Comcast SportsNet

Do Eagles Have a Leg Up on Burress?

Do Eagles Have a Leg Up on Burress?

The big story in Birds-land over the weekend actually came out of New York on Saturday. Gary Myers wrote a feature for the New York Daily News about currently incarcerated, former-Giants WR Plaxico Burress, and his impending release from prison. Burress has been out of football since November '08 after accidentally shooting himself in the leg at a nightclub, but he is eyeing a return to the gridiron this year.

Which wasn't exactly news--Burress has always maintained he would play again. The interesting part, according to Myers' article, is whenever the 6-5, 232 lbs. wide receiver begins selling his services, the Eagles supposedly will be "first in line" to see what he's all about.

Let's face it, much of this idea is predicated on the Michael Vick signing in '09, and Myers makes no bones about it.

"Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie and coach Andy Reid, having already been through the post-prison experience with Vick, might be in a better position to handle any public backlash about adding another former inmate. They could also help Burress with his transition back to the NFL."

Personally, I find the assertion that because Vick has been a success story, the Eagles are suddenly lining up to sign ex-convicts is thin at best, and really quite ridiculous.

Vick's was a unique situation. He had Donovan McNabb lobbying for him, and here for a season to act as a mentor. More important, the front office was willing to take a chance in part because, at age 29, Vick still had upside. He's the starting quarterback now, but many observers thought the franchise would attempt to rehab his image for one season before attempting a trade. However, there surprisingly was no market last off-season, and the rest is history.

Plaxico's only upside is he may have a season or two of quality ball left, which is reason enough for management to perform their due dilligence. Look at it from the team's standpoint though. The Eagles don't need another wide receiver, and turning 34 years old this August, Burress has no future trade value. Not only that, his arrival means one less roster spot for a younger player, and he could potentially block a prospect such as Riley Cooper from seeing meaningful playing time.

Which is not to say I'm entirely against the possibility of adding Burress. He was one of the true difference makers at receiver right up until and through his final injury-plagued season. He caught 22 touchdown passes between 06-07, and has four 1,000 yard seasons in his nine year NFL career. The numbers don't even entirely do Burress justice, as his size created difficult match-up problems for defenses on a weekly basis.

With the Eagles, I could see him playing a small role, particularly inside the red zone where bigger targets become even greater assets in the passing game. Where else can you really see him having an impact though? DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin obviously aren't coming off the field very much, and Jason Avant has been one of the club's most reliable receivers from the slot.

In the end, the only way this works is if a number of egos could be kept in check, first and foremost being Plaxico's. Would Burress accept a reduced role, and presumably less money, while he worked his way back into the league?

Because much of the premise is based on the Vick and Burress situations being somehow similar, when they are not really at all. Vick was far more untouchable coming out of prison. Besides the horrific nature of a criminal past that inflamed activists, he was seen as an athlete who never took his profession seriously. With the exception of the part where Burress shoots himself, which is almost humorous anyway, football fans have long since been desensitized to athletes who own weapons.

The list of teams who are willing to take a shot at Plaxico (get it?) will be slightly longer than those who would merely consider bringing Vick into the fold two years ago, and certainly more receiver-needy. The Eagles have surprised plenty of times before, so you can never rule it out completely, but it's difficult to envision them as one of the first into the fray here, as the report suggests.

>> Former Giants WR Plaxico Burress out of lockup on June 6 [NY Daily News]

CSNPhilly Internship - Advertising/Sales

plain-peacock-logo.png

CSNPhilly Internship - Advertising/Sales

Position Title: Intern
Department: Advertising/Sales
Company: Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia
# of hours / week: 10 – 20 hours

Deadline: November 20

Basic Function

This position will work closely with the Vice President of Sales in generating revenue through commercial advertisements and sponsorship sales. The intern will gain first-hand sales experience through working with Sales Assistants and AEs on pitches, sales-calls and recapping material.

Duties and Responsibilities

• Assist Account Executive on preparation of Sales Presentations
• Cultivate new account leads for local sales
• Track sponsorships in specified programs
• Assist as point of contact with sponsors on game night set up and pre-game hospitality elements.
• Assist with collection of all proof of performance materials.
• Perform Competitive Network Analysis
• Update Customer database
• Other various projects as assigned

Requirements

1. Good oral and written communication skills.
2. Knowledge of sports.
3. Ability to work non-traditional hours, weekends & holidays
4. Ability to work in a fast-paced, high-pressure environment
5. Must be 19 years of age or older
6. Must be a student in pursuit of an Associate, Bachelor, Master or Juris Doctor degree
7. Must have unrestricted authorization to work in the US
8. Must have sophomore standing or above
9. Must have a 3.0 GPA

Interested students should apply here and specify they're interested in the ad/sales internship.

About NBC internships

Rating 5 changes the NHL made to its rulebook

usa-dave-hastol.jpg
USA Today Images

Rating 5 changes the NHL made to its rulebook

If you have witnessed preseason hockey this past week, you are well aware that the NHL is buckling down on its rulebook and even revising it. An excess of penalties and power plays have occurred as a result of these changes. Are they good for the game? I examine each of the five new rules or changes to the existing rulebook. 

Rule 78.7 (b) — A coach's challenge on an offside play — If the result of the challenge is that the play was “on-side,” the goal shall count and the team that issued the challenge shall be assessed a minor penalty for delaying the game.

In 2015, the NHL granted each coach a challenge they could utilize in the event of overturning an incorrect call on the ice. If the challenge failed and the original call stood, then the challenging coach would forfeit the team’s timeout. Starting this season, a failed challenge on an on-sides call in which there’s a goal will result in a two-minute minor penalty.   

By doing so, the NHL instituted a method to help maintain the game’s integrity in the event of a missed call by a linesman, as many coaches hold onto their challenge at a critical juncture — typically during the third period. Now with a two-minute penalty, it’s a way of reversing course without actually taking away the challenge. It's as if the league is saying we want you to have a challenge, but not really. The league is now discouraging teams from using it. As we’ve seen over the past few years, offsides calls can be measured in millimeters — that’s how arbitrary it’s become. But to penalize an entire team for a coaching staff’s misjudgment is excessive, and as we’ll see this season, it will sway the outcomes of a few games. Forfeiting a timeout for losing a challenge is acceptable, but killing a two-minute power play? Absurd, and for that I give it …

Two thumbs down   

Rule 61.1 — Slashing — Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s hands that, in the judgement of the referee is not an attempt to play the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.

Flyers fans can call out Sidney Crosby for emphasizing this rule, which is not a rule change but simply the enforcement of an existing rule. Crosby violated this in the worst way when he performed a machete slice over the hands of Senators defenseman Mark Methot late in the season. The result was a broken finger, nearly severed from the tip, and the loss of one of Ottawa’s top defensemen for weeks. Watch the video and you can hear Methot scream in pain as Crosby took his whack.

In the preseason, we have seen more slashing than department store prices during Black Friday. It’s out of control, not the slashing itself, but the slashing calls. As the rule states, it’s a "forceful or powerful chop" which usually requires a two-handed grip. However, the referees have resorted to blowing the whistle for a one-handed love tap. As Shayne Gostisbehere said Wednesday, “When they blow the whistle and everyone’s like, ‘What just happened?’ That’s not a penalty.”  

I suspect come October when the regular season begins, the officials will ease up on their slashing calls, but it definitely creates a gray area, much like the interference call. Over the course of the season, some refs will whistle everything, while others will let stuff go. If it protects the league from injury, especially serious injury in cases like Methot and even Johnny Gaudreau, it can be beneficial, but I see some inconsistency from game-to-game and for that I give it ...

One thumb up ... my good non-slashed thumb

Rule 76.4 — Faceoff Positioning & Procedure — The players taking part shall take their position so that they will stand squarely facing their opponent’s end of the rink and clear of the ice markings (where applicable).

Like the slashing penalty previously discussed this is another enforcement of an existing rule. In other words, the league wants to cut down on cheating during faceoffs. You know when players began cheating on faceoffs? Since the inception of the faceoff. In fact, I can recall producing a three-minute story when I was working at a Nashville TV station on how players gain advantages and bend the rules on faceoffs. Three minutes. On cheating! 

Now, those L-shaped lines are no longer suggestions or recommendations, but strict guidelines of where the players should stand prior to a faceoff. If a team is caught twice during the same faceoff (and it doesn’t have to be the same player), the result is a two-minute minor penalty. The Islanders' Josh Ho-Sang was a guilty offender twice during Wednesday’s game in Allentown and the Flyers benefited with a power play in each instance. The league’s explanation states they want to protect players from banging heads, and more importantly, protect the linesman dropping the puck. 

Like the slashing penalty, I’m curious to see which linesmen strictly enforce this rule and which ones will be a little more lax. This is another one of those penalties (like the challenge call) that you certainly don’t want to impact the outcome of a game. The league has good intentions for enforcing Rule 76.4, but will they have consistent enforcement? And for that I give it…

One thumb up

Rule 87.1 — No timeout shall be granted to the defensive team following an icing.

Once again, here’s another example of a moment when a coach would intervene during a critical point of a hockey game (usually late during the third period). An attacking team is applying pressure in the offensive zone of a close game and the defensive team, obviously gassed, flips the puck out of the zone for an icing. That coach proceeds to call a timeout to allow his team to catch their breath and grab some water before the ensuing faceoff.

My take on the new rule: Love it! This rule should have been implemented years ago. You can penalize a team for icing without actually calling a penalty.  Allowing a timeout does exactly the opposite and circumvents any drawbacks of icing. By forcing a tired group of guys to lineup and take a faceoff right away is precisely the way it should be handled, and for that I give this new rule…

Two thumbs up

Eliminating Rule 80.4 — Numerical Advantage on Faceoffs — When a team on the power play high sticks the puck, the ensuing faceoff will be conducted at one of the two face-off spots in their defending zone.

This is the abridged version of the rule that was roughly half a page long. Playing the puck with a high stick is instinctual and when the game is played at warp speed, a player’s natural inclination is to raise their stick in an attempt to knock the puck out of the air. When a player is guilty of a high stick, the whistle is blown and a faceoff occurs. Now that this rule has been eliminated entirely from the rulebook, the ensuing faceoff will take place in the zone in which the infraction was committed.

No team should be given territorial advantage as a result of a high stick. I’m surprised it’s taken this long to acknowledge the absurdity of Rule 80.4, and for finally acknowledging this, I give the elimination of this rule…

Two thumbs up