2015-2016 NFL Season Thread

[Peace]

It's hard to say they will have deserved it when they played 3 quarters of crap against the Vikings and for all intents and purposes, absolutely should not have won.

Let's go through this one more time.

In football the objective is to have more points than the other team at the end of the game. If that happens you get whats called a victory. Or a win.

If your team falls short of this objective you get whats called a loss.

At the end of 4 quarters Seattle had 10 points while the Vikings had 9.

 

[pachyderm]

now now no need to fight over hate, there is enough hate to go around for both teams, I think most of America will be happy when the 2 get eliminated. Most of the bandwagon fans in Seattle won't really care since they've only been following the team since 2013 or so.

the pats don't bother me half as much as the seahags, steelers and ravens. if the pats would get rid of that stupid a-ss uniform and go back to the classic one from the 70's i'd probably love them!

 

[nrvna76]

the pats don't bother me half as much as the seahags, steelers and ravens. if the pats would get rid of that stupid a-ss uniform and go back to the classic one from the 70's i'd probably love them!

I've heard a lot of hate for the pats since 2007, but hating the uniforms is a new one for me! Haha

 

[td1439]

the pats don't bother me half as much as the seahags, steelers and ravens. if the pats would get rid of that stupid a-ss uniform and go back to the classic one from the 70's i'd probably love them!

Yeah, the old uni was way better.

 

[puma1552]

Let's go through this one more time.

In football the objective is to have more points than the other team at the end of the game. If that happens you get whats called a victory. Or a win.

If your team falls short of this objective you get whats called a loss.

At the end of 4 quarters Seattle had 10 points while the Vikings had 9.

sorry but in spite of your patronizing condescention, the seahawks played worse than the vikings throughout, and despite a win, would not "deserve" to be in the superbowl, as you put it.

they didnt even winin the last second by forcing a turnover or doing any work. they literally did nothing in the final seconds to get a win instead of a loss.

seahawks suck, what an exciting superbowl a third in a row would be to watch

/sarcasm

 

[Sydde]

sorry but in spite of your patronizing condescention, the seahawks played worse than the vikings throughout, and despite a win, would not "deserve" to be in the superbowl, as you put it.

AP: 45 yards (avg 2/carry), nearly 3 times what he got last time against Seattle but less than half his game average. Plus, of course, the cough-up in the 4th that facilitated Seattle's go-ahead score.

Seattle made it into the endzone, Minnesota did not. I call that being the better team.

And it is not quite clear that the Hawks "did nothing". On the previous field goal, Sherman fogged the ball with his breath, just missing the block; he came in from the right side. On the last kick, which was into the stiff wind, the kicker shanked it left. He had that image of Sherman burned in his memory, he was afraid of a block.

Minnesota had the wind behind them for much of the game, and all they got out of that was FGs. Seattle got the wind behind them in the 4th, and they were able to turn that into good points. Enough to win.

Minnesota was not by any meaningful measure the better team. Plus, their luck was not good.

 

[Peace]

sorry but in spite of your patronizing condescention, the seahawks played worse than the vikings throughout, and despite a win, would not "deserve" to be in the superbowl, as you put it.

they didnt even winin the last second by forcing a turnover or doing any work. they literally did nothing in the final seconds to get a win instead of a loss.

seahawks suck, what an exciting superbowl a third in a row would be to watch

/sarcasm

Sure they did.

They had 10 points. Vikings only had 9.

 

[iLog.Genius]

...And with a 30-2 vote, the Rams are going back to Los Angeles!

As a fan not residing in St. Louis, or in the United States for that matter, this news doesn't affect me. There are a lot of things I want to say regarding both sides but will wait and chime in as as people start to post their opinions.

The only question that I haven't been able to find an answer to is that this happened only if the Rams had a partner (the Rams can't do it alone?). The Chargers get first crack at negotiating a lease term with the Rams but if that falls through, the Raiders get an opportunity. If that also fails, what happens to the proposal? Can the Rams still move to L.A. or is that contingent on finding a partner?

EDIT: Rams move is not contingent on finding a partner. San Diego has the option to join them if they wish.

 

[AustinIllini]

Isn't it that the Rams are going and the Chargers have the first option to join them?

The Raiders aren't happy. They're about to use San Antonio as leverage.

 

[iLog.Genius]

Isn't it that the Rams are going and the Chargers have the first option to join them?

The Raiders aren't happy. They're about to use San Antonio as leverage.

Correct. The Chargers get first crack at joining the Rams which will likely happen because the Chargers had the best odds of leaving over the Rams and Raiders.

I wouldn't hold my breath for a NFL franchise in San Antonio. If it took this long to get a team back to Los Angeles, I could imagine how long it will take for San Antonio to prepare for a NFL team.

 

[yg17]

Meh. Good riddance, I didn't want my tax dollars paying for a new stadium for some rich jerkoff with Wal-Mart money. Stan Kroenke can still go **** himself though

 

[AustinIllini]

Correct. The Chargers get first crack at joining the Rams which will likely happen because the Chargers had the best odds of leaving over the Rams and Raiders.

I wouldn't hold my breath for a NFL franchise in San Antonio. If it took this long to get a team back to Los Angeles, I could imagine how long it will take for San Antonio to prepare for a NFL team.

No way a team goes to San Antonio, however San Antonio is the new bargaining chip like Los Angeles was for the better part of two decades.

 

[iLog.Genius]

No way a team goes to San Antonio, however San Antonio is the new bargaining chip like Los Angeles was for the better part of two decades.

Do the Raiders have the same issues as the Chargers and Rams? Of the 3, I know the Chargers and Rams really want out. Raiders, not too sure.

 

[AustinIllini]

Do the Raiders have the same issues as the Chargers and Rams? Of the 3, I know the Chargers and Rams really want out. Raiders, not too sure.

The Raiders absolutely want out. The team feels it needs a new stadium

 

[citizenzen]

They seem so whiney when things don't go their way. I don't mean just in the SB, but when a game or even a play doesn't go their way, they seem to be behave like spoiled children not getting their way - just my $.02

I don't quite see that. I may hate the Seahawks, but that's just because they've been dominating my 49ers. And I HATE Richard Sherman, because he thinks he's such hot **** and can't stop talking about it.

But overall they don't seem any more whiney than other teams. Maybe I just haven't been listening closely enough. Hopefully, if they lose in the playoffs, I'll be able to hear them whimper a little then.

 

[td1439]

And I HATE Richard Sherman, because he thinks he's such hot **** and can't stop talking about it.

I actually like Sherman. Yeah, he talks a lot of trash, but it's clear he's pretty smart, and he's not afraid to call out Roger the Dunce, which ought to happen a lot more than it does.

 

[bigjnyc]

this must be tough on any die hard Rams fans in St. Louis, I can't even imagine what it would feel like if my team up and left to another city from one season to another. Must be a horrible feeling.... So any Rams fans here? what do you do? Start rooting for the chiefs, who is probably a hated cross state rival, or do you follow the Rams and become an LA Rams fan even though the team pretty much abandoned you?

 

[Possumgal]

If you don't have a hometown team, you're free to root for whomever you want without repercussions. Of course, you're free to do so anyway, just have to keep your head down in certain situations.

And remember, the Rams were in LA before they came to St. Louis. And so it goes....

 

[iLog.Genius]

this must be tough on any die hard Rams fans in St. Louis, I can't even imagine what it would feel like if my team up and left to another city from one season to another. Must be a horrible feeling.... So any Rams fans here? what do you do? Start rooting for the chiefs, who is probably a hated cross state rival, or do you follow the Rams and become an LA Rams fan even though the team pretty much abandoned you?

Rams fan but don't reside in St. Louis or in Missouri for that matter so not really affected. I support the product. I hope the Rams go back to their throwbacks in some fashion - original or updated. Todd Gurley looked good in the throwback's when he was running over everyone.

 

[fiddysent]

If you don't have a hometown team, you're free to root for whomever you want without repercussions. Of course, you're free to do so anyway, just have to keep your head down in certain situations.

And remember, the Rams were in LA before they came to St. Louis. And so it goes....

Cleveland, then LA, then St Louis and now back to LA. Also remember the Cardinals were originally from St Lou before relocating to AZ.

 

[maflynn]

Looks like the Browns have a new coach. Hue Jackson, funny right below that (on cnn I think) mentioned that Jackson is not keen on keeping Johnny football. Which is no surprise of course.

 

[puma1552]

There should be a one team limit per state, per sport.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Looks like the Browns have a new coach. Hue Jackson, funny right below that (on cnn I think) mentioned that Jackson is not keen on keeping Johnny football. Which is no surprise of course.

Johnny Football is the next Ryan Leaf.
[doublepost=1452713550][/doublepost]

There should be a one team limit per state, per sport.

A state the size of California or Texas should be limited to one team? Why?

 

[puma1552]

Johnny Football is the next Ryan Leaf.
[doublepost=1452713550][/doublepost]

A state the size of California or Texas should be limited to one team? Why?

Why would size or population matter? The team isn't your congressman representing you and your interests on Capitol Hill.

I just think it's stupid that as per usual the big market areas have 2-3 teams (if not more) whereas lots of states have zero teams. Why does California need FIVE baseball teams? Why does NY (and NYC at that) need 2 basketball teams?

It just seems pointless IMO. It's like a continuing perennial BJ to the big market areas.

 

[maflynn]

ohnny Football is the next Ryan Leaf.

Appears to be the case, but with Leaf, the fall was so much more dramatic. I think people's expectation of Manziel was so low, that his flame out was not that surprising.