Arena The Official NFL Discussion Thread (Now Featuring Time's Person of the Year, Taylor Swift!)

Week 7 injury round up.

Joe Vitt's suspension offically over, assumes Interim HC duties immediately.

Jim Nantz error near end of Pats/Jets game.

Panthers GM fired.

Chuck Pagano is out of the hospital, resting at home.

 

Brady Quinn is replacing Matt Cassel as KCs starter. Thank God. It's not that Quinn will be much better. Hopefully out record still winds up low enough for us to draft a QB high. It's more that it means the awful and ridiculously long Matt Cassel era is finally officially over.

 

And the Giants rub it in even more by appearing on WWE RAW.

 

That's awesome. Sometimes I wished I still watched wrestling like I used to.

 

Dang, double post. Hate the current Pro Bowl setup anyway with the game one week before the Super Bowl. It's like who cares.

 

I also do want to eliminate two preseason games like Goodell suggests. They cost the same amount of money, but mean absolutely nothing.

 

They mean something to the players trying to make the squad. I think the schedule should remain exactly like it is, with the possible exception of eliminating the Thursday night games. The quick turn around from having just played Sunday is making players more susceptible to injuries. If they absolutely have to have the Thursday night games, then it should be between two teams coming off a bye week.

EDIT: And I'm also not sure about the annual London game anymore. The "home" team's city is getting screwed economically, with local businesses not getting that boost at places like bars and restaurants that are near the stadium - not to mention the folks that work at the stadium. Does anyone know if they get compensated?

 

i really doubt it DT. and the bars and such definitely don't. i've been against the london game for that reason from the start of it. and i hate, hate, hate the thursday night games. they've been driving me nuts since they started doing them.

but definitely keep the preseason games. they need the time to evaluate borderline players, and there really isn't any substitute for game time. even if it's preseason games.

 

This has been one of my thoughts about the Thursday night games ever since their inception: Since it's been made pretty clear that the Thursday night games are the beginning of the next NFL week, then the teams that play that game should have their BYE the weekend before to allow them the extra time that playing a Sunday/Monday game and then turning around and playing a Thursday nighter doesn't allow them to have as it stands now.

That or eliminate it altogether.

Edit: Oh and Nate Burleson broke his leg and has to have surgery on it.

 

yea, but what do you do for the teams that appear multiple times on thursday night?

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8539668/roger-goodell-says-nfl-drop-pro-bowl

As for a franchise abroad, he added: "I wouldn't at all be surprised some day to see us have a team in London."

London Jaguars in 2015.

 

London better not get a goddamn team before L.A. does... really, that better not happen.

 

Does LA really need a team? It seems like every time it happens nothing works out. I know they are due again but LA is a city of transplants that have other loyalties.

 

There's no problem with playing 4 preseason games. There's a problem with charging the same as the regular season for the tickets. Then forcing season ticketholders to buy them. Of course people don't like them in those circumstances, Roger.

But a lot of fans like myself do find them valuable for getting to evaluate the depth of the team. Obviously that's true for coaches but big fans care about who the backups are. And it certainly matters to young players. We had a guy who is now in the starting lineup because as an undrafted rookie he went out and played his heart out in the fourth quarter of a preseason game. He never would have had that shot if they weren't putting lots of people in

 

Despite the perceptions, this is a very great sports town. Despite the expected fair weathered fans (which sports city doesn't have that?), you've got your large contingents of Laker fans (this is a Laker town after all), Dodger fans, USC fans, etc. There are many, many fans of the NFL out here... of course, many root for so many different teams, but I do believe a L.A. NFL franchise would get the necessary support. Would it take sometime to build up that support to Laker/Dodger/USC/UCLA levels? Naturally, but it would work, especially if the location is Farmers Field in Downtown... the Staples Center, and then the L.A. Live complex has been an incredible plus economically & culturally here in La La Land. Farmers Field would only add to that.

 

Sorry but LA is in no way, shape, or form a sports town. It's a huge metro area so yeah there are a lot of fans numerically... but the percentage is staggeringly small. I see more people in the 2 million person KC area with Royals stuff than I ever see Dodgers or Lakers stuff in LA. And that's the freaking Royals

Yeah LA has two pretty consistently good pro teams. And USC (blech) for football. But that isn't the same thing as being a sports town. I'm from a sports town, and this isn't one.

Having said that, I think an NFL team would do fine in LA just because there are so many people that you don't have to have a huge percentage to have a large number of fans.

 

I understand/accept the fact that L.A. isn't the same type of sports town as many other municipalities in the nation, but I can assure you that your claim that L.A. isn't a "sports town" is ridiculous. I see/have seen Laker & Dodger shirts all the time (ie: my entire life, since I haven't lived anywhere else), with Angel shirts (sadly ) mixed in. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

on LA needing a team, i don't really think they do. it'd be a case of the rich getting richer. financially it would make sense... if the same thing that's happened the last two times doesn't happen again. there IS a bit of a trend forming for LA football teams for whatever reason. maybe it's what you said about them already cheering for so many other teams it's hard to find any traction, and actually get people to change their allegiances. probably in most cases allegiances they've had for years. most people don't just drop that kind of thing.

just my two cents.

 

Fuijta's done for the year.

 

Cowboys leading tackle done for year.

 

The thing people outside LA don't seem to realize though is just how much of a foregone conclusion an NFL team is here. I mean, the plans for Farmer's Field are being pushed hard. It really feels like that's going to happen.... so uh, hopefully they actually get a team?

 

Sure, we don't need a team (and certainly the NFL has done just fine without an L.A. franchise for almost 20 years now), but I think it's ridiculously embarrassing that this city has gone this long without one, considering the history of the NFL here (the Rams long history, the Raiders winning Super Bowl XVIII as the L.A. Raiders, the first AFL/NFL title game (ie: Super Bowl I) being played at the Coliseum, and the 6 Super Bowls that followed in the L.A. metro region). The reason why perhaps the Rams & Raiders departure hasn't resonated nationally (and even here in L.A.) as the Colts move in to Indianapolis in 1984 or the Browns relocation after the 1995 season (and even if it did, the L.A. NFL departure would rank below those 2, but still) is the context of when the Raiders/Rams bolted out of town: the winter of 1994 was a mere 2+ years following the 1992 (Rodney King) riots, little over a year after a series of devastating wildfires, a few months after the Northridge earthquake (that I slept through! ), and right in the middle of the O.J. Simpson cultural fiasco (the trial began in late January of 1995). Obviously it meant something on a certain level after the Raiders/Rams left, but it would have been a much bigger deal (in my humble opinion) if say the move out of town had happened without all of that going on (what a time to grow up here in La La Land... a huge, huge reason why I watch as much news as I do, and why I love disaster movies. ). It really shouldn't be almost 20 years now without the NFL, but it is what is. And I also do wonder how many people there are out here who are like me: very much like the sport/follow it, but don't have a specific team to root for until that team has got 'L.A.' in the name.

 

On the flipside I wonder how many people are like me and aren't from LA originally and thus will never root for an LA NFL team anyway because we already have other loyalties. Or the remaining large number of Raiders fans.

 

I'd imagine that you/they would still watch to a certain degree, as I would imagine (well, hope) that curiosity would be a factor.

 

As someone who relocated to a new town full of sports options, but will preexisting sports loyalties, I think I can address that.

I've been to four of the five major sports teams live since moving here (just missing a Broncos game, and only because they are damn expensive). I've found myself moderately rooting for the Avalanche (although, coincidentally, they were the NHL team I adopted before doing a quasi NHL divorce after the last lockout), not rooting against the Nuggets or Rockies, rooting against the Broncos, and hating the Rapids.

Yet, being a sports fan, I can't help but follow the teams in this city and being interested in how they do. Love them or hate them, I want to see how they do.

I think it'd be the same thing in LA. Someone who has deep ties to their existing team is still going to want to follow the LA NFL team. Some will hate the team. Some will feel apathetic. Some will learn to love it. Yet, just about all will follow, and just about all will want to attend a game to get the in-stadium experience.