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!

     

What the hell is Goodell thinking?

KillerKat

By KillerKat,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Kevin Greene Newbie

Kevin Greene

Posted
Posted

I think expansion in LA would be the way to go. I'd hate to see any US city lose their football team. Being in SoCal and losing the Rams I can tell you it sucks ass.

"Whah, whah KG but the fans in LA dont deserve a team because they didn't support the Rams."

Educate yourselves meatheads.

Facts to ponder:

The Rams played in LA from 1946-1994 often leading or at the top of the league in attendance.

Los Angeles has never had a stadium built for a Pro football team. The Coliseum was built in the late 1920s for the '32 Summer olympics. It's a decaying mass in a horrible part of town that has long since past it's ability to house an NFL Franchise. When the Rams moved to Anaheim and shared a baseball stadium with the Angels it was an attempt to get a few of the amenities teams came to expect in the 80s. The Rams left town in 1994 because that bitch Frontierre was tempted by the shiny new Transworld Dome in St. Louis and the rest is history.

Bickering by NFL ownership, government in LA and Cali have all lead to a proper stadium never being built to house an NFL team. Looks like LA may finally have the pieces in place to build a state of the art facility all teams need to thrive and hopefully expnasion will be the answer.

The Raiders? Dont even mention the Al Davis move to LA trying to force Oakland to build him a stadium. Al went back home where the Raiders belong after failing to use the power play to get either city to build him a stadium. To date the Raiders still play in a poohole baseball stadium in Oakland jury rigged to house the Raiders.

A team, a new stadium and LA will fill the stadium to capacity every Sunday as they do for the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings and Ducks every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin Greene Newbie

Kevin Greene

Posted
Posted

This site is in favor of having the Rams return to LA which I dont prefer but does have some interesting info:

3. The Rams never had a decent following in Los Angeles/Anaheim.

The Los Angeles Rams led the NFL in attendance 11 times in franchise history, spent a majority of their time in the top 5, and averaged well over the NFL average during their stay in the City of Angels. The television ratings were also significantly higher when the Rams were in Los Angeles as opposed to ratings of random teams (including the Raiders) on television in Southern California during the previous 16 seasons. The Rams were at one point the pride and joy of Los Angeles and they had a very large following both when they played at the Coliseum and Anaheim Stadium.

http://losangelesrams.org/myths.html

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

I like the disciplinary stuff that Goodell instituted when he took over.

Beyond that, ugh :(

The obsessions with...

- getting a team (or two) in L.A.

- trying to expand internationally

- going to an 18 game season

- reducing the amount of contact (especially to QBs)

...and the whole "moving the kickoffs" thing.

And what's worse is he plays these things as if the vast majority of fans love these ideas when in reality the greater tide of fan opinion goes from indifference to hatred.

He's the commissioner who's engaged the fans more by having fan forums and such, but darned if he isn't the guy who seems to actually listen to fans the least :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theyhateme45 Newbie

theyhateme45

Posted
Posted

I don't like the idea.... 32 is the perfect Number for the NFL, balanced divisions, balanced conferences, balance schedule that makes sense, I don't think we need to jack it up for more $$$ in L.A... Just let a franchise struggling $$$ wise head there.

But we all know $$$ talks in the NFL, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperLego5 Newbie

SuperLego5

Posted
Posted

As a Brit I'm fairly sure a London franchise wouldn't work. The International Series always sells out because it's a novelty. Also everything in London is so expensive, for anybody that has to travel and stay its about $1500 every time you want to see an NFL match, it's almost as cheap to go to the US. Something else nobody factors in is British fans probably wont change allegiance. If there was a British franchise they would be my second team behind the Panthers, I would still rather save up and come across to Charlotte and go to BoA stadium than spend a fortune going to see my second team in London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Rockets Rookie

Johnny Rockets

Posted
Posted

I like the disciplinary stuff that Goodell instituted when he took over.

Beyond that, ugh :(

The obsessions with...

- getting a team (or two) in L.A.

- trying to expand internationally

- going to an 18 game season

- reducing the amount of contact (especially to QBs)

...and the whole "moving the kickoffs" thing.

And what's worse is he plays these things as if the vast majority of fans love these ideas when in reality the greater tide of fan opinion goes from indifference to hatred.

He's the commissioner who's engaged the fans more by having fan forums and such, but darned if he isn't the guy who seems to actually listen to fans the least :mad:

The rules limited contact and specifically protecting the QB were put into place by Tagliabue long before Goodell took over. Not sure why that is ignored all the time when this discussion is brought up.

Kickoffs just went back to how they used to be. Before 1994 they always kicked off from the 35 just like they do today. It only makes sense that if head injuries are the main concern for the NFL (as they should be) then something needed to be done with the one play that caused more injuries (especially head injuries) than any other....the kickoff. Sure I would rather see someone run the ball back instead of a touchback but I can understand why it was put into place BY THE OWNERS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

The rules limited contact and specifically protecting the QB were put into place by Tagliabue long before Goodell took over. Not sure why that is ignored all the time when this discussion is brought up.

Kickoffs just went back to how they used to be. Before 1994 they always kicked off from the 35 just like they do today. It only makes sense that if head injuries are the main concern for the NFL (as they should be) then something needed to be done with the one play that caused more injuries (especially head injuries) than any other....the kickoff. Sure I would rather see someone run the ball back instead of a touchback but I can understand why it was put into place BY THE OWNERS.

I don't hold Tagliabue blameless there. Nor the owners, though not all of them voted for this particular change (Bears I know voted against).

Kinda wish Goodell would spend more time getting better medical benefits for the former players than tinkering with the rules for the current ones.

Safety vs gameplay is an argument that won't end anytime soon.

here's the play...a new team in Toronto, which will essentially kill the Bills, who then get moved to LA

Nobody wants Canadians involved :sosp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mr. Scot
      Why does Bryce get the blame?

      By Mr. Scot · Posted

      An odd little vibe I've noticed here of late: some folks are "all or nothing" to an absolutely extreme level when it comes to Bryce. There are, in fact, things Bryce does well. Likewise, there are areas in which he's improved over his time here. He has, on several occasions now, legitimately helped us win games. On the flipside, there have been failures in other areas as well as coaching that we're not in any way his fault.  And finally , it is also genuinely possible that the team may see him as the future, even if we don't. The craziest part, though? It's actually possible that they're right and we're wrong. All of this is true, and more, yet if you accept any of these premises people go from zero to apesh-t in under three seconds 😳 Anything less than total disavowal of Bryce and / or agreement that he's the worst QB of all time and suddenly you're a "stan". Oy 🙄 The reality though?  Bryce is indeed an NFL quarterback. Not a great one, probably backup level good, and I've seen way worse. Now, if you run that statement through your personal Google translator and it comes back with some version of "I want to throw 50 million a year at Bryce for the next 10 years", that's not really my issue it's yours  I don't wanna make him the franchise quarterback, but it's not my call. Win or lose, the team is going to do what they think is best. And as always, if it disagrees with what I think we should do, I'm gonna hope I'm the one who's wrong. Internet clout means nothing. Watching my favorite team win at my favorite sport meas fun 😁
    • SmokinwithWilly
      Why does Bryce get the blame?

      By SmokinwithWilly · Posted

      I like Icky but he was the wrong tackle to take. Learning run blocking is much easier than learning pass blocking. Cross was pass pro ready. He was the tackle we should have taken without hesitation. 
    • Jackie Lee
      WWE pay per view and programming thread

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Never saw this angle of the Tyson fight either lol.   
×
×
  • Create New...