stuff, fans will have access to one-of-a-kind items, and a largely-untapped market could mushroom.

Permalink 15 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

NFL posts the 2016 rule book online

KANSAS CITY, MO - AUGUST 24:  Referees huddle in conference during the NFL preseason game between the Seattle Seahawks and the Kansas City Chiefs at Arrowhead Stadium on August 24, 2012 in Kansas City, Missouri.  (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images) Getty Images

Before you complain about the officials this season, you’ll want to make sure you actually know the rules. Fortunately, the NFL has published the entire 217-page rule book online.

The whole rule book is available as a PDF here.

The most noteworthy part of the rule book, which is on Page 2, where it identifies the changes to the rules this year. Those include:

1. It is now a delay of game penalty if a team is erroneously granted a timeout.

2. The offensive and defensive play callers can use the coach-to-helmet communications system regardless of whether the coach is in the booth or on the sideline.

3. There is no longer a five-yard penalty for illegally touching a pass after being out of bounds and then re-establishing inbounds, but it is a loss of down.

4. The line of scrimmage for extra point kicks is permanently the 15-yard line.

5. Touchbacks on kickoffs are now moved to the 25-yard line.

6. All chop blocks are illegal.

7. The horse-collar tackle rule now includes a defender grabbing the jersey at the name plate or above.

8. A player who gets two fouls for certain kinds of unsportsmanlike conduct is automatically ejected.

9. Multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession have been eliminated.

Permalink 53 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

Training camps: When, where and key dates for all 32 teams

Darrius Heyward-Bey, Will Allen

In a little more than four weeks, the first NFL training camps open.

Only 11 teams are going away for camp, both because many teams just find it easier to stay in their multi-million dollar facilities and because the new CBA cut down on camp time and on-field hours.

Though all teams can report for camp 15 days before their preseason opener, each team manages open practices and some early workouts differently. Below is a list of every team’s first full practice; teams that leave their home sites/facilities for camp are noted, as are key training camp dates.


Baltimore Ravens

First practice: July 29

Key dates: Open practices at M&T Bank Stadium Aug. 1 and Aug. 6

Buffalo Bills – at St. John Fisher College, Rochester

First practice: July 30

Cincinnati Bengals

First practice: July 29

Key dates: The Bengals host the Vikings for joint practices Aug. 10-11

Cleveland Browns

First practice: July 29

Key dates: Aug. 6, intrasquad scrimmage at Ohio Stadium in Columbus; Aug. 23-24 practices with the Buccaneers in Tampa

Denver Broncos

First practice: July 28

Key dates: The Broncos host the 49ers for joint practices Aug. 17-18.

Houston Texans

First practice: July 31

Key dates: Joint practices at 49ers Aug. 12 and vs. the Saints Aug. 18-19

Indianapolis Colts – at Anderson University, Anderson, Ind.

First practice: July 27

Jacksonville Jaguars

First practice: July 28

Key dates: Intrasquad stadium scrimmage Aug. 5. The Jaguars will host the Buccaneers for joint practices Aug. 17-18.

Kansas City Chiefs – at Missouri Western State University, St. Joseph, Mo.

First practice: July 30

Miami Dolphins

The Dolphins haven’t yet released official camp dates.

New England Patriots

First practice: July 28

Key dates: Joint practices with the Saints (Aug. 9-10) and Bears (Aug. 15-16).

New York Jets

First practice: July 28. Only six practices will be open to the public.

Oakland Raiders – at Napa Valley, Ca.

The Raiders haven’t yet released official camp dates.

Pittsburgh Steelers – at Saint Vincent College, Latrobe, Pa.

First practice: July 29

Key dates: Aug. 9-10 joint practices with the Lions

San Diego Chargers

First practice: July 30

Key dates: Joint practice with Cardinals Aug. 16 in Qualcomm Stadium

Tennessee Titans

First practice: July 30

Key dates: Aug. 6 stadium practice open to fans


Arizona Cardinals

First practice: July 29

Key dates: Joint practice at Chargers Aug. 16

Atlanta Falcons

First practice: July 28

Key dates: Aug. 5 “Friday Night Lights” practice at Grayson High School in Loganville, Ga.

Carolina Panthers – at Wofford College, Spartanburg, S.C.

First practice: July 28

Chicago Bears – at Olivet Nazarene University, Bourbonnais, Ill.

First practice: July 28

Key dates: Aug. 6 practice at Soldier Field; Aug. 15-16 joint practices at the Patriots

Dallas Cowboys – at Oxnard, Ca.

First practice: July 30

Detroit Lions

First practice: July 29, though the Lions have not yet released a full camp schedule.

Key dates: Aug. 9-10 joint practices at the Steelers

Green Bay Packers – at St. Norbert College in De Pere, Wis.

First practice: July 26

Key dates: July 31, Family Night at Lambeau Field

Los Angeles Rams

The Rams haven’t yet released a full camp schedule.

Minnesota Vikings – at Minnesota State University, Mankato, Min.

Key dates: Joint practices vs. Bengals in Cincinnati Aug. 10-11

New York Giants

First practice: July 29

New Orleans Saints – at The Greenbrier, White Sulfur Springs, W.V.

First practice: July 28

Key dates: Joint practices at the Patriots Aug. 9-10 and at the Texans Aug. 18-19

Philadelphia Eagles

First practice: July 28

Key dates: Open practices at Lincoln Financial Field on July 31 and Aug. 14

San Francisco 49ers

First practice: July 31

Key dates: The 49ers will host the Texans for a joint practice Aug. 12, then visit Denver for joint practices Aug. 17-18.

Seattle Seahawks

First practice: July 30

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

First practice: July 30

Key dates: Joint practices at the Jaguars (Aug. 17-18) and vs. the Browns (Aug. 23-24)

Washington Redskins – at Bon Secours Training Center, Richmond, Va.

First practice: July 28

Permalink 7 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

10 takeaways from the O.J. Simpson documentary

LOS ANGELES, CA - MAY 8:  O.J. Simpson (L), Johnnie Cochran Jr. (C) and Robert Shapiro (R) watch the jury come into the courtroom 08 May during the O.J. Simpson murder trial in Los Angeles.  The trial is in the DNA testimony phase by expert Dr. Robin Cotton.             AFP PHOTO  (Photo credit should read RICK MEYER/AFP/Getty Images) Getty Images

Last weekend, I watched all five parts of ESPN’s O.J. Simpson documentary. Even with high expectations arising from the widespread praise the documentary received, it was riveting.

In 1994 and 1995, after the murders occurred and the trial unfolded, I didn’t understand why things happened they way they did, either because I wasn’t able or inclined to pay extremely close attention to the case or because I hadn’t been practicing law long enough to understand how everything pieced together. Now, seven years after wrapping up an 18-year law practice (yeah, I’m old), I’ve got a much better understanding of how it all fits together, and why the Pro Football Hall of Famer walked away from life behind bars.

So in this sort-of-off-topic post, I’ll share 10 things that became clear to me after reliving in two days a case that was a major part of American life for the better part of two years.

1. He did it.

Part Four of the documentary includes a pair of crime-scene photos that on one hand I wish I’d never seen but on the other hand I’m glad I did.

The image of the damage the killer did to the throat and neck of Nicole Brown Simpson tells me everything I need to know about this case: Simpson did it, clearly, unequivocally, and beyond any plausible or implausible doubt.

The deep, gaping wound that nearly decapitated Nicole Brown Simpson reveals a level of raw passion and emotion that rarely if ever is mustered against a stranger. It was extreme overkill, committed either by someone with mental faculties sufficiently warped that it should have been easy to catch the killer or by someone who personally knew Nicole Brown Simpson and harbored a torrent of emotions that, in the wrong place at the wrong time, manifested themselves in the worst way possible.

In this case, it was both. Simpson had the requisite passion for the victim and, in that moment, the necessary lack of sanity to do what he clearly, undoubtedly did.

2. The Rodney King case contributed directly to the outcome.

The brutal beating of Rodney King, an African-American man, by L.A. police officers in 1991, and their subsequent acquittal by an all-white jury in California state court, influenced the Simpson case in a significant way. District Attorney Gil Garcetti opted to try the Simpson case in a portion of the county that would ensure a more diverse jury. Without the King case, a decision to nudge the case toward a much whiter jury pool may have been made.

The King case also ensured that the predominantly African-American jury in Simpson’s case would be receptive to evidence of potential police misconduct. There indeed was plenty of evidence of potential police misconduct — including the one piece of evidence that, as explained below, ensured an acquittal.

3. The prosecution was outworked.

Great lawyers excel before a judge and a jury. Most cases are won (or lost), however, by the effort expended (or not) away from the courtroom.

Trial work is exhilarating. When court is in session, the trial lawyer serves as the producer, director, writer, and lead actor in a play that unfolds simultaneously with another play aimed at sending a directly conflicting message to the same audience. Throughout the process, the scripts are being constantly rewritten on the fly, with much of the dialogue becoming improvisation.

For most lawyers, the ability to thrive in those moments comes from a willingness to put in hours and hours and hours (and hours) of preparation. Lawyers must have a full mastery of the entire universe of evidence that could be introduced, along with a specific plan for dealing with any evidence that cuts against their preferred message to the jury. Before trial begins, lawyers must think creatively about every possible avenue that the opponent may explore when searching for facts that would support its own message. At trial, lawyers must be ready to act immediately if the case heads down any of the various possible paths that could emerge.

In the Simpson case, the best example of this dynamic came from Barry Scheck’s extensive cross-examination of LAPD criminologist Dennis Fung. Simpson’s lawyers studied hours of tedious, boring video of Fung and his colleagues collecting evidence. Someone eventually spotted an image of Fung picking up a bloody envelope from the crime scene with his bare hands.

The prosecution clearly hadn’t seen it before trial, because Scheck was able not only to point out the flaw in Fung’s procedures but also to set Fung up for the dramatic moment when the video was played, getting him to testify in advance that he didn’t touch the envelope without a glove on his hand.

How about that, Mr. Fung?” Scheck said when the image of Fung grabbing the envelope without a glove on his hand was displayed, before being nudged by Judge Lance Ito into expanding the statement into an actual question. It was the kind of moment that gets tattooed onto the brains of jurors.

Likewise, Simpson’s lawyers compared the photo of a drop of blood collected from a gate at the crime scene three weeks after the murders to a photo of the same gate taken closer in time to the murders. In the earlier photo, there was no blood on the gate, creating suspicion that blood had been added to the gate later, to enhance the case.

Simpson’s lawyers could have found those two photos only be scouring hundreds of images, reviewing each of them carefully and meticulously.

These are just two examples of specific wrinkles in the evidence that Simpson’s lawyers discovered and then devised a way to use. The prosecution either didn’t know about these nuances or wasn’t sufficiently worried about them to have a convincing rebuttal ready to unleash, if needed.

It’s no surprise. For starters, prosecutors don’t get paid by the hour. They’re on salary, so there’s zero financial incentive to grind and grind and grind some more. Likewise, prosecutors are accustomed to running roughshod over court-appointed defense lawyers lacking the ability or the work ethic to do what Simpson’s lawyers did.

Perhaps most importantly, the prosecutors were so confident in the strength of the overall evidence that they believed they didn’t need to spend the time necessary to ensure that Simpson’s team of brilliant, high-priced defense lawyers wouldn’t piece together, methodically but inevitably, enough moments of doubt to create the kind of “reasonable doubt” that circumvents a conviction.

4. Mark Fuhrman wasn’t properly grilled during pre-trial meetings.

Trial preparation consists of more than methodically searching for needles in the opponent’s haystacks. It also requires taking the time to search for potential land mines in your own backyard.

Mark Fuhrman had plenty of them. And the prosecution had reason to know about all of them. However, the prosecution failed to find the worst of them.

Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, acting on a tip from his former law professor and Simpson defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, found the first one. Fuhrman had filed a claim for an early pension from the LAPD based on the notion that the impact of the job had caused him to harbor horribly racist thoughts and attitudes. Toobin’s work culminated in a July 1994 article in The New Yorker outlining the defense team’s plans to paint Fuhrman as sufficiently motivated by race to plant one of two bloody gloves from the crime scene at Simpson’s house.

Amazingly, one of Simpson’s attorneys admitted that the defense team was developing this theory, barely a month after Simpson was arrested and six months before the trial began.

“Suppose he’s actually found two gloves at the murder scene,” the attorney told Toobin. “He transports one of them over to the house and then ‘finds’ it back in that little alleyway where no one can see him.”

It was a Babe Ruth gesture to the centerfield wall by Simpson’s lawyers. In response, the prosecution grooved a fastball through the middle of the strike zone and stood back to watch what would happen.

Here’s what should have happened. As soon as Toobin’s article was published, Garcetti, Marcia Clark, and the rest of the prosecution’s team of lawyers should have summoned Fuhrman for an extended meeting during which Fuhrman would have been pressed aggressively to disclose anything and everything that he has said and/or done that ever could have been characterized as reflecting a racial bias. If done properly, this effort would have resulted in the prosecution knowing about the horribly over-the-top racial remarks made on tape recordings created during Fuhrman’s meetings with a screenwriter.

Instead, the prosecution simply didn’t know about the tapes. Garcetti said so when asked at a press conference about evidence that turned the trial upside down.

“We were not aware of the tapes,” Garcetti said. Asked if Fuhrman should have told prosecutors about the tapes, Garcetti replied, “We were not aware of the tapes.”

Garcetti presumably evaded the question of whether Fuhrman should have told them about the tapes because Garcetti knew that someone would have argued that the prosecutors should have asked Fuhrman the type of questions that would have caused Fuhrman to admit to their existence.

Marcia Clark can blame Fuhrman all she wants for the existence of the tapes, but she should have been aware of them. As the lead prosecutor on the case, Clark should have done everything possible to learn about every shed of evidence that could have supported the obvious plan to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that Fuhrman’s racial biased caused him to try to frame Simpson.

Being aware of the tapes may not have changed the outcome of the case. But the prosecution definitely would have been able to avoid what ultimately became the one specific moment where the case was conclusively lost.

5. Fuhrman’s Fifth Amendment debacle sealed the case.

With F. Lee Bailey masterfully pinning Fuhrman down to a claim that he hadn’t referred to any African-American with the worst racial epithet in the English language, the door was open for Fuhrman’s denial to be contradicted by evidence that he had used the term. Originally, the plan was to have other witnesses testify that Fuhrman used the word. Then came the tapes, and Mark Fuhrman was contradicted by Mark Fuhrman himself.

The defense team then brought Fuhrman back, ready to confront him with the information contained on the tapes. Fearful of a perjury charge, Fuhrman promptly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer. It quickly became apparent that Fuhrman would invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to any and all questions. as a result, Fuhrman was asked the one question that, as a practical matter, ensured an acquittal.

“Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?” Fuhrman was asked.

“I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,” Fuhrman said.

With Simpson’s lawyers required only to prove reasonable doubt, Fuhrman’s refusal to answer the question of whether he planted evidence was all the jury needed to set Simpson free. While it’s possible, as suggested during the documentary, that Fuhrman framed a guilty man, that would have been a very difficult argument for the prosecution to sell.

6. The prosecution lacked anyone who could truly talk to the jury.

The argument that Fuhrman had framed a guilty man may have been easier to sell if the prosecution had at its disposal a lawyer with the ability to talk frankly and persuasively to a jury of non-lawyers. Johnnie Cochran possessed that skill. Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, nor anyone else representing the State of California could match it.

During the trial, Clark consistently came off as strident, aloof, irritated, and lacking in self-awareness. (She had a much more pleasant demeanor when speaking on camera during the documentary, even though she was inclined to blame everyone but herself for the outcome of the case.) Darden, an African-American who curiously showed up only after a jury consisting primarily of African-Americans was selected, badly wanted, as explained during the documentary, to “out-Johnnie Johnnie.” Darden simply didn’t have the chops to do it.

The only person who may have been able to deliver a conviction would have been Cochran himself, since he probably would have been able to sell to this specific jury the very simple notion that a killer shouldn’t walk away because, as Cochran may have said, “A bad cop tried to trump up a good case.”

7. Judge Ito was trying to make the conviction “appeal proof.”

Plenty of questions have been raised about the decisions of the presiding judge to allow the Fuhrman tapes into evidence and to exclude information regarding Simpson’s clearly incriminating slow-speed getaway. Ito made those decisions, presumably, for one reason: To seal off potential avenues for reversing a conviction of O.J. Simpson on appeal.

The evidence of Simpson’s guilt seemed to be overwhelming. In cases like these, a decision by the judge to make every key evidentiary ruling in the defendant’s favor leaves the defendant with no viable basis for getting a guilty verdict thrown out later by a higher court.

The problem in this specific case is that Ito’s rulings opened the door for an acquittal, with a man who committed two brutal murders eventually set free.

8. Cochran’s closing argument was over the top — like many closing arguments are.

The documentary included some strong opinions about Johnnie Cochran’s closing argument, which contained at one point a comparison of Mark Furhman to Adolf Hitler.

It was over the top, they said. It was unethical, they suggested.

That’s fine, but the prosecution at no point objected to Cochran’s tactics. So they can’t credibly complain now if they weren’t willing to fight Cochran in the moment.

An objection wasn’t made at the time because the prosecution surely realized that attorneys are given very broad discretion when making closing arguments. A decision by Judge Ito to overrule an objection to this specific aspect Cochran’s closing would have only emphasized the point he was making — and it would have given Cochran one final victory just before the jurors retired to deliberate.

9. The system works (sort of), if you have money.

The American system of criminal justice stacks the deck in favor of the defendant, in order to ensure that innocent people don’t get wrongfully imprisoned. This makes it easier for the guilty to avoid responsibility — if, of course, they have the money to purchase the kind of legal representation that takes full advantage of the various aspects of the system that can deliver freedom to those who don’t deserve it.

Simpson had the money to afford $50,000 per week in fees. He was already loaded, and many learned for the first time through the documentary that Simpson generated roughly $3 million more while signing autographs in jail during the trial.

Most criminal defendants don’t have the resources to mount an effective defense, and few if any have the ability to make money for legal fees while being held without bail. As a result, plenty of innocent people end up being convicted because their court-appointed lawyers lack the skill or the motivation (or both) to fight for a verdict of not guilty.

10. Fred Goldman is the reason O.J. Simpson is behind bars today.

The families of the victims brought a wrongful death civil lawsuit brought against Simpson. Ron Goldman’s father, Fred, pushed it aggressively, resulting in a staggering $33 million verdict after that jury determined, under a much lower standard of proof and with Simpson unable to avoid testifying (where he was caught in numerous lies), that Simpson committed the murders. Fred Goldman then made it his mission to get every last cent out of Simpson, which prompted Simpson to do everything he could to protect his property, wherever it may have been.

This eventually included an effort to recover in Las Vegas memorabilia that had been stolen from him. With the grace of the Keystone Cops and the cognitive skills of Lou Costello, Simpson arranged an armed heist that was sufficiently clumsy to allow the powers-that-be in Nevada to put Simpson where he already should have been — behind bars, for a long time.

Absent the commitment with which Fred Goldman pursued Simpson, Simpson may never have been in the position to act so brazenly, desperately, and recklessly. Few fathers have worked more diligently to honor the memory of their sons, and anyone who believes in true justice should be grateful to Fred Goldman for applying the same kind of zeal used by Simpson’s lawyers to secure his freedom 20 years ago to push him until he squandered it.

Permalink 100 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

“Open letter” from NFL agent to NFL fans


[Editor’s note: From time to time, agents and other NFL insiders submit columns to PFT for potential posting. Sometimes we post it, sometimes we don’t. In the case of an open letter from agent David Mulugheta of Athletes First to all NFL fans regarding the manner in which players who seek more money are viewed by the public, the ideas expressed by Mulugheta mesh with a sentiment that PFT has articulated many times in recent years. The full letter, with minor edits, appears below.]

Letter to NFL Fans:

So I woke up Friday morning and began my daily routine. My workday starts with reading a few emails, sending a few dozen text messages, and accepting/making more calls than a telemarketer. After an hour or so, I’m usually settled in, which allows me time to scroll through my social media channels. On Friday morning, it seemed that a particular NFL player’s contract negotiations had taken the forefront on my Twitter feed. A

After only a few seconds of browsing, frustration began to set in. As expected and without delay, fans began to lash out against the player. And for what? Pursuing his option to enter into contract negotiations with his employer? Attempting to capitalize on years and years of hard work and after completing his contractual obligations? Utilizing the very little leverage he has against a multi-billion-dollar enterprise? Having the audacity to realize his worth and demand just compensation for his objective productivity on the field?

Do these fans demonstrate the same resentment when their favorite cashier at Walgreens decides to discuss wages with his/her supervisor? Or how about their favorite actor turning down a movie role because it doesn’t include a “pay or play” commitment? I can continue to speculate as to the root cause of fans’ frustration, but I’d rather use this moment to provide some context on NFL contract negotiations.

Far too often we hear that a given player “was offered a five-year, $100 million deal.” Now it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that the player will have received $100 million at the conclusion of the five years. Well, if the player were basketball’s Kyrie Irving or baseball’s Bryce Harper, that would be correct. However, unlike the NBA and MLB, the NFL typically does not execute “fully guaranteed contracts.”

In short, fully guaranteed contracts ensure that the player would receive the full amount of his contract, regardless of whether he becomes injured or waived early by the team. However, NFL players don’t have the luxury of signing these fully guaranteed contracts (although not prohibited by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, there are a number of reasons for this; it happens primarily because teams and owners are against them). Rather, upon executing a five-year, $100 million contract, an NFL player can be released for any reason and barred from receiving the remainder of his contract.

That leads to the topic of “guaranteed money” (not to be confused with “fully guaranteed contracts”). Guaranteed money means just that; the dollars in the total contract that the player definitely will receive. Therefore, guaranteed money and other structural points are vitally important when negotiating an NFL contract. The goal is to negotiate as much guaranteed money as possible, while also creating a cash flow that will enable a player to collect as much of the $100 million as quickly as possible, in order to avoid the possibility of getting cut due to diminishing skills, salary cap restrictions, or injury.

In other words, don’t be fooled. One hundred million doesn’t really mean one hundred million in NFL contracts.

Keep this in mind when digesting your daily dose of sports news. For example, when a team claims that it has offered to make a player the highest paid in the league at his position, immediately ask yourself, “How much of that it truly guaranteed?” When you see your favorite player “holding out” or refusing to sign a “record breaking contract,” keep in mind that the reality may not mesh with the inflated, artificial numbers the team has leaked.

Remember, that man has become your favorite player for a reason. He’s passionate about the game and produces, week in and week out. Realize the multi-billion-dollar enterprises are attempting to influence the negotiation process by using the raw emotion of the fan base against the players. Ask yourself, could it be possible the player is asking for a fair “guaranteed” value of his skills? Could it be possible that the owners are leveraging the media in order to coerce players into signing below market contracts?

You’ve never sided with Goliath over David in the past, so why start now?

Sincerely Yours,

David Mulugheta
NFL Agent & NFL Fan

Permalink 33 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

It’s time for a coach to have some guts on going for two

DETROIT, MI - DECEMBER 3: Gead coach Mike McCarthy of the Green Bay Packers on the sidelines during the first quarter against the Detroit Lions at Ford Field on December 3, 2015 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo by Andrew Weber/Getty Images) Getty Images

Over the last week in the NFL, multiple coaches and quarterbacks have talked about the possibility of going for two after almost every touchdown. But no one has come right out and said his team is going to go for two most of the time.

In fact, no team in the history of the NFL — or in major college football — has ever gone for two most of the time. Last year, the Steelers were about as close as any team has come to making two-point conversions the norm, but even the Steelers kicked more than three times as often as they went for two, finishing the season with 34 extra point attempts and 11 two-point conversion attempts.

Mike Tomlin took a step in the right direction, but it’s time for NFL coaches to stop taking baby steps on two point conversions. It’s time for some coach to go for two as the default option after scoring a touchdown.

Mathematically, there’s no question that it would be the right call for some teams. Last year across the NFL, kickers went 1,146-for-1,217 (94.2 percent) on extra points, while offenses went 45-for-94 (47.9 percent) on two-point conversions. In other words, an extra point kick produced, on average, 0.942 points, while a two-point conversion attempt produced, on average, 0.958 points. The risks already (slightly) outweigh the rewards of going for two.

But that’s just on average. Some teams — teams that have a good short-yardage offense and/or a bad kicker — were leaving significant points on the board when they decided to take the allegedly safe option of kicking the extra point. Take the Steelers, who converted on eight of their 11 two-point attempts and 32 of their 34 one-point attempts. That means the Steelers scored 1.5 points per two-point try and 0.9 points per one-point try. The Steelers were forfeiting more than half a point, on average, every time they sent their kicker onto the field after a touchdown.

Even if you think your kicker is automatic on extra points (and no kicker truly is, as the Patriots found out when Stephen Gostkowski missed his first extra point in a decade in the AFC Championship Game), if you have confidence in your offense you’re better off going for two. Packers coach Mike McCarthy is one of the coaches who said recently that he’d consider making two-point conversions the default option, and he’d be wise to do so. Even though the Packers went 36-for-36 on extra points last year, they were better on two-point conversions, converting on four of six attempts, or 1.3 points per two-point try. The Packers’ season ended when they lost in overtime to the Cardinals in the playoffs, an overtime they forced with an Aaron Rodgers Hail Mary followed by a Mason Crosby extra point. McCarthy should have trusted Rodgers to win the game with a two-point conversion at the end of the fourth quarter, rather than trusting Crosby to tie the game and then hoping that overtime would work out in the Packers’ favor.

No team would always go for two because there are still some late-game situations in which a 90 percent chance at one point is better than a 50 percent chance at two points. If you score a touchdown in the final minute to tie a game, you’re always going to kick the extra point to win by one, rather than try for the conversion and win by two.

But those rare instances aside, there’s little doubt that many if not most teams would be better off with a strategy of going for two most of the time.

So why don’t coaches do it? Buccaneers coach Dirk Koetter answered that question honestly this week.

“We’ve studied it, and mathematically, it does make sense,” Koetter acknowledged, before adding, “Say we go out there that first game, and we score three touchdowns and we don’t make any two pointers and we lose 21-18. Who’s going to get killed?”

Koetter is right — he’s going to get killed if he makes going for two the default option and he fails. But guess what? You took a job as a head coach in the NFL. Your decisions are going to be second-guessed. It comes with the territory. If you’re going to be second-guessed anyway, you might as well get second-guessed for the strategy that you admitted makes sense, mathematically. That strategy is going for two most of the time. It’s time for some coach to have the guts to follow the risky — but smart — strategy. Some coach might follow that strategy and lose 21-18, but another coach is going to follow that strategy and win 22-21, and when he does, he’ll be hailed for having both guts and brains.

Permalink 51 Comments Feed for comments Back to top