great, yeah, let's put a ******* expansion team in LA. hell, the city is completely incapable of supporting a winning team, let's give them a guaranteed non-winner. it's unbelieveable to me how stupid some of these people are. la should never, ever have a team unless you can guarantee that they'll win the super bowl every single year.
K, we'll keep these teams in San Diego, or Oakland, or Tampa where the fan support is just freakin' awesome and they regularly sell out their games and wouldn't dare need an extension to not have a playoff game blacked out or anything.
The owners were Al ******* Davis and Georgia ******* Frontiere. I can't imagine why fans lost interest.
Last edited by DraftSavant : 02-03-2012 at 11:22 AM.
I don't want expansion, either, but I'm very much looking forward to stealing some other worthless city's team.
LA's real value to the NFL, though, has mostly passed. I'm pretty sure Tagliabue used the LA threat to every city that built a new stadium during his reign as commish (I think it was like 60% of the teams got new stadiums or something ridiculous).
I still have doubts as to whether a stadium will ever even get built here. They can't even ******* figure out which site to use yet. :shrug:
They just need cooler mascots. They need to set fashion trends. People are finally warming up to the Clippers because they are good, but seriously...wtf is a clipper? Hairstylists? The Rams were just too tacky with the blue and yellow and not stylish enough with their overall presentation. The new LA team(s) can at least appeal to their city more and be the LA Boarders or the Beckhams or something. I would personally go religious with it so I could appeal to the Latinos without pissing off the rich white people. I would go with the Archangels or something similar.
SCA Prowler is my Xbox Live Gamertag
I'm completely against expansion. 32 teams is a whole lot already and the talent distribution is perfect right now. The NFL team in LA thing is an eventuality at this point(provided they're able to finish one of those stadium plans) and I really don't mind them moving a team there, but expanding is not the way to do that.
Jaguars or no Jaguars, I'm never opposed to more football on TV. I'm not sure I'm in love with the idea of Thursday games every week though, for a few reasons. Chiefly among being teams having the flip and be ready to go on an ultra short week. The quality of football could possibly suffer as a result of that. It also seems rather counter intuitive if injuries are supposedly the NFL's main concern, as more games in a shorter time frame certainly isn't going to help with that.
you know, this could work out well. just let denver play jax every week. i'd never have to see either team ever again, since i refuse to get nfln. and they're both mediocre enough that they'd probably fight to an 8-8 record every season, meaning that the rest of the nfl would stay in balance.
Ah ****, the Broncos are going to have so many prime time games this year. Oh dear god no.
My day just went from average to extremely ****** at this revelation.
Are the Broncos actually scheduled to play the Jags next year? Because I need to avoid that game at all costs. The, uh, "quarterback" play would set football back decades.
Take note of the Brady Rule. What teams QB was that? Oh ya are rival the NE Patriots.
I'm not even going to go into the facts here and I could care less about the Brady rule(I thought the Pollard play was a clean hit), but you sir sound massively butthurt. If you want to have a cohesive argument, I would recommend against asking a question you are going to answer in the next sentence, especially if you're letting it stand on it's own.