Sec19Row53

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

All due respect, but there's more to this than the "it makes money/ it, don't watch it" argument. Which do you think is better for the NFL product overall, Myles Garrett playing in the "Pro Bowl Games" and getting hurt or Myles Garrett playing 17 actual NFL games and selling #95 jerseys for the Browns next season? Sure, the "Pro Bowl Games" puts an extra few bucks in the NFL bank account, but are a few quick bucks worth the potential of losing much more money in the long term? Great players are risking injury for a carnival sideshow. This pointless nonsense is going to end up costing someone their career...again. (See Edwards, Robert) The Pro Bowl needs to end whether we watch it or not.

No problem with that take, but the post to which I reacted was 'bah it's boring', not 'it's an issue of safety'. As to the players taking that risk, they're free to beg out due to injury, aren't they? They must be making some money from it as well.

As far as it being a traveshamockery - it's not like they let a player from the NFC snap the ball to the AFC quarterback or anything heinous like that 

Does it make money for the NFL?

That's why it continues. Don't watch it if you don't like it. I don't. They don't care

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

MLB Players Association is not going to accept any type of contraction, even if it's a Browns style deal. 

Whether a shred of connection to being possible exists doesn't mean someone won't believe it to be possible.

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

That's why i wonder if the plan is to grab all of the NAL, since they'll be using the patented rebound nets, and then possibly poach a couple teams from IFL, CIF and then create a few more. 

The formerly patented rebound nets.

18 minutes ago, BBTV said:

Not a good look.  Powder-blue pants should only be worn with matching tops.

 

I think Pete's hair makes that a bad look also 

3 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

True, they would never mock Native Americans.  Maybe occasionally throw batteries at them, but never mock. 

Or at Santa

Quoting while in phone has been goofy lately. The quoted post will randomly highlight, which renders the keyboard inaccessible. 

Anybody else?

Edit - Holy crap all sorts of extra carriage returns [old guy reference]

4 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

Yes I’m absolutely serious. Why do you even have a guy like Josh Johnson on your roster in the first place? Remember now, he was my favorite team’s backup for several seasons. 

Because they lost other guys to injury. Who the eff should they have???

47 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

For as much as they’ve been “unlucky” and  have had calls go against them, a lot of this is on coaching. For as good at scheming up an offense Shanahan is, he’s probably one of the worst big game coaches I’ve ever seen. Like, he’s been dreadfully bad in so many big games. Like, how do you not have a better backup plan than Josh Johnson? 
 

I’m so happy I haven’t wasted my life investing my fandom in the 49ers. What a frustrating franchise. 

I dunno. How many teams have a better 4th option? You aren't serious are you?

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Not so fast. The 49ers are only down 7-0 after EVERYTHING went against them in the first quarter. 

Narrator: it was, in fact, not too fast.

4 minutes ago, EskimoAldus said:

Congratulations to the Eagles on your NFC Championship. 

Not so fast. The 49ers are only down 7-0 after EVERYTHING went against them in the first quarter. 

2 hours ago, simtek34 said:

For the folks interested in how it would look on a cap, the Twins wore something similar too that for their Spring Training caps in the mid-2010s.

 

 

And for the 2014 All-Star game, which was hosted by the Twins at Target Field, the caps were based on the Twins 1970s batting helmets. And the Twins one looked good. 

 

Thanks for this. I didn't think they ever had a cap to match that batting helmet.

I know the Brewers had a similar helmet issue with a white-paneled version that never had a matching hat. Who else has done that?

4 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

I say this as someone who grew up in the Carson City area and played the majority of my high school baseball games at Matt Williams Field: 

 

Oh, come on. 

Arguments don't get much more compelling than that 

22 minutes ago, heavybass said:

I don't think Brady to Lions is going to happen...

I know what will happen this offseason.

Rodgers to the Jets for 2 1sts... i mean they hired Hackett as their new OC and the Jets owner has said he would pay any price.

 

Then why didn't the Broncos trade for him last year?

I get that this is an easy line to draw, and it MIGHT happen, but I'd bet against it.

15 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Citation needed.

 

 

 

 

Well played

10 hours ago, Indigo said:

Looks nice, but I'd rather have the team named the Browns be the only team using brown.

A - they weren't named for the color

B - does that mean no one other than the Packers can use the color Green?

C - I'm not serious

3 hours ago, Gary said:

Not even at the off season and we’re already getting the asinine where Brady should go. Mike Florio is a joke

 

 

As you're complaining in the 2023 offseason thread, I think you've missed a point somewhere 

2 minutes ago, Jezus_Ghoti said:

I just can't see this happening. The Adams family is fiercely protective of the luv ya blue. Doubt they ever willingly give it up to the hated Texans. 

 

But if navy and yellow did happen, it would not only tie the Titans to other pro teams in their own market, but also sort of tie them to the historic New York Titans. Maybe they could even wrangle a way to wear those throwbacks if we're already going down the path of franchises trading history. 

Nobody outside of these boards would make that connection, would they?

33 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

What's with the bumper plate, that's above the bumper? Has no one on that team set up a helmet before? 

Riddell apparently paying good money for that space 

On 1/23/2023 at 4:35 PM, OnWis97 said:

Yeah; it's not as bad as it used to be. I'm a bit outdated now but in the metrodome era, the Vikings would always be the "home" team overseas and I recall thinking that it was BS to have to eat two preseason games and then go to 7 regular season games.  So now, every-other year, it's a much better deal...I kinda forgot that there are not four preseason games anymore. That said, I still don't like the idea of not having a reward for the #1 seed (well, their choice of uniforms) and not having season-ticket-holders get to go without traveling.

 

I know you are a season ticket holder so your reaction matters more than mine (seriously, in case that seems sarcastic).  

So while my argument turns out to be outdated, I still think moving that game to a neutral site would stink.

I just saw a note that the Bears are keeping their prices the same for next year, but that glosses over the fact that they will have 8 regular season and 2 pre-season games, as opposed to this year's 9 and 1. Does anyone know if they charged the same for pre-season as regular season this year?

[this probably belongs in 2023 off-season, but it lines up with this discussion]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

Yeah; it's not as bad as it used to be. I'm a bit outdated now but in the metrodome era, the Vikings would always be the "home" team overseas and I recall thinking that it was BS to have to eat two preseason games and then go to 7 regular season games.  So now, every-other year, it's a much better deal...I kinda forgot that there are not four preseason games anymore. That said, I still don't like the idea of not having a reward for the #1 seed (well, their choice of uniforms) and not having season-ticket-holders get to go without traveling.

 

I know you are a season ticket holder so your reaction matters more than mine (seriously, in case that seems sarcastic).  

So while my argument turns out to be outdated, I still think moving that game to a neutral site would stink.

Agreed all around. Thanks for the 'no sarcasm' comment, but I didn't take it that way.

While I COULD get tickets to a neutral site game, I'm guaranteed mine if this doesn't happen. It sucks, but it will make more money if/when it happens.

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

If that happens, it's at least going to  have to wait until Aaron Rodgers retires. And even then, the idea of an NFC Championship game not being able to be held at LAMBEAU FIELD! might be beyond the pale.

 

All that aside, it's stupid. I would never be an NFL season ticket holder. They stick you with preseason games and take the occasional regular season home game overseas.* If they took away the opportunity to have this enormous game at home, I'd give up my (non-existent) tickets.

 

*Maybe not as big of a problem if the extra home game is moved, but the idea of going to 7 games on top of two junk games always pissed me off.  On the other hand, the NFL has such a captive audience, such money-making schemes are viable.

When you have an extra home game (under the current scenario with 17 games) you only have one home pre-season game. If one of your games has gone overseas, you don't pay for that game in your season ticket invoice.

As it relates to GB, the two season ticket holder bases flip on who gets the added game. It was supposed to belong to Milwaukee this year, but it got moved overseas, so they'll presumably get it in 2024. When that happens, it's the Green Bay base that gets stuck with the single pre-season game.

Prices have changed in recent years, so that the nominal price of the pre-season game is lower than the regular season games. That's actually made it easier to sell those tickets. I won't be happy if/when this happens, but I'm not gonna get worked up over something that hasn't happened yet.

13 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

If you were watching the NFL playoffs on Fox this weekend, you probably saw quite a few ads promoting season two of the USFL, which starts in April.

 

One of the ads caught my eye because of its use of footage from the original USFL. One of my biggest disappointments with the new league's first season was how it was completely devoid of references to the original league, likely due to a lawsuit brought by owners of the original league claiming Fox was using its trademarks without permission. 

 

In news I never saw until now, Fox settled that lawsuit in August, and the ads promoting the new season are the first indication that it will be referencing more of the USFL's history in the season ahead.

 

I'm glad to see this. Nostalgia for the original USFL is one of this league's biggest selling points. Watching game broadcasts that seemed to go out of the way to avoid discussing its history made the whole thing feel incomplete. 

I noticed that. I also got a kick out of their shot at the XFL, saying that the USFL wasn't a 'Hollywood creation'. Hello, Rock!

3 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

Which every Super Bowl/destination city has. Which makes this a non-issue. Green Bay would the one of the only cities towns with this problem.

Sure - but also eliminated due to weather are New England, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, among possibly others.

Glad to see I hit a nerve

35 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

But I don't see how it would generate more revenue than the current system.  Playoff gate is shared (after operating expenses), so there's no difference between a neutral site  other than if the host cities have to bid (i.e. pay the league) to host.

 

So unless I'm missing something big (which is possible), I'm not sure why owners would even want it due to potential competitive advantages some teams could have -

 

Currently there's what - 6ish cities in the SB rotation?  So despite it happening twice in a row, it's still a very slim chance that a team would play the SB in its home stadium.  For neutral-site CGs, I'm assuming it'll be a similar rotation (maybe work in some of the domes in non-SB-caliber cities like Indy, Minn, Detroit).  So unless they host the AFC game in an NFC stadium and vice versa, the chances of a team playing a "neutral" game in its home stadium is much higher.  The teams who wouldn't be in the rotation (cold weather teams with outdoor stadiums) should be opposed to this.

 

 

Even though you're not missing anything, you're missing it.  Cities would bid for the ability to host, and would likely need sufficient hotel rooms and the like in order to bid.