May 21, 2025 • 13 mins
Mike Florio from PFT joins Dick Fain and Hugh Millen to talk about the NFL’s vote to keep the tush push for another year, including the validity of the play and whether or not it should be kept in the game, the rule changes over the years and their interpretations.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's time for a weekly conversation with Pro Football Talks
Mike Florio, brought to you by Simply Seattle. Tired of
buying and repping the same old Seattle sports gear everyone
else has. For the best Storm, Seahawks, Mariners, Kraken, Rainiers, Sounders,
and not to mention, the largest Sonics collection in the world,
check out simply Seattle dot com. Now with Mike Florio,
(00:21):
here's SOFTI and Dick.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Love Wednesdays at three ten every afternoon where we get
to talk to our friend from Pro Football Talk, Mike Floria. Michael,
how you doing good?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hey, where's the butthole today?
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Well, the butthole is he is in Greece. That he's
in Greece. He is a long way aout man. Wow,
he ain't coming back anytime soon. He's got he's got
a long way to come to come back. So you're
stuck with us this week and next week. But it's great,
great to talk to you. Any You know, you'd think
(00:58):
we'd have a downtime and in the ennae, you know,
kind of mid to late May, there should be a
downtime And no, no, no, the owners get together.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
We've got this.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
The tush push vote. What did you make not only
of the give you your take on the tush push itself,
but also the process to how we got here. Maybe
tell the audience like, what was the process today? What
were the inner workings and politics going on today? With
the tush push going forward?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Well, and guys, it goes back farther than today because
after the March meetings, Lions President rod would set out
loud and he probably shouldn't have that Detroit's proposal to
change playoff seating was instigated by the league. The league
approached them and said, hey, would you like to do this,
We'll partner with you on this. What was never presented
(01:48):
as a partnership. It was presented as alliance proposal, which
is very different from the usual procedure for creating new rules.
The league and the competition Committee work together and they
have a whole procedure that delved into it, and the
team can then make their own proposals. It was just
odds that the NFL went beyond its normal process to
plant this seed. And the moment that rod Wood said that,
(02:09):
I said, you know what, I bet they did the
same thing with the Packers proposal to ban the touch
pus and lo and behold. I found out today after
the Packers proposal failed, that it was instigated by the league.
That basically, the league used the Packers to do this
because the league wanted to get rid of it. That's
the bottom line. And there were various reasons that may
(02:31):
or may not be accurate or logical, but at the
end of the day, the league wanted somebody in the
league office, maybe the guy whose name is on every football,
decided this needs to go. And they tried in March
with a very flawed proposal that would have banned an
immediate push if the player who receives this snap, and
that would have opened a can of worms, because what's
the immediate name When do you throw a flag? Is
(02:51):
it a second? Because the second and halfened is a
foot second. So they took a step back and they
were going to ban all pushing of the runner anywhere
on the field under any circumstances. They thought they had
enough votes. I thought they had enough votes. They thought
they had enough votes because they let it go to
a vote and they found out they were to vote short.
They needed twenty four. They got twenty two. And it
(03:13):
sounds as if the Eagles put forth a fairly persuasive
case based upon the idea that the safety risk you
speak of is hypothetical. You have no evidence of any
safety risk. So now what they'll do. They'll retreat, they'll conspire,
they'll plan, and by next March they'll probably make another
run at it, and there may be some evidence real
(03:36):
or imagined or embellished of safety risk from the tush push,
and they'll make another run at it. And the reality
is they don't need to twist two arms. They know
who the ten teams are. They voted against the span
and now all they have to do is get the
two of them, make it deal, make a threat, do whatever.
It's how the political sausage gets made in any political body.
(03:57):
And this is a very political process as far as
the NFL. So it's not over. It's over for now,
It's not over for good.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Mike Florio with this, Mike, that's a good rundown. I
there's a couple of things about this topic that just
both enraged me and just stimy me. And you know,
one of them is the idea A lot of the
defense as well. The Eagles are so good at it.
How can you penalize a team for being so good,
(04:28):
and you know, particularly in like you know, it's bad
optics because they won the Super Bowl. My point would be, Hey,
if all thirty two teams were really great at it,
just I just as successful as the Eagle. It's still
an ugly play. It's a rugby play. In nineteen ten,
assisting the runner was outlined. You say, well, the league's
(04:50):
only been around since nineteen twenty. That was college football.
And at nineteen twenty when the NFL emerged, they adopted
both the forward progress rule of eight ninety six, which
is the compliment preventing a rule that prevents the defense
from pushing an offensive player back, and they viewed it
tighty in assisting the runner as a compliment to the
(05:11):
Ford progress rules. So I would just say, forget the Eagles.
It's it's a rugby play. It's not. It doesn't look
common to the game of football. And two thirds of
the owners agree, And so I don't know, we got
to get this thing over the finish line in my opinion,
But what's your take on all that?
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Hey, hey, Hugh, did the forward task look common to
the game?
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Do you think that look to the game.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
I'll tell you what I mean. I feel like I'm
watching sumer wrestling more or a tuggerwar contest more. When
I watch this stupid tush push, then I'm watching football.
But I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
Here's the problem. Here's the problem. There's a couple of problems.
Number One, they change the rules in two thousand and
six to eliminate the ban on pushing a runner as
part of the penalty that gets called when someone assists
the runner. You still can't pull, but as the two
thousand and six you could push now. One of the
(06:05):
reasons they got rid of it is because they never
called the foul. The foul for assisting the runner has
not been called since the nineteen ninety one playoff game
between the Chiefs and the Bill. It was called on
Tim Gruenhard in January of nineteen ninety two. That's the
last time assisting runner has been called for pushing or pulling.
And the Bills were pulling runners like crazy, especially in
the postseason at the league. Are they gonna start calling
(06:25):
this and like, well, we never call it, so we
kind of can't start calling it now. So that's the problem.
They changed the rules and they didn't consider whether this
was going to lead, and it took sixteen years. It
was like Cicada's burrowed underground. It took sixteen years for
the Eagles to figure out we can use this as
part of our playbook. And here's what I believe. If
everyone was doing it well and we saw it in
(06:48):
every game, they'd either change first and ten to first
and twelve or first and thirteen, or they would just
get rid of it. The problem with one team doing
it well and them not jumping on it immediately but
waiting a couple of years, it feels petty, It feels small.
It feels like a you know what, we can't figure
out how to stop it, and we can't figure out
(07:10):
how to do it. Holy crap, we got to keep
the Eagles from doing it. And I don't like the
disingenuous nature of the debate. It sounds too much like
our current political climate, where nobody tells the truth on
either side. They just say whatever they have to say
to support their obvious position. And it all felt like
a big pile of crap. And I didn't like that.
I didn't like the precedent it would set. And I'm
(07:31):
glad it failed because I think that there was a
refusal to just admit what it is. The Eagles have
cracked the code. Nobody else can crack it, and we
want to take away the code because nobody else can
crack it, either to stop it or to do it themselves.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Yeah, do you think that when you watch Okay? So
we have a difference of opinion, Mike, and obviously I
respect your opinion. But in your mind, is it fair
to have rules that distinguish football from rugby? And if so,
does the tush push look like like the definition of
(08:11):
a rugby play so much that it is clearly distinguished
from other football plays. I think it doesn't showcase the
skills of the game in the way that I think
that football skills out to be showcased. I think it
looks like rugby.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Well, I don't disagree with that. The problem is the
way they handled it. It looks like it's directed at
the Eagles. And I also say this the Seahawks for
the one team that was doing it, and they just
won a Super Bowl. I don't think you guys would
be pushing back against it. So that's part of it too.
It's a very regional and parochial thing where Eagles fans
love it. Everybody else hates it. I just think that
(08:50):
they created the rule book. It's been in place for
one hundred years. It doesn't violate the rules that's currently written.
If they want to change the rules, that's fine, but
just be honest about what you're doing. Just admit, you
know what, we got one team that's throwing the whole
sport out of balance, and we don't like it. And
instead of sneaking back to the Packers and saying, hey,
you know what, we get in idea, we don't want
(09:11):
to do this directly because it'll look like we're, you know,
we're trying to screw the Eagles here. So you be
the ones. You be the ones you lost to them
twice last year. It'll make sense if you're upset and
you propose it. I just don't like any of it.
It's sneaky, it's conniving, and it's dishonest. And that's the
problem I have and how it was making me root
for the band to go through so that the Eagles
(09:32):
would show up on Thursday night to start the season
against the Cowboys, line up in the quarterback, sneak and
run the ball five yards and do it again, and
do it again like that scene and Miracle where Kurt
Russell says, again, do it all the way down the
field and shove it up every one. So, you know what,
I think you're right.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
And I hate being in the middle on this because
I totally agree with Hugh that it's it's a terrible
looking play. It's not an NFL football play. But I
also agree with with Mike where it's like it's a
bad look that of the fourteen teams that are scheduled
to play, the Eagles were the ones that voted against it.
It's just it's a it's a total like we're going
to try to get them because we can't stop them
on the field.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
But Mike Floria last a couple of minutes of them.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Let me get a last thing. Yeah, one last thing too.
If they had passed that today, the Eagles would still
have an unstoppable quarterback sneak, and it would still so
it's a deeper issue than getting behind the quarterback and
giving him a shove. I don't think the shove really matters.
I think it's the surge up front more than the
push from behind. And so that's why I think at
(10:33):
the end of the day, the Eagles just have an
unstoppable quarterback sneak, that's the problem, and are prioritizing interior
offensive line play and you know, it's all out in
playing take. There's no secret to what the Eagles are doing.
How Wouldjeff Stout on the way from the Eagles pay pay?
You know, I held a lot more money and the
Eagles are paying and do it yourself. That's the part
of it I don't like because it's not going to
(10:53):
change anything, and it feels petty and vindictive and small
and dishonest and YadA, YadA, YadA.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
Well, there's no question that the Eagles offensive line, coupled
with a very strong quarterback they have, they have better technique,
they get lower, there's no question. You're right, they would
still have a very good quarterback sneak, they'd have the best.
But I think that the extra push from behind does
does assess the You know that certainly the we can't
(11:21):
isolate the variables, right, but the push from behind helps
those those those percentages. And I think it's true, Mike,
just to respond to what you said, I think it
can be there can be two truths. I think that
the NFL could say we're confounded. We don't know how
to stop the eagles, and that's that's an ugly response
(11:42):
in the way you describe, but it can also be
true that and it and it's a terrible rugby play,
right Why can't it? Why can't Why can't an owner
who voted against it today have that position? They say, yeah,
you know what, you got me there. I freaking hate
that we can't stop the eagles. And guess what if
if if all of a sudden twenty five other teams
(12:04):
were really good at it, we I would still hate
to play because it would look too much like rugby.
Seems to me, we got two thoughts and we can
have two thoughts on our heads because we're human beings.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
I don't disagree with that. I just think I think
if that was the issue, they should have done it
in twenty twenty two, not twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
I agree with that, and I agree with that, and.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Because the argument would have been, hey, we don't want
this to spread, we will agree this in the bud
And so you know, it just feels like it was
handled poorly and it doesn't matter because it's here to
stay at least for one more year. I fully expect
them to try to do it again next year.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Well, Mike, we got a run.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
I had other stuff for you, but we got to
run because we got It.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
Was a good debate.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
It was a hell of a debate.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
We'll have it some more with you in the in
the radio.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
We could talk about everything else on your list, but
we had a good conversation, and I think we agreed
at some level.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Yes, we do.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
One is the NFL needs to tighten up its act.
I don't like the way they handled this. I don't
like running around behind the scenes. I don't like any
of the backroom deals. I don't like how this looks.
And the backroom deals are going to continue until I
can get two of the ten teams that voted against
today's rule to vote in favor of it next year,
and somebody will be made a promise, for somebody to
be made a threat, and they'll get the two. The
(13:12):
commissioner will be determined to get two of those teams
ten teams to flip love it.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Thanks Michael, talking next week. So you got you met
Mike Florio. I think we've opened up a can of
worms that needs to continue to be opened. Because I'll
give you some of my thoughts as well. Coming up
the next segment on three kjfm
It's time for a weekly conversation with Pro Football Talks
Mike Florio, brought to you by Simply Seattle. Tired of
buying and repping the same old Seattle sports gear everyone
else has. For the best Storm, Seahawks, Mariners, Kraken, Rainiers, Sounders,
and not to mention, the largest Sonics collection in the world,
check out simply Seattle dot com. Now with Mike Florio,
(00:21):
here's SOFTI and Dick.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Love Wednesdays at three ten every afternoon where we get
to talk to our friend from Pro Football Talk, Mike Floria. Michael,
how you doing good?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hey, where's the butthole today?
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Well, the butthole is he is in Greece. That he's
in Greece. He is a long way aout man. Wow,
he ain't coming back anytime soon. He's got he's got
a long way to come to come back. So you're
stuck with us this week and next week. But it's great,
great to talk to you. Any You know, you'd think
(00:58):
we'd have a downtime and in the ennae, you know,
kind of mid to late May, there should be a
downtime And no, no, no, the owners get together.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
We've got this.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
The tush push vote. What did you make not only
of the give you your take on the tush push itself,
but also the process to how we got here. Maybe
tell the audience like, what was the process today? What
were the inner workings and politics going on today? With
the tush push going forward?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Well, and guys, it goes back farther than today because
after the March meetings, Lions President rod would set out
loud and he probably shouldn't have that Detroit's proposal to
change playoff seating was instigated by the league. The league
approached them and said, hey, would you like to do this,
We'll partner with you on this. What was never presented
(01:48):
as a partnership. It was presented as alliance proposal, which
is very different from the usual procedure for creating new rules.
The league and the competition Committee work together and they
have a whole procedure that delved into it, and the
team can then make their own proposals. It was just
odds that the NFL went beyond its normal process to
plant this seed. And the moment that rod Wood said that,
(02:09):
I said, you know what, I bet they did the
same thing with the Packers proposal to ban the touch
pus and lo and behold. I found out today after
the Packers proposal failed, that it was instigated by the league.
That basically, the league used the Packers to do this
because the league wanted to get rid of it. That's
the bottom line. And there were various reasons that may
(02:31):
or may not be accurate or logical, but at the
end of the day, the league wanted somebody in the
league office, maybe the guy whose name is on every football,
decided this needs to go. And they tried in March
with a very flawed proposal that would have banned an
immediate push if the player who receives this snap, and
that would have opened a can of worms, because what's
the immediate name When do you throw a flag? Is
(02:51):
it a second? Because the second and halfened is a
foot second. So they took a step back and they
were going to ban all pushing of the runner anywhere
on the field under any circumstances. They thought they had
enough votes. I thought they had enough votes. They thought
they had enough votes because they let it go to
a vote and they found out they were to vote short.
They needed twenty four. They got twenty two. And it
(03:13):
sounds as if the Eagles put forth a fairly persuasive
case based upon the idea that the safety risk you
speak of is hypothetical. You have no evidence of any
safety risk. So now what they'll do. They'll retreat, they'll conspire,
they'll plan, and by next March they'll probably make another
run at it, and there may be some evidence real
(03:36):
or imagined or embellished of safety risk from the tush push,
and they'll make another run at it. And the reality
is they don't need to twist two arms. They know
who the ten teams are. They voted against the span
and now all they have to do is get the
two of them, make it deal, make a threat, do whatever.
It's how the political sausage gets made in any political body.
(03:57):
And this is a very political process as far as
the NFL. So it's not over. It's over for now,
It's not over for good.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Mike Florio with this, Mike, that's a good rundown. I
there's a couple of things about this topic that just
both enraged me and just stimy me. And you know,
one of them is the idea A lot of the
defense as well. The Eagles are so good at it.
How can you penalize a team for being so good,
(04:28):
and you know, particularly in like you know, it's bad
optics because they won the Super Bowl. My point would be, Hey,
if all thirty two teams were really great at it,
just I just as successful as the Eagle. It's still
an ugly play. It's a rugby play. In nineteen ten,
assisting the runner was outlined. You say, well, the league's
(04:50):
only been around since nineteen twenty. That was college football.
And at nineteen twenty when the NFL emerged, they adopted
both the forward progress rule of eight ninety six, which
is the compliment preventing a rule that prevents the defense
from pushing an offensive player back, and they viewed it
tighty in assisting the runner as a compliment to the
(05:11):
Ford progress rules. So I would just say, forget the Eagles.
It's it's a rugby play. It's not. It doesn't look
common to the game of football. And two thirds of
the owners agree, And so I don't know, we got
to get this thing over the finish line in my opinion,
But what's your take on all that?
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Hey, hey, Hugh, did the forward task look common to
the game?
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Do you think that look to the game.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
I'll tell you what I mean. I feel like I'm
watching sumer wrestling more or a tuggerwar contest more. When
I watch this stupid tush push, then I'm watching football.
But I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
Here's the problem. Here's the problem. There's a couple of problems.
Number One, they change the rules in two thousand and
six to eliminate the ban on pushing a runner as
part of the penalty that gets called when someone assists
the runner. You still can't pull, but as the two
thousand and six you could push now. One of the
(06:05):
reasons they got rid of it is because they never
called the foul. The foul for assisting the runner has
not been called since the nineteen ninety one playoff game
between the Chiefs and the Bill. It was called on
Tim Gruenhard in January of nineteen ninety two. That's the
last time assisting runner has been called for pushing or pulling.
And the Bills were pulling runners like crazy, especially in
the postseason at the league. Are they gonna start calling
(06:25):
this and like, well, we never call it, so we
kind of can't start calling it now. So that's the problem.
They changed the rules and they didn't consider whether this
was going to lead, and it took sixteen years. It
was like Cicada's burrowed underground. It took sixteen years for
the Eagles to figure out we can use this as
part of our playbook. And here's what I believe. If
everyone was doing it well and we saw it in
(06:48):
every game, they'd either change first and ten to first
and twelve or first and thirteen, or they would just
get rid of it. The problem with one team doing
it well and them not jumping on it immediately but
waiting a couple of years, it feels petty, It feels small.
It feels like a you know what, we can't figure
out how to stop it, and we can't figure out
(07:10):
how to do it. Holy crap, we got to keep
the Eagles from doing it. And I don't like the
disingenuous nature of the debate. It sounds too much like
our current political climate, where nobody tells the truth on
either side. They just say whatever they have to say
to support their obvious position. And it all felt like
a big pile of crap. And I didn't like that.
I didn't like the precedent it would set. And I'm
(07:31):
glad it failed because I think that there was a
refusal to just admit what it is. The Eagles have
cracked the code. Nobody else can crack it, and we
want to take away the code because nobody else can
crack it, either to stop it or to do it themselves.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Yeah, do you think that when you watch Okay? So
we have a difference of opinion, Mike, and obviously I
respect your opinion. But in your mind, is it fair
to have rules that distinguish football from rugby? And if so,
does the tush push look like like the definition of
(08:11):
a rugby play so much that it is clearly distinguished
from other football plays. I think it doesn't showcase the
skills of the game in the way that I think
that football skills out to be showcased. I think it
looks like rugby.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Well, I don't disagree with that. The problem is the
way they handled it. It looks like it's directed at
the Eagles. And I also say this the Seahawks for
the one team that was doing it, and they just
won a Super Bowl. I don't think you guys would
be pushing back against it. So that's part of it too.
It's a very regional and parochial thing where Eagles fans
love it. Everybody else hates it. I just think that
(08:50):
they created the rule book. It's been in place for
one hundred years. It doesn't violate the rules that's currently written.
If they want to change the rules, that's fine, but
just be honest about what you're doing. Just admit, you
know what, we got one team that's throwing the whole
sport out of balance, and we don't like it. And
instead of sneaking back to the Packers and saying, hey,
you know what, we get in idea, we don't want
(09:11):
to do this directly because it'll look like we're, you know,
we're trying to screw the Eagles here. So you be
the ones. You be the ones you lost to them
twice last year. It'll make sense if you're upset and
you propose it. I just don't like any of it.
It's sneaky, it's conniving, and it's dishonest. And that's the
problem I have and how it was making me root
for the band to go through so that the Eagles
(09:32):
would show up on Thursday night to start the season
against the Cowboys, line up in the quarterback, sneak and
run the ball five yards and do it again, and
do it again like that scene and Miracle where Kurt
Russell says, again, do it all the way down the
field and shove it up every one. So, you know what,
I think you're right.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
And I hate being in the middle on this because
I totally agree with Hugh that it's it's a terrible
looking play. It's not an NFL football play. But I
also agree with with Mike where it's like it's a
bad look that of the fourteen teams that are scheduled
to play, the Eagles were the ones that voted against it.
It's just it's a it's a total like we're going
to try to get them because we can't stop them
on the field.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
But Mike Floria last a couple of minutes of them.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Let me get a last thing. Yeah, one last thing too.
If they had passed that today, the Eagles would still
have an unstoppable quarterback sneak, and it would still so
it's a deeper issue than getting behind the quarterback and
giving him a shove. I don't think the shove really matters.
I think it's the surge up front more than the
push from behind. And so that's why I think at
(10:33):
the end of the day, the Eagles just have an
unstoppable quarterback sneak, that's the problem, and are prioritizing interior
offensive line play and you know, it's all out in
playing take. There's no secret to what the Eagles are doing.
How Wouldjeff Stout on the way from the Eagles pay pay?
You know, I held a lot more money and the
Eagles are paying and do it yourself. That's the part
of it I don't like because it's not going to
(10:53):
change anything, and it feels petty and vindictive and small
and dishonest and YadA, YadA, YadA.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
Well, there's no question that the Eagles offensive line, coupled
with a very strong quarterback they have, they have better technique,
they get lower, there's no question. You're right, they would
still have a very good quarterback sneak, they'd have the best.
But I think that the extra push from behind does
does assess the You know that certainly the we can't
(11:21):
isolate the variables, right, but the push from behind helps
those those those percentages. And I think it's true, Mike,
just to respond to what you said, I think it
can be there can be two truths. I think that
the NFL could say we're confounded. We don't know how
to stop the eagles, and that's that's an ugly response
(11:42):
in the way you describe, but it can also be
true that and it and it's a terrible rugby play,
right Why can't it? Why can't Why can't an owner
who voted against it today have that position? They say, yeah,
you know what, you got me there. I freaking hate
that we can't stop the eagles. And guess what if
if if all of a sudden twenty five other teams
(12:04):
were really good at it, we I would still hate
to play because it would look too much like rugby.
Seems to me, we got two thoughts and we can
have two thoughts on our heads because we're human beings.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
I don't disagree with that. I just think I think
if that was the issue, they should have done it
in twenty twenty two, not twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
I agree with that, and I agree with that, and.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Because the argument would have been, hey, we don't want
this to spread, we will agree this in the bud
And so you know, it just feels like it was
handled poorly and it doesn't matter because it's here to
stay at least for one more year. I fully expect
them to try to do it again next year.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Well, Mike, we got a run.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
I had other stuff for you, but we got to
run because we got It.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
Was a good debate.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
It was a hell of a debate.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
We'll have it some more with you in the in
the radio.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
We could talk about everything else on your list, but
we had a good conversation, and I think we agreed
at some level.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Yes, we do.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
One is the NFL needs to tighten up its act.
I don't like the way they handled this. I don't
like running around behind the scenes. I don't like any
of the backroom deals. I don't like how this looks.
And the backroom deals are going to continue until I
can get two of the ten teams that voted against
today's rule to vote in favor of it next year,
and somebody will be made a promise, for somebody to
be made a threat, and they'll get the two. The
(13:12):
commissioner will be determined to get two of those teams
ten teams to flip love it.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Thanks Michael, talking next week. So you got you met
Mike Florio. I think we've opened up a can of
worms that needs to continue to be opened. Because I'll
give you some of my thoughts as well. Coming up
the next segment on three kjfm
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Betrayal: Season 4
Karoline Borega married a man of honor – a respected Colorado Springs Police officer. She knew there would be sacrifices to accommodate her husband’s career. But she had no idea that he was using his badge to fool everyone. This season, we expose a man who swore two sacred oaths—one to his badge, one to his bride—and broke them both. We follow Karoline as she questions everything she thought she knew about her partner of over 20 years. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-3 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.