"Free agency started last night and was pretty crazy some huge money being spent. Osweiler getting £18m a year for the Texans, leaving the Broncos without a QB, Giants have spent a fortune on good but not great players, Oliver Vernon has more guaranteed money than JJ Watt. lots more deals but cant be bothered to list them all."
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 21 Sep 2025, 21:14
by zebthecat
I love a bit of special teams madness and this has been insane.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 21 Sep 2025, 21:14
by RBshorty
Now the Jets go and do the same thing against the Buck’s.! Special Team’s are on the juice this weekend.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 21 Sep 2025, 21:13
by Takashi Miike
our Nat is on the Bears/Cowgirls coverage on 5action, the bird weirdly thinks she's the main presenter
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 21 Sep 2025, 21:11
by RBshorty
Mad couple of minutes. Cleveland win it on a field goal against Green Bay. And the Rams blow it on a field goal block and run in for the Eagles.!
GO G MEN.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 21 Sep 2025, 20:55
by Far Cough UKunt
Go on you Vikes at least give me one winning team.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 21 Sep 2025, 20:34
by Takashi Miike
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 16 Sep 2025, 16:09
by El Scorchio
An injured QB for more than a few weeks is just a season ender as well, unless you're the 2009 Patriots or absolutely stacked on oline and skill positionsm or INCREDIBLY lucky with a backup who just performs miracles.
It's one of a few positions where if your starter goes down and is a key player, then you're just done. Thinking Aiden Hutchinson for the Lions last year.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 16 Sep 2025, 15:48
by southbankbornnbred
He'll be missing for a week or so now, but Fields is already an interesting Jets QB.
Played really well on his debut against the Steelers. Threw three TDs, including long to Garrett - which is something we haven't seen much of in New York, and ran the ball well, too.
Then he follows it up with an abysmal effort against the Bills before he got taken out with concussion.
As well as he played against Pittsburgh, he was that poor against Buffalo. I guess that is what we have signed. I'm just hoping that Glenn and others can find more consistency from him over time.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 16 Sep 2025, 15:45
by southbankbornnbred
It'll be rough if Daniels joins the growing list of injured QBs. Although the early signs seem to be that it's a knee sprain/twist, so he should be able to avoid surgery. Unlike Joe Burrow, who is now out for three months (most of the season), alongside Brock Purdy, Justin Fields (thankfully "just" a concussion, so he'll miss one or two weeks) and some of the back-ups who got knocked about in pre-season.
A lot of QBs going down - and we've only just finished week 2.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 16 Sep 2025, 12:35
by Takashi Miike
really tough start to the season, ekeler & free agency signing deatrich wise gone for the year and now jayden daniels apparently having an mri for a knee injury
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 16 Sep 2025, 04:50
by Monsieur merde de cheval
The Pats won a game..
Hail mary
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 15 Sep 2025, 17:58
by Takashi Miike
one of my favourite RBs there, I'm sure Terrell knew what he was doing
That's how you broadcast for a casual and a seasoned fan together the best way possible. The seasoned fans wont feel like it's dumb and the casuals will hopefully learn the game.
That's how you broadcast for a casual and a seasoned fan together the best way possible. The seasoned fans wont feel like it's dumb and the casuals will hopefully learn the game.
Takashi Miike" wrote: ↑15 Sep 2025, 11:47
Nat Coombs has always (for whatever fucking reason) been sidelined for flavour of the month arseholes. He's a knowledgeable, very professional presenter that knows and loves the sport. Him & Carlson clearly aren't hip enough, or the right colour to host such a show. Osi will be missing his bum chum, Jason Bell
Carlson is sadly too niche. I think he's brilliant but the masses won't get his subtle jokes and ironic/deadpan style with which he delivers a lot of his (fantastic) analysis.
It reminds me a little of when they chose Claudia Winkleman over Mark Kermode to replace Jonathan Ross on the film show. Just the dumbing down of television. No-one is interested in proper experts any more.
This is, sadly, all too true. Carlson is a wealth of knowledge and has a great, dry sense of humour. Very old skool. But producers are far more interested in taking a punt on "casual" fans for advertising purposes (which C5 won't get, I'm afraid).
That's it. He's in his niche doing something late night with the likes of Coombs who spark off each other and 'get' each other. They were great just talking the game in a small studio and not with some producer fussing about ratings.
Even though it looks cheap and nasty- at least in terms of it's presentation and the amount of research and preparation, this show will be costing them a bomb to produce and have a big team on it. Trouble is I'd bet they've given it to their entertainment or shiny floor team rather than their sports team. While I understand it, they are just coming at it from the wrong direction IMO. Successful sport broadcasting is sport first and light entertainment second- even if you deign the two should ever mix- not entertainment first sport second. It's the equivalent of aiming football focus at women and a broad church of viewers who simply aren't interested no matter what you do, while your core viewers are just turned off by Alex Scott introducing a 10 minute piece to camera about gay football in Norway standing in front of a group of kids from a football club in an inner city winning community awards for inclusion and diversity. They just want Ray Stubbs or Adrian Chiles in a studio or at a Premier League ground previewing the day's games.
Similar here. Casuals aren't interested in grinning goons in team jerseys chucking custard pies at a cut out of Joe Montana to gain chances to win a holiday while Dermot O Leary shouts at the camera about how mad it all is and forgetting to mention there's a game going on which is the reason they are all there in the first place. It's not going to entice them to watch a complex game they probably don't understand and aren't getting any help with from Sam Quek going 'ooooh that's a nice long throw.' as the minute piece of analysis. Proper fans just want Kev Cadle (RIP) or Neil Reynolds prompting experts to explain WHY what just happened happened while showing replays and what to look out for next. It's like whoever commissioned and briefed this show believes the Super Bowl is successful because of the half time show rather than the game.
They'll cancel this show at least in this format before too long because it's very likely not showing anywhere near enough for the money they are clearly pumping into it. It'll end up in a studio a quarter as big with a simple set and someone like Colin Murray and two proper experts.
I can tell you the ratings for it are appalling compared to the cheap magazine and vox pops shows they usually have on there at that time, and Rich House Poor House that starts at 2100.
Takashi Miike" wrote: ↑15 Sep 2025, 11:47
Nat Coombs has always (for whatever fucking reason) been sidelined for flavour of the month arseholes. He's a knowledgeable, very professional presenter that knows and loves the sport. Him & Carlson clearly aren't hip enough, or the right colour to host such a show. Osi will be missing his bum chum, Jason Bell
Carlson is sadly too niche. I think he's brilliant but the masses won't get his subtle jokes and ironic/deadpan style with which he delivers a lot of his (fantastic) analysis.
It reminds me a little of when they chose Claudia Winkleman over Mark Kermode to replace Jonathan Ross on the film show. Just the dumbing down of television. No-one is interested in proper experts any more.
This is, sadly, all too true. Carlson is a wealth of knowledge and has a great, dry sense of humour. Very old skool. But producers are far more interested in taking a punt on "casual" fans for advertising purposes (which C5 won't get, I'm afraid).
That's right. I think she started saying how she was a huge Chiefs fan right after she retired from hockey and her agent started seeking media opportunities for her. She is so committed to Kansas that she even went all the way to Wembley to watch them just around that time - and said it was the first game she'd watched.
She was supporting the Chiefs before she won gold in hockey. She must have some knowledge of the sport if she's been a fan 1/3 of her lifetime.
As I said, no idea if she's any good at presenting as I've never watched Channel 5's coverage, but she isn't some flash in the pan with the NFL.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 15 Sep 2025, 12:21
by El Scorchio
Takashi Miike" wrote: ↑15 Sep 2025, 11:47
Nat Coombs has always (for whatever fucking reason) been sidelined for flavour of the month arseholes. He's a knowledgeable, very professional presenter that knows and loves the sport. Him & Carlson clearly aren't hip enough, or the right colour to host such a show. Osi will be missing his bum chum, Jason Bell
Carlson is sadly too niche. I think he's brilliant but the masses won't get his subtle jokes and ironic/deadpan style with which he delivers a lot of his (fantastic) analysis.
It reminds me a little of when they chose Claudia Winkleman over Mark Kermode to replace Jonathan Ross on the film show. Just the dumbing down of television. No-one is interested in proper experts any more.
Takashi Miike" wrote: ↑15 Sep 2025, 11:47
Nat Coombs has always (for whatever fucking reason) been sidelined for flavour of the month arseholes. He's a knowledgeable, very professional presenter that knows and loves the sport. Him & Carlson clearly aren't hip enough, or the right colour to host such a show. Osi will be missing his bum chum, Jason Bell
Yeah, Mike Carlson is massively under-utilised.
Sam Quek? Give me fucking strength. It's the victory of glib, superficial box-ticking HR.
Sam Quek has been a Chiefs fan for a while. I haven't watched her on Channel 5, but she not a new fan of the sport.
I've been a fan of the sport for decades but I'm in no way qualified to try and analyse it on television sitting opposite a bloke that's won two super bowls.
She's eye candy who doesn't mind getting involved in the stupid games and has a passing knowledge of the sport enough to barely bluff her way through the broadcast because it's extremely football lite and basically TFI Friday with the inconvenience of a sports game. Purely there because of how she looks and won't make a total fool of herself. (And yes I agree with what SBBB just said about her.)
Handy thing about the show is there are plenty of piss breaks every single time they cut away from the US game coverage.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 15 Sep 2025, 12:15
by southbankbornnbred
I know I'm being a bit unfair on her but - come on - everybody knows why she was chosen to help front the coverage. And I'm sure it appeals to some.
But I tired of that approach long ago. I just want to hear good, learned through experience, analysis.
Takashi Miike" wrote: ↑15 Sep 2025, 11:47
Nat Coombs has always (for whatever fucking reason) been sidelined for flavour of the month arseholes. He's a knowledgeable, very professional presenter that knows and loves the sport. Him & Carlson clearly aren't hip enough, or the right colour to host such a show. Osi will be missing his bum chum, Jason Bell
Yeah, Mike Carlson is massively under-utilised.
Sam Quek? Give me fucking strength. It's the victory of glib, superficial box-ticking HR.
Sam Quek has been a Chiefs fan for a while. I haven't watched her on Channel 5, but she not a new fan of the sport.
That's right. I think she started saying how she was a huge Chiefs fan right after she retired from hockey and her agent started seeking media opportunities for her. She is so committed to Kansas that she even went all the way to Wembley to watch them just around that time - and said it was the first game she'd watched.
The likes of Carlson etc have nothing on Sam Quek.
Takashi Miike" wrote: ↑15 Sep 2025, 11:47
Nat Coombs has always (for whatever fucking reason) been sidelined for flavour of the month arseholes. He's a knowledgeable, very professional presenter that knows and loves the sport. Him & Carlson clearly aren't hip enough, or the right colour to host such a show. Osi will be missing his bum chum, Jason Bell
Yeah, Mike Carlson is massively under-utilised.
Sam Quek? Give me fucking strength. It's the victory of glib, superficial box-ticking HR.
Sam Quek has been a Chiefs fan for a while. I haven't watched her on Channel 5, but she not a new fan of the sport.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 15 Sep 2025, 11:49
by southbankbornnbred
Takashi Miike" wrote: ↑15 Sep 2025, 11:47
Nat Coombs has always (for whatever fucking reason) been sidelined for flavour of the month arseholes. He's a knowledgeable, very professional presenter that knows and loves the sport. Him & Carlson clearly aren't hip enough, or the right colour to host such a show. Osi will be missing his bum chum, Jason Bell
Yeah, Mike Carlson is massively under-utilised.
Sam Quek? Give me fucking strength. It's the victory of glib, superficial box-ticking HR.
Re: NFL (since 2016)
Posted: 15 Sep 2025, 11:47
by southbankbornnbred
Haven't watched a second of the new format on Channel 5, but it sounds like a car crash.
I got tired of UK television's recent abysmal attempts to "do" American football. So I just get the online pass. But it can get pricey for a standard 17-week season of hell for the Jets.
