Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Which game will be less pleasant to go to: vs. Atlanta or vs. Arizona?


Sam Mills Fan

Recommended Posts

If you go to the Atlanta game, you'll get to see the fans packed with more fans of the opposing team than perhaps any other game in team history. It will AT LEAST be top 5 with us so bad and the Falcons so good and the Falcon fans always having a decent presence here when they're good. Plus, it's supposed to be a dreary day with forecasts of very cold rain showers Sunday afternoon.

If you go to the Arizona game, you'll get to see the two worst teams in the league battle it out in a meaningless game on another cold day. Could have one of the least attended games in franchise history.

So if you have your choice, which game would you rather go to least? And you can't choose "neither".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how crowded the Falcons game will be with cold rain and temps in the 40s. Atlanta fans aren't used to outdoor weather. Mostly will be local folks who disappeared when Vick left and now are coming out with their Falcon jerseys now that they are doing well again. Won't be many Panthers fans there either.

The Arizona game will be better, won't be full of rival fans and we might win. Weather isn't likely to be worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying to decide this as well. I'm thinking I will attend the Cardinals game instead of having to endure all the Falcons fans like I did last game with the Ravens fans. Atleast on TV you only have to see all the opposing fans in the bottom sections for the most part and not the entire stadium. It makes me sad and embarassed when I go and i'm surrounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of off topic, but I hope it snows really hard when we go play Pittsburgh at Heinz. I've always wanted to see us play in the pouring snow. Think it'd be neat.

I'm not talking flurries either, I want the field to be blanketed so you can't even see any green.

It snowed once before when we went to Pittsburgh, 1999 I believe. We needed to win to basically control our own destiny and get to the playoffs. Played a decent first half and then the snowstorm came and we got dominated in the 2nd half by the Steelers run game. Pittsburgh was pretty bad that year if I remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol wut?  Stats dont matter now?  Got it
    • So.... you're admitting he's never going to be the type of QB who can drag his team to victories on a consistent basis? Because in today's NFL, the teams that are constant contenders have QB's who can put up those kind of games will their team to wins when needed. If Bryce was anything near as amazing last year as the Bryce defenders try to insinuate he was, we'd either have won more games or his stats would have been better, if not both. Yes, he showed significant improvement over the last 2 months of the season.  Yes, he had a few clutch  moments/throws/drives in that span too. BUT... It's also very much a true statement that on the whole, he was still AT BEST an average QB during that time period.   And for a QB who was touted as being a PG who can get wins without elite talent around him because of how he sees the game, that's just not good enough, sorry. And none of that is to say he can't do that this year, especially after we gave him a weapon like T-Mac and hopefully an improved XL and Coker.  But stop trying to say he was this amazing QB to end the year who has proven he can (and should) be considered a long term solution as a franchise QB, as it's just not true.
    • In what way is that remotely the same thing as I'm saying here? First things first, comparing QB's to any other position is just asinine to begin with.   Second, you're trying to imply the exact opposite of what I'm saying here, so it just doesn't make sense. I'm saying if you remove the players that teams haven't committed to as their long term QB solutions yet, Bryce is the last player ranked in this set of rankings, that's all.  But sure, go ahead and try to make some weird convoluted equivalent for my love of T-Mac (who btw, you'd probably only need to take away 12-15 WRs for me to rank T-Mac #1 in a dynasty format, just sayin, lol)
×
×
  • Create New...