2009 NFL Thread

[Erzengel]

LA is *not* a bad city for football, just because two teams left (one due to Al Davis, and another because of stadium issue and Georgia Frontiere wanted to relocate the team to her hometown). USC Trojans and UCLA Bruins' football games both have very good attendance, and if you live here you'll see many cars on the freeway sporting NFL stickers. The fact that LA has had a history of hosting NFL teams should give them better credibility than another city that had no prior record of having a team (such as Jacksonville). Other cities like Houston, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Baltimore all have lost NFL teams in the past, but got another team in return. I just don't see why LA should be excluded, esp. since their #2 market in the nation status will mean more money to the league, and in the end everybody wins.

I wouldn't compare College football with NFL football. I couldn't care less about college sports. While I know others feel vice versa, and prefer to watch it.

*shrug*

Personally I wouldn't mind a team going to a new city such as when Tennessee got their team.

Then again, I joke that'd I start following the Brooklyn "Nets" if they moved because of my frustration with the Knicks.

 

[BlackLantern]

well the teams that are there in LA...UCLA and USC have long standing traditions and fanbases...that's why their attendance is consistent....just plopping a new NFL team in Los Angeles isn't going to guarantee that...its just going to make the city more crowded and traffic choked than it already is

 

[Erzengel]

Also, I stated repeatedly how "NFL blackouts" or any blackouts having to do with attendance are an archaic rule. With the economy the way it is, blacking out a NFL game isn't going to make someone rush to the stadium. Hmm...feed my family, go see the Jags....

 

[Raiden]

well the teams that are there in LA...UCLA and USC have long standing traditions and fanbases...that's why their attendance is consistent....just plopping a new NFL team in Los Angeles isn't going to guarantee that...its just going to make the city more crowded and traffic choked than it already is

Giants and Jets will be getting a new stadium in NYC next season, and it will make the city more crowded and traffic choked than it already is, but that didn't detered them. Sure, it will get a bit more crowded between the 57 and 60 freeway, just like it does for 110 when Trojans are playing and 210 when Bruins are playing, but it's nothing that we can't handle already. And it will only occur mostly during Sunday (and maybe Monday if there's MNF). I don't think it will be as bad as people make it out to be.

LA has had a history of having football teams, and fans are still around even when the teams have left, and I believe those fans will show up when the team arrives here. I think this history is more reliable than plopping a team in a new city that has no prior experience on having a NFL team, and I think this is the reason why NFL has been generous in relocating teams or having expansion teams on cities that have lost NFL team to other cities.

 

[BlackLantern]

it is archaic, but I do see the point of it...what the NFL should try to do is to get maybe 2 or 3 home games for each team that can NOT be blacked out....loosen the reigns a bit

 

[BlackLantern]

Giants and Jets will be getting a new stadium in NYC next season, and it will make the city more crowded and traffic choked than it already is, but that didn't detered them. Sure, it will get a bit more crowded between the 57 and 60 freeway, just like it does for 110 when Trojans are playing and 210 when Bruins are playing, but it's nothing that we can't handle already. And it will only occur mostly during Sunday (and maybe Monday if there's MNF). I don't think it will be as bad as people make it out to be.

the new stadium is in the same place the old one is....in the Meadowlands in New Jersey

LA has had a history of having football teams, and fans are still around even when the teams have left, and I believe those fans will show up when the team arrives here. I think this history is more reliable than plopping a team in a new city that has no prior experience on having a NFL team, and I think this is the reason why NFL has been generous in relocating teams or having expansion teams on cities that have lost NFL team to other cities.

typical LA mindset...thinking you should be catered to because you are LA...well you have the Trojans and the Bruins. not to mention the defending champion Lakers and the division winning Dodgers....be happy for what you have

 

[Dr. Evil]

It's only a matter of time before Josh Freeman starts in Tampa. So how well do you think he will do?

 

[Raiden]

the new stadium is in the same place the old one is....in the Meadowlands in New Jersey

Guess I was mistaken. So it'll still be NY Giants/Jets from New Jersey (like LA Angels from Anaheim).

typical LA mindset...thinking you should be catered to because you are LA...well you have the Trojans and the Bruins. not to mention the defending champion Lakers and the division winning Dodgers....be happy for what you have

LA should be catered like Houston, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Cleveland who lost their NFL teams (and they all have other professional and collegiate teams aside from NFL). Why should we be "happy" for what we have? Anyway, here's a summary of your oppositions against a NFL team in LA:

1) LA doesn't deserve a team before they lost 2 NFL teams.
A) LA isn't the only city that lost NFL teams, and there is no rule on how many teams one city can "lose" a NFL team (even if they lost them due to crazy owners like Al Davis). And NFL clearly doesn't think it's a problem, otherwise they won't have spent $4 million on exploring LA as a possible city for another NFL team.

2) LA fans won't support a NFL team.
A) LA fans have a history of supporting not just NFL teams, but also MLB, NBA, NHL, and even MLS teams.

3) LA will have too much traffic.
A) No more or less than what we have now.

4) LA fans won't attend the games with maximum capacity.
A) Like Jacksonville? LA fans have supported their teams with good attendance in the past, and I don't believe they won't once they get a new team. LA Rams won't have stayed from '46-'94 if they hadn't.

5) There's too many things to do in LA.
A) That's always the case.

 

[StorminNorman]

I'm not optimistic, but for the sake of Tampa fans lets hope he gives them something to cheer about.

Who would have thought a 9-3 team (last year) could fall so far so fast.

 

[Erzengel]

Ask the Titans.

 

[Matt]

I personally feel that firing Gruden was a mistake. I mean, lets face it, this is a man who won divisions and a Super Bowl with a couple marquee players and an all around mediocre team. In his seven years he never had a franchise QB. He won despite Glazer's cheapness. I think looking back many will see firing Jon Gruden to be a mistake for Tampa Bay

 

[Excel]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&page=hotread6/JaMarcusRussell

Pretty good article with a good analysis of his freakish ability...though I have no idea where they got the "Most teams had him as a 3rd or 4th round pick"....maybe before the season...but he was a consensus first rounder by years, no doubt. Hell I recall him being consensus #1 for a while, even when word spread Kiffin wanted Calvin Johnson.

Yeah, he's looking forward to facing the Rams in the Super Bowl this year.

 

[Excel]

I personally feel that firing Gruden was a mistake. I mean, lets face it, this is a man who won divisions and a Super Bowl with a couple marquee players and an all around mediocre team. In his seven years he never had a franchise QB. He won despite Glazer's cheapness. I think looking back many will see firing Jon Gruden to be a mistake for Tampa Bay

Of course it was a mistake, he's John Gruden. Not an easy guy to replace. He was getting as much out of the team they had as he could have.

 

[Raiden]

L.A. stadium environmental bill signed

This is a different article of the same story I posted, but that article left out some interesting details that this one has, such as:

Majestic has targeted seven teams as candidates to move to the Los Angeles area: the Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers.

The firm has said the teams are in stadiums that are either too small or can't be updated with luxury box seats or other revenue sources an NFL club needs to thrive.

I guess I left out the Vikings when I was discussing this issue many posts ago. However, I thought Minnesota has a new stadium in place for the Vikings, as it is hard for me to believe that Vikings would leave.

 

[Cmill216]

It's only a matter of time before Josh Freeman starts in Tampa. So how well do you thik he will do?

Put it this way: if he wasn't ready enough to beat out the likes of Byron Leftwich and Luke McCown, my hopes for him this season aren't exactly high.

 

[Matt]

L.A. stadium environmental bill signed

This is a different article of the same story I posted, but that article left out some interesting details that this one has, such as:



I guess I left out the Vikings when I was discussing this issue many posts ago. However, I thought Minnesota has a new stadium in place for the Vikings, as it is hard for me to believe that Vikings would leave.

San Fran and San Diego have too big of legacies to relocate. Oakland could move back but I doubt they will. I don't think the NFL will allow any of the other teams to move out of fear of screwing up the allignment.

 

[Erzengel]

I guess I left out the Vikings when I was discussing this issue many posts ago. However, I thought Minnesota has a new stadium in place for the Vikings, as it is hard for me to believe that Vikings would leave.

Target Field is for the Twins not the Vikings. The Vikings will continue to play at the Metrodome.

 

[Raiden]

San Fran and San Diego have too big of legacies to relocate. Oakland could move back but I doubt they will. I don't think the NFL will allow any of the other teams to move out of fear of screwing up the allignment.

Any team that leaves will stay at their own division, like Rams still with the NFC West even though they are in St. Louis, so it won't "screw up the alignment". NFL is more worry about teams not getting a stadium that has enough seats and luxury boxes so it can make more money.

 

[Matt]

We shall see. I personally don't see LA getting a team within the next few years, stadium or none.

 

[Immortalfire]

Target Field is for the Twins not the Vikings. The Vikings will continue to play at the Metrodome.

Target Field sounds so dumb. Most corporate named joints do, I guess. Sounds like a military facility.

 

[Matt]

Heinz Field = only good corporate field name, but only because like the Steelers, Heinz is such a big part of the 'Burgh.

 

[Erzengel]

Target Field sounds so dumb. Most corporate named joints do, I guess. Sounds like a military facility.

I like it when teams actually name their stadiums after their teams. Yankees, Giants Stadium.

 

[Immortalfire]

Petco Park = worst stadium name ever

 

[Raiden]

We shall see. I personally don't see LA getting a team within the next few years, stadium or none.

There are several teams who are in dire need of a new stadium, and LA will not only provide a new state-of-the-art stadium, but that team will also have the second biggest media market all to themselves. Add to the fact that NFL clearly wants this to happen, and just waiting for all the red tapes to be cut before they start the process. I don't think they have overcome all the obstacles yet, but I'm definitely very optimistic that it will happen eventually. If this had happen when NFL were creating an expansion team, then LA and not Houston would have gotten that new team.

 

[omid17]

Petco Park = worst stadium name ever

yea that's a pretty crappy name