Report: NFL Tossed Teams $157 Million Last Year

July 15th, 2010

Buried in an story about the strained NFL labor situation is some tantalizing fodder for the growing legions of Bucs fans obsessed with the team’s finances.

Jason LaCanfora, of, studied the new annual report of the publicly held Green Bay Packers organization and analyzed some of his findings. He revealed the Packers’ total revenue of $258 million included $157 million from the NFL’s revenue sharing pot last year.

Of that $258 million, more than half ($157 million) came from national revenues which are shared by all franchises via the television contracts, road-game revenues, national media rights and sponsorship deals. Local revenues — money derived from sales at the Pro Shop, for instance — were actually down $500,000 from a year ago, and have been flat for about three years. Murphy identified the struggling economy as a leading contributor to that.

So it stands to reason that the Bucs, like all other teams, also got $157 million from the mother ship. That’s a sweet piece of change, especially when your player payroll is $84.5 million, like the Bucs’ was in 2009, per the USA Today salary database.

Joe is pleased to know the Bucs are making piles of money.

87 Responses to “Report: NFL Tossed Teams $157 Million Last Year”

  1. T in Orlando Says:

    I thought the salary floor in 2009 was around $109 million (at the very least, $100 mil), how could the Bucs only spend $85.5?

  2. eric Says:

    The next nickel the Glazer’s lose will be their first. Way too smart for that.

  3. d-money Says:

    I hope when training camp starts we can actually talk about football.

  4. Capt.Tim Says:

    What??!? Thomas said they were flat broke!! He was planning a bake sale and a raffle ta help’em out! Lol

  5. Bucnjim Says:

    Yes, but it says their actual profit was down by half and it is only it only stands at about 25% of what it was in 2007. The Packers are estimated to be 10 Million under the Bucs in Salary cap for 2010, but I’m not sure how accurate this sites numbers are.

    This is a quote talking about the Packers financial report.

    “But like most things, it’s not quite that simple. The operating profit, the number the owners are going to cling to, dropped significantly. The Packers reported an operating profit of $9.8 million, which is less than half of the $20.1 million it was at a year ago and far off from the $34 million the figure stood at from 2006-2007. Team president Mark Murphy said player costs are growing at twice the rate of revenue. Yes, you can expect to hear more of that in the near future.”

  6. JimBuc Says:

    Eric – you should not want the Glazers to lose money, right?

  7. MVPFreeman Says:


    Thats 157 million DIVIDED BY 32!!!!!

    Lets not blatantly skew the story please.

  8. the_buc_realist Says:


    this is why Tampa Fan blames Gruden for everything, and not the organization for cutting staff, scouts, payroll, and whatever else it take to make a competitive team,

  9. bucfanjeff Says:

    There was no “divided by 32” that I noticed. It said over half of the $258 million, $157 million, came from the league. It’s a Packers ledger, not an NFL ledger.

    We know the Glazers have money, sign Penn.

  10. Bucnjim Says:

    I’m not sure about the 157 MIL, but all the articles I’ve been able to find have the number for each franchise at about 116 Million. The owners might not be in the poor house, but their money is going out the window faster then anyone thought.

  11. eric Says:

    So, in other words, the Bucs payroll is covered entirely by the t.v. revenue? Plus another 60 million or so from league generated income?

    Wow, they are filthy rich, arent they.

    And these folks are crying about the CBA? They must laugh themselves to sleep every night.

  12. T in Orlando Says:

    Ask any business owner (any size business, from a fortune 500 company, to a kid mowing lawns) if their net profits shrink by 50%, then they LOST money. Usually the quickest way to help make up for this is Labor costs.

    If you recall, many teams did cut their administrative staffs last year, but the lion’s share of Labor costs is clearly in the player compensation (which it should be). Before, when the salary floor was in place, there was only so much that could be cut, however now that there’s no rule saying teams must spend X amount of dollars, many teams are now doing what just about any business would do, and that is cut labor costs to get profit margins closer to where they need to be.

    Net-net, if the players accept a smaller piece of the pie, and insist on a salary floor be put in place (maybe it’s closer to 90% of the cap, opposed to 85%) and some language that states for the first two years, regardless of the revenue numbers, the cap cannot shrink by more than 5% (so going back to the 2009 cap of 128mil, the smallest the cap would be in 2011 would be $121.5 mil, with a floor of $108 mil), then total monies going players will be up (compared to the 2010 season) and the owners will get their profits back on track.

    The alternative, play with no cap (and no floor), and have at least half the team spending less than the last salary floor, and less than a handful spending more than the last salary cap.

    Players need to realize that generally speaking, when profits increase, spending increases, and the reverse is true as well.

  13. tampa2 Says:

    Actually Eric, they don’t laugh themselves to sleep, they laugh at all the Bucs fans that buy into whatever line (or lie) they use as an excuse for not spending any money to field a competitive team. So, for those that defend the Glazers to the end, you are the largest Butts of the joke!

  14. Dew Says:

    Hey Joe. Do you know at what time the teams have to submit there supplemental draft picks and what time the winners will be announced? Thanks.

  15. eric Says:

    Well, since the fans are shareholders, I think I will zip over to one Buc Place and copy the 09 financials, to put an end to all this guesswork. Grab my dividend check while I am there, so they don’t have to mail it.

    I am sure the Glazer Boys would be happy to oblige, since they are completely forthright and all.

  16. JimBuc Says:

    Fans are shareholders! That’s rich.

  17. T in Orlando Says:

    Except for Green Bay, fans are NOT shareholders, they are customers.

  18. McBuc Says:

    Well, at least T has some business sense.

  19. oar Says:

    JimBuc and T, I believe(I hope) it’s a little thing called humor and/or sarcasm.

  20. DieHard Bob Says:

    Come on guys . . . how many times do you have to rehash the same subject till it sinks in?
    The question is: How much can the owners spend and still be under the new salary cap??? Oh wait . . . DUH . . . no one knows what that number is yet! The owners did not become multi millionaires by throwing money to the wind. They have spent in the past and they said they will spend in the future when things get settled. You can choose to believe it or not, but either way we won’t know till the time comes. So just take a breath, relax, and the season will be here before you know it . . . then I’m sure you will find plenty to complain about.

  21. eric Says:


    It is rich. Didn’t you realize I am quoting Joel Glazer?

  22. Radio Mushmouth Says:

    We are saving that 157 million for future draft picks…

    Who knows how many millions you might need when you “build through the draft” , right??

  23. JimBuc Says:

    Joe, you need to delve a little deeper because you are confusing the masses. Note this comment from MushMouth:

    “We are saving that 157 million for future draft picks…”

    Mushmouth, the Bucs did not make 157 million. Just to give you an example, the Packers only made $9 million off the same money ($157 million). The $157 million is a top end figure not a bottom line figure.

  24. eric Says:

    You mean Gross Income vs. Net Income?

    Thanks for the ecnomics class.

    If the NFl teams are losing money, why not give their financials to the players association?

    Answer: they aint losing money, and neither are the Glazers.

    Personally, I think when teams take tax money for stadiums, the financials should be made public.

  25. oar Says:

    The day the humor died!

  26. T in Orlando Says:

    Nothing like a good financial post to polarize the regulars of JoeBuc.

  27. Louie the HATER! Says:

    The good thing about being customers is we get to withhold our money when we’re not happy with the product.

    As a business owner, I don’t consider it a loss when profits are down. It’s not unusual to forecast lower profits — especially in this economy. I bet the Bucs financial people knew they were going to have lower profits. It’s not that hard to forecast your financial situation a year in advance.

    It’s not a loss until expenses exceed income.

  28. Louie the HATER! Says:

    “I bet the Bucs financial people knew they were going to have lower profits.”

    If in fact they did have lower profits. The way they’ve been hoarding money, I’m not so sure.

  29. bucfanjeff Says:

    Let’s make this perfectly clear – the Glazers did NOT lose money. They just didn’t make as much. There is a very clear difference.

  30. Buckeyebob Says:

    The Bucs are not a charity. The owners have a right to make a profit that is what they are in business for…..

  31. Capt.Tim Says:

    Lmfao, “the Glazers are broke, their cheap cause they don’t have any money!!” one article later ” the Glazers are filthy rich!! Their cheap, cause they won’t spend any money!!” you guys have reached a level of patheticness that just cracks me up! I have never seen so many McDonalds employees trying to manage a billion dollar empire in my life!! I can’t stop laughing at some of you! Malcolm Glazer alone has a net worth over 4 Billion dollars, yet idiots here would swear he’s selling his stuff at yard sales!! And Joe does an absolute brilliant job of directing you morons. Every week you’re on the opposite side of the fence(to poor/to rich , To young/ to old) and no matter which way he swings you, one thing remains constant. You’re bitching like experts on things you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT!! Lmfao again. But, if I Run into the Glazers this weekend at “Berns”, I’ll let them know that many of you are still deeply concerned about their “financial Problems”. That’ll give’em a warm, fuzzy feeling. I’ll let them know a few are willing ta offer your services as financial advisors. That way they can rest easy and enjoy their lunch. Hahahahaha!

  32. eric Says:

    If they do eat at Berns, check the amount they tip the waiter!

    I am thinking not so much……………….

  33. Louie the HATER! Says:

    I doubt Berns lets their bus boys speak to the customers.

  34. JimBuc Says:

    Eric — the NFL owners do not even say they are losing money per se (i.e. operating at a net loss). They say that profits are shrinking rapidly due to increased player costs.

  35. oar Says:

    Bus Boy? Na, the Capt likes the water. How bout dishwasher?

  36. Capt.Tim Says:

    Oar, I’m not sure why, but I’m starting to like you! Lol

  37. Capt.Tim Says:

    They were there about 4 weeks ago, had a bottle of $900 wine. I wrote this already, on another post . . But they did seem a little troubled about money . .lmao

  38. eric Says:


    Mr. Richardson and Mr. Bowlen have been asserting that teams are losing money. Not just reduced profits, but actual losses.

    Do I believe them, no……………but thats what they claim.

  39. CyberDilemma Says:

    Part of the $157 million per team is derived from road-game revenues. Remember, the Bucs had to pay a sizable chunk of cash into that kitty last season to compensate visiting teams for the lost revenue from unsold tickets of games the Bucs chose to have televised that were not sold out. It’s not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

  40. thomas Says:

    Capt Dim you idiot. Nobody has ever said the Bucs aren’t an extremely profitable entity for the Glazers – b/c of the revenue sharing, i.e. 157 million, you could almost never sell a game ticket and make $.

    What you have to balance this against is what is going on with the Glazer’s other assets, business interests etc to determine if the profit from the Bucs is being offset b/c of other business interests.

    What is of major concern is: the Glazers paid almost no cash for Manu, and the loan to buy Manu came with big interest slamming forward if the principle was not paid off – think of it as an interest only mortgage w/ a huge escalation five years in. The Glazer’s have not paid down the principle during this time and the increased interest has started.

    The reason the Manu fans should be concerned is if the Glazer’s start missing or stop making the interest payments, the banks could take over the team and do anything with the team – probably sell it to the highest bidder – who could be someone concerning to the fan base. the Glazer’s to date haven’t missed payments but the debt-service including this growing interest obligation is making their financial picture look more negative.

    This is also why the NFL requires approval before owners purchase other major sports franchises – apparently the rule makes sense.

  41. Capt.Tim Says:

    Yeah Thomas, there has been a ton of idiots here crying for weeks that the Glazers are broke! And the main Moron was YOU! I’ve been laughing at YOU for weeks, talking about YOU having fund raiders for the Glazers! YOU have been the biggest whiner that They didn’t have money to sign this guy or that guy! Now YOU read one article,that proves what I’ve been saying( basically you were full of sh**), and now YOU are proving that, not only didn’t you have a clue, but YOU also are an enormous LIAR! Proving not only YOUT ignorance, but also that YOU aren’t man enough to admit that You were wrong( and full of sh**). everyone here has been reading your post, and know YOU are lying your as off. So , until you get a dose of manhood, your whinny little bitch ass doesn’t need to be trying to call me out!!

  42. eric Says:


    Your point about the Glazers full portfolio being the issue is well taken. But, there are nowhere near a bank take over situation. These guys could sell Manu in five minutes for a huge profit.

    For whatever, reason, the Glazer boys are in pull back and wait and see mode. CBA is surely a variable, and likely Manu too. Plus, the overall busines climate isn’t exactly rosey.

    What I find insulting is their attempts to pass it off as a legit rebuilding plan. But, hey, many seem to be swallowing it.

    I suppose we will learn more once the CBA excuse expires. That should coincide with the conclusion of the 2010 fiasco of a season. I am hoping they go back to 1995-2002 Glazers, hire Cowher, and get this rodeo going.

  43. BigMacAttack Says:

    I can honestly lie to you and say that a good accountant can make the healthiest profitable business show a loss on paper. It’s the American way. Everybody gets f@@@ed unless they can manipulate the system. It’s our overcomplicated tax code that doesn’t work. If you don’t have business, start one today, then another. If you want to get our economy back on track, stop electing lawyers and start electing accountants. Rest assured that if the Glazers took in $200MM and paid out $100MM, they lost money for sure.

  44. JimBuc Says:

    Thomas: Over a two year period the Glazer purchased more than 75% of the ManU shares with CASH!!!!!! LOL. It would help if you got the basic facts right). AFTER purchasing all th shares they refinanced BUT the Glazer family became personally responsible for a significant portion of the overall debt (the financiers would have it no other way).

    More recently, the club refinanced its debt through a bond offering. (Being able to float a $500 million bond offering in this economic climate is hardly a sing of a club in distress). The purpose of the bond offering was to free up cash (banks have higher capital maintenance requirements) to get rid of the high interest PIK loans.

    The whole time this has been going on ManU has continued to lead the league in attendance (by almsot a 20K difference to the next club) and the teams revenues have soared as a result of large corporate sponsorships and the teams profits have increased, all while paying the debt.

    It’s people like you, spounting out all kinds of BS that cause all the confusion. Yes, ManU has a lot of debt. It is also the largest sports brand in the world and growing fast. By the way, wher did all the recent international corproate sponsorship deals come from? Why hasn’t the Club had those for years and years? Answer: those stupid Glazers. They clearly have no idea what they are doing. 🙂 Maybe they should hire you. LMAO.

  45. thomas Says:

    @Eric: I didnt say that the Glazers were close to aforced sale,I said that if they started missing payments – which they haven’t, then there would be concern. Do you think that the UK media has no basis for their concern about the size of the increasing debt? I know that they could sell the club and probably make a profit, but that doesnt mean that they have no cash/spending issues or constraints.

    @CaptDim: I have never said that they were broke. Between the alcoholic haze or old-fashioned stupidity, you fail to realize that. I have said that the Glazer’s spending on the Bucs decreased when Manu was acquired. The above article doesnt prove anything about any teams finances. But I agree that the bucs are profitable.

    @Jimbuc: from wikipedia and cited:

    the majority of the cash used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, much of which were secured against the club’s assets, incurring interest payments of over £60 million per annum.

    The remainder came in the form of PIK loans, which were later sold to hedge funds. Manchester United is not liable for the PIKs. The PIKs are held by Red Football Joint Venture Ltd and are secured on that company’s shares in Red Football Ltd (and thus the club). If they are not repaid by 2017, the Glazers will almost certainly lose all their shares in Red Football Ltd (and the club) to hedge funds.

    The interest on these loans rolls up at 14.25% per annum. Despite this, the Glazers have not paid down any of the PIK loans in the 5 years they have owned the club. In January 2010, the club carried out a successful £500 million bond issue. As of March 2010 the PIKs stand at around £207 million.[1] The club also has a gross debt of £520 million with £45 million in annual interest payments.[2] Manchester United fans opposed Glazer’s takeover of the club, particularly once they realised the level of debt that the club would have to take on after having been debt-free for so many years. Since 2005, the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust has been working on a way of returning ownership of the club to supporters; in 2010, they met with a group of wealthy Manchester United fans – dubbed the “Red Knights” – to discuss a billion-pound takeover bid.”

    Now retract your prior lies Jimbuc!

    Finally, the Glazers also have substantial real estate holding which lost substantial value after the real estate bubble burst – close in time to the acquisition of Manu. I admittedly am not sure what the totality of all this means, but there are signs that the net worth is going in the wrong direction which can cause rich folks to change spending behaviors.

  46. thomas Says:

    Please comment as to whether you think he has any credibility after reading our two posts, please confirm my quote by clicking this link:

    This shows you how Jimbuc lies always in defense of the Glazerhouses.

  47. lightningbuc Says:

    Jimby and Timmy,

    Being cheap and being broke are two different things. I could care less which one of them the Glazers are, but they are definitely one of the two. The only thing I know is the Bucs stunk last year having one of the lowest payrolls in the league while also having probably the lowest paid head coach/GM combo. I realize they have to still pay Gruden, but if money is not a problem for them then that shouldn’t have prohibited them from acquiring a qualified coach. I hate losing. I hate the visiting team’s fans who sit around me at home games and rub my face in our crappiness (I’m not a hater-I love the Bucs). Last year was unbearable and unacceptable to me, but I will be there again this year taking my punishment. How you guys can get on here and deride those of us who want and expect more from a “professional” organization and it’s owners is beyond me. There is simply no comparison to Malcolm’s running of this team compared to his son’s.

  48. JimBuc Says:

    Thomas, you are too dumb to get out of your own way. What I said was that the Glazers used their own CASH to acquire much of the stock when the company was public. They then took out loans — the part your are reading (apparently for the first time — LOL) in wikipedia. But, as I said above, a substaintial portion fo those loans were collateralized by Glazer family assets. That is why they then went to the bond offering. The point I was making — perhaps to0 subtly for you — is that the Glazer personal assets have been on the line all the way through.

    Man, even though I kid you, I know you cannot be completely dense, so it must be that you are so angry that you can only see things through your own very skewed lens. ManU has a lot fo debt BUT it is a huge, growing brand. (That is why the Glazers astutely purchased it). Not there fault that people like you get confused . . . easily.

  49. JimBuc Says:

    lightning bug: The Bucs probably spent more on HC last year than most teams in the NFL. Fail. Same with GM, until recently. It would have been “cheaper” for the Bucs to keep Gruden and Allen BUT with Gruden we would have had Garcia as a quarterback last year and would not have selected Freeman (Gruden’s words, not mine). Think the Bucs made the wrong decision? How about the “cheap” decision? Do you want to retract your misstatement?

  50. thomas Says:


    sentence 1 from your prior post: “Over a two year period the Glazer purchased more than 75% of the ManU shares with CASH!!!!!! ” – Completely and Wholly untrue, and a lie.

    sentence 3: “AFTER purchasing all th shares they refinanced BUT the Glazer family became personally responsible for a significant portion of the overall debt.” – another complete lie.

    The cash came from loans, so it isn’t cash at all, and either you know that and you are a liar – or you acted is if you knew and you didn’t also a liar.

    You can call me dumb while backpedaling from a comment exposed as not true. But I will never receive a comment from you as potentially credible. At least I know that Capt Dim isnt a flat out liar to support his arguments.

    You may want to find a new blog where they don’t know your true m.o. Or change your name like some others I suspect.

  51. thomas Says:

    I love catching fools in lies!

  52. JimBuc Says:

    Thomas — ROFLMAO. Funniest thing on the planet is you calling anyone a fool. Let’s just let you show everyone for yourself. Two questions:

    When did the Glazers takeover ManU/? (Quick, run to wikipedia)

    What did they have to do BEFORE they took it over?

    I will give you a little hint to help you out. The ultimate purchase of ManU was financed , in part, by ManU’s assets. What did the Glazers have to do FIRST to get control of those assets? They did it over two years.

    This should be funny . . .

  53. Mr. Lucky Says:


  54. JimBuc Says:

    Oh man . . . those cheap . . . uh . . I mean . . . broke . . . Glazers just picked up the option on Freeman. which mean he gets more guaranteed money?? What, how can that be? I thought the Glazers were cheap . . . uh . . I mean . . broke? Good thing they traded dwon this year so as to not have to pay that big guarnateed contract to a top pick . . . oh . . they did not trade down? The drafted McCoy? He is going to get a HUGE GUARANTEED CONTRACT . . . wtf!!! Those damn cheap/broke Glazers!!!

  55. Louie the HATER! Says:

    Yea, picked up option on Freeman, but won’t pay his LT. Freeman won’t live to that 5th year if they don’t take care of that little detail.

  56. JimBuc Says:

    Ridiculous. The Bucs have offered to pay Penn more than $3 million and he will accept and play well.

  57. eric Says:


    Financial institutions requiring personal guarantees aint good. Its baaaaaaaaaaaaad. That may very well explain the spending reluctance.

    And, why so many “hateful” Gruden remarks? I thought you liked positiveness? Or does that not apply to Gruden?

    All he said was that he wanted Garcia back. Doesn’t mean he would have been the starter. One thing I feel confident about – if Gruden had stayed, it sure as hell would not have been Byron Leftwich!

    And, Jim Bates would have never made the practice field, or Jag.

    And, no fat contract for Clayton!
    Just a pink slip!
    AB still here, likely trade for Marshall. Mcnabb now. Rah running the defense.

    Give me that team and staff and well beat the current team 9/10 times, and make a strong run this year at playoffs.

    Plus, Mr. Brooks would have been treated with respect he earned and would have been allowed to go out on his own terms, after mentoring Geno Hayes for a full season.

  58. JimBuc Says:

    Eric — wake up, wake up. You were having another one of your Gruden dreams. One thing for sure, no Freeman, as you note with McNabb comment. No wonder you like Gruden. You like the .500 roller coaster with a different plug-n-play lineup every year.

  59. eric Says:


    I actually just wonder why criticism of Rah is hateful, but of Gruden it isn’t?

    The original post had nuttin to do with Gruden, but you took a shot……………………………then followed up with the plug-n-play remark.

    Once again, why so hateful?

  60. admin Says:

    Joe here,

    Eric – What would Snuffy Smith say about all this?

  61. JimBuc Says:

    Eric — two things. First, I am actually a fan of Gruden the coach so when I use the the term Gruden I mean it as shorthand for the Gruden-era. Second, Gruden criticism is more reasonable than the hate heaped on Morris because: a) we have a 7 year body of work to judge by so there is no doubt Gruden had a complete opportunity to define himself and b) your hatred of Morris has as much if not more to do with your anger about Gruden than Morris’ actual performance. How could it not be, Morris has only been a coach for a season and he was not handed a true SB contender w/ the best D in football.

    What’s actually puzzling is your blind deveotion to Gruden as evidence by the way your comments are always skewed. How often do you mention the 4-12 and 5-11 seasons, both wth teams that should have been better with last year’s team? Is that fair? Not sure.

    Even more puzzling is your advocacy for a return to the Gruden method in the face of overwhelming evidence of its impact on the team? Maybe its just me, but I can recall history that is only 10 015 years in the past. It was much more exciting to be a Buc fan from 1996 to 2002 (aka the “build through the draft” years) then to be a Buc fan from 2002 to 2010 (aka the “roller coaster” years)

  62. eric Says:

    hehe Jimbuc,

    In other words, you got no answer to my question, other than you “feel” your crticism of Gruden is well founded.

    Pretty weak my friend.

    I feel the same way about my opinion of Rah!.

    Could it be that neither of us are “haters” but just have different opinions?
    Either that, or were both haters!

  63. eric Says:


  64. JimBuc Says:

    eric — for a lawyer you struggle in the reading comp dept. I said I was a fan of Gruden. I am not a fan of the Gruden era, so if that makes me a hater so be it and I will put “hate” against your any day for the reasons I laid out. You know. the reason to which you had no response.

    Am I supposed to say “checkmate” now? Too cheesy, sorry.

  65. bucfanlostiniowa Says:

    Checkmate? Really? Dude this is a football blog you should never end an arguement with checkmate, c’mon you can do better than that.

  66. Eric S Says:

    For a second there Joe, I thought you were talking about a little league coach that coached when I played way back when. His teams won but he was an evil SOB.

  67. Radio Mushmouth Says:

    Come on Eric…we all know that criticism of regime that produced a Superbowl title and 3 division titles is “well-founded”.

    Criticism of a regime that jettisoned all our good players, fired both coordinators mid-stream, and then proceeded to go 3-13 , is totally UNFOUNDED…and simply hate. Why are you such a hater ??

  68. Capt.Tim Says:

    I told you, Thomas the liar, only one fool is caught in a lie here, and that’s you! And you don’t have enough integrity to admit it! For what it’s worth, proves you are exactly who I thought you were- a lying, whining, cowardly puss. Don’t mention me again in your post, until you get enough Manhood for your statements to mean something. Not interested in the moaning if a cowardly liar!

  69. Gary Says:

    Wow, score some for the good guys. Thomas and Eric getting torn up by the Capt. and Jimbuc.

    Checkmate you tools! LOL.

  70. T in Orlando Says:

    Joe, what’s the most comments you ever recieved on a single sotry? Is this getting close? Would you have thought a headline like “NFL Tossed $157 to Teams last year” would spark such conversation?

  71. oar Says:

    Can’t wait for recess to be over and nap time to start!

  72. McBuc Says:

    NEWS FLASH…..Gruden does not work here anymore. There were ups and downs with him, and no one can say he was not a good coach, but he is gone. Eric and Thomas, please for the love of god get over it. You will be happier people for it.

  73. Capt.Tim Says:

    Gruden was a .500 coach, you can find those lying around anywhere. His only good point was that , if you give him a superbowl caliber team, he could win with it. Sucked at building/ maintaining a team. Mediocre at best. Shoulda canned his ass sooner. Eric and “Thomas the liar”‘s attraction to him is more of a personnel nature. They can’t let go of their mancrush. Just sucks that the rest of us have to listen to their love sonnets on every post! If you love him that much, go bl** him and get it over with already!

  74. eric Says:

    Wow, you thought that was so clever you felt the need to post it twice!

    You are a regular Eric Sevareid!


  75. oar Says:

    CaptTim, Come on do you even realize winning records and percentages?
    You are out to make Gruden sound like an average Joe(no offense Joe(s)). Out of the 151 total head coahes to ever coach, do you realize there have been only 4 head coaches with a .700+(3%) records and 27 head coaches with a .600+(18%) records and 55 were .500+(36%) and 65 were .400 or below(43%) in the history of the NFL. Having said that, having a coach in the top 36% is not, as you put it, “those are lying around anywhere.”

  76. oar Says:

    Opps sorry, actually Gruden is in the top 42% with his 64th position in win percentages. But, my point i still the same!

  77. oar Says:

    Meant “is” not “i”, damn these fingers!

  78. Capt.Tim Says:

    Yeah Oar, I got it! 79% of head coaches records are .500 or lower! I tripped over a couple of those Bums walking inta my office today! I kicked one of’em, told’em I only want bums with winning records sleeping in front of my buildings! He mumbled and crawled off! Ya, that 21%, that’s the coaches we want! The rest of them are the faceless rabble of failure! Sorry, were you making a point? Lol

  79. Capt.Tim Says:

    And yes,Eric, I was rather amused by that one! 🙂

  80. oar Says:

    CaptTim, Top 42% isn’t average(especially with a SuperBowl win). There are only 8 head coaches still coaching with better records(with 4 of those coaches with 6 or less years in league, meaning thier percentage should be higher) than Gruden. If he were still head coach, he’d be in the top 10.
    And if you honestly think Raheem is or is going to be in that top 21%, then you have been in your galley way too long!

  81. oar Says:

    Drinking all day, tripping over bums, and canoeing fantasies with 20 year olds, WOW what a life for CaptTim!

  82. thomas Says:

    Your boy Rah is a .1875 coach and those are not easy to find!

  83. McBuc Says:

    @OAR…I like your point about Gruden and his position in the % thing, and I believe Dungy is number 12 or somewhere in that area. The only thing I disagree with you on is how sure you are that Morris will not be a winner ever…How can you know that? He may turn out to be the nxt big thing, you just never know.

  84. oar Says:

    McBuc, You know you’re right. I don’t know, but his coaching actions last year beg to differ. But another year is here, so we shall see.

  85. McBuc Says:

    OAR…fair enough.

  86. Capt.Tim Says:

    I wouldn’t trade it!but I’m in the office today, so not so wonderful today:(

  87. oar Says:

    CaptTim, Bummer, me too! But, hey ther is always tomorrow and it’s the weekend!