09 NFL Discussion Thread

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 3, 2009, 5:02 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIF_ucHzbIk

I found a video showing the whole thing in regards to Harrison. At the 1:09 mark of the video they show the relevant part where Harrison starts to rush and Francisco dives at his knees. That is where Harrison pounds him down with one open hand, then lets him up and crushes him with another open hand that knocks him back 5 feet. At no point was there a punch involved.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 3, 2009, 5:08 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIF_ucHzbIk

I found a video showing the whole thing in regards to Harrison. At the 1:09 mark of the video they show the relevant part where Harrison starts to rush and Francisco dives at his knees. That is where Harrison pounds him down with one open hand, then lets him up and crushes him with another open hand that knocks him back 5 feet. At no point was there a punch involved.

I can't believe you are trying to justify that dudes bullshit. The dude "went" for his knees supposedly but didn't even make contact with Harrison, then Harrison hits him (open hand or not doesn't really matter), dude gets up and tries to walk away and gets hit again, gets up again and Harrison is still chasing after him and pushing him. He's acting like a thug, not a football player (there is a difference, even though it seems to be getting harder to tell) and that shouldn't be acceptable for someone that is paid as highly as him.

Not that I'm surprised, there are so many criminals in the NFL that should have 1)Never been accepted into the league, and 2)Still end up being able to continue playing in the league after they pull whatever stunt they pull (Moss is another good example.) At least a few teams seem to hold a high enough standard that they don't want these kinds of shitheels on their team.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 3, 2009, 5:28 pm

It is more and more obvious from your posts that you really do not follow football. That is probably why there is so much outcry about how poorly things are officiated after every SB.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 3, 2009, 5:35 pm

That's no secret, I said so myself. However, am I wrong in my understanding of the rules pertaining to aggression/violence in the sport (it not being acceptable)?

I don't care if the guys career would be ruined by getting hit in the legs, that doesn't give him a pass to act the way he did. You act professional and let the officials handle the situation the proper way.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 3, 2009, 5:56 pm

Intenianally trying to take out another players' at the knees is a no no. Take it like a pitcher firing a fastball at another guys head.

And yes, tempers will flare at times in a sport such as football. Competition, pressure and the emotional level are way up there. This is why being a head coach in the NFL is probably one of the harder jobs in all of sports.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 3, 2009, 6:17 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:There was also the whole stain on the Pats for blatantly cheating their way through the last decade too. What Sueven and the media people are looking at when they say "best franchise" is a variety of things which include, winning consistently, winning championships, having class owners, having class coaches, eliminating or refusing to draft people with major character issues, fan base, and the legacy of the team.

Looking at that as criteria, you can eliminate a couple of teams instantly. Patriots...not a chance with a classless coach and the massive cheating allegations. Not to mention they have had a run of 10 years total in franchise history...and that run was the decade marred with their admitted cheating. The Yankees definitely have the championships, but their ownership pretty much curses them to be viewed with disdain. They also had the late 70's-early 90's where they were garbage. Celtics would be a possibility....not sure to be honest about the hockey franchises. Green Bay would be the only other football franchise I would even think about listing there.

Except that to everyone without black and gold tinted glasses, the Steelers are among the dirtiest teams in Football. I consider that a wash against Bellichek's obvious cheating. Dirty play and or cheating, alone, do not get you a SB ring (just ask the current Cowboys). I am prepared to give them a pass on this to a degree, because of the ugly division they are in (all four teams are dick punching teams). Really, my only mark against the Steelers being "the" all time NFL team amounts to three things:

1) Despite opinion to the contrary, they do not have the largest fan base in all of sports. Yankies and Lakers have more fans. GB has a microscopic market and still has more fans. GB has more fans even during losing seasons, despite a microscopic market. I mean, the fucking waiting list for season tickets in GB is larger than the number of seats in the fucking stadium and the wait is longer than many of the posters here have been alive. What they share in common with both Denver and GB is that most of the fans are not fairweather fans, but I would argue that Pitt fans are less sportsmanlike than either of those two fanbases (which is admittedly not relavent to the subject we are discussing).

2) They do not have the most titles. They do not even have the most NFL titles. They certainly do not have the most rescent titles. They have two SB titles this decade (not easy to do) and one good stretch during the Steel Curtain era. The Celtics, Lakers, Yankies, and Packers have all had multiple eras of dominance in their franchise histories and have been competitive in more than half of the last century of play. What the Steelers do have is the most titles since the AFL merger, which is impressive, but other teams in other multiple sports have done better and in shittier markets (Redwings, Packers, ect) than Pittsburg. I would also argue that squeaking past Arizona and Seattle in the SB, with dubious officiating, (and getting blown out by San Fran a while back) as rescent history does not put them up with the ass whoopings dealt by, say San Fran or the Pats in their prime.

3) They lack the level of tradition of some of these other franchises. The fucking SB trophy is named after Vince Lombardi and the Stadium is named after Curly Lambeau. The people who have passed through Yankee Stadium are all imortal icons of baseball. If you asked the average person to name famous Steeler from the past, the answer you would get would probably be "Joe Green, Terry Bradshaw" and that would be it. The one steeler tradition that people know about is the terrible towels, which came after the most rescent packer tradition of the Lambeau leap. There are things done at Yankee Stadium and Lambeau that date back to 50 years ago or more in the team's history. The Packers are also the only team in the NFL to have remained under their original team name throughout their entire existance (which spans nine decades). Again, Pitt has some great traditions, but its a step behind these franchises.

So, basically, I am not trying to piss on Pitts cherios, but proclaiming them "teh greatestest evah!!!" is silly fandom, just as ridiculous as saying Favre is the best QB ever. He (like Pitt) is clearly high in the rankings, but it is equally clear that there have been and are better.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » February 3, 2009, 7:14 pm

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/20750560/

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2009, 9:07 pm

Thanks Jice for understanding what I'm getting at and making good points!

I don't agree that the Steelers are one of the dirtiest teams in football. They are a very physical team and sometimes they have guys cross the line, but I view most of their guys as clean, physical players. Hines Ward and Troy Polamalu are good examples. Admittedly they do have guys who sometimes cross the line, like Ike Taylor, but I don't think they're as dirty as, say, Rodney Harrison, or Jon Runyan, or the entirety of the Broncos offensive line for the past 15 years.

Regarding the fan base: I would agree with you that, in pure numbers, there are more Yankees and Lakers fans than there are Steelers fans. I also agree that the Packers have a following in Wisconsin that is every bit as passionate as the Steelers fans in and around Pittsburgh. I do not believe that the Packers have a national fan base that even approaches what the Steelers have. I've never seen a Packers bar in my life; I've seen a Steelers bar in every city I've ever been to. I've never seen Packers fans flood a road stadium; Steelers fans do it in any city which sells poorly enough to allow Pittsburghers to get their hands on the tickets. The Yankees and Lakers have large national fanbases-- almost certainly larger than the Steelers-- but I don't think that those national fanbases can approach the Steelers in terms of passion, knowledge, and loyalty. The Lakers also have a shitty local fanbase built more on celebrity than on passion. I will admit that Yankees fans in New York, and some of their diaspora, are excellent.

They do have the most Super Bowl titles. I understand that you may not find the distinction between Super Bowl titles and NFL titles compelling, but I think it's at least meaningful. It's much tougher to win a Super Bowl than it was to win an NFL championship by virtue of less competition, just as it was easier to win an NBA title before the ABA merged in, and just as it was easier to win an MLB championship before blacks were allowed to play. You'll notice that most teams with inflated title counts-- Yankees, Celtics, Packers-- won the majority of their titles in less competitive times. Since the NFL-AFL merger, the Steelers have won 6 titles; the Packers 1. I do think that the Steelers lack of success prior to the Steel Curtain era is a mark against them, but I also think it's totally fair to give greater weight to modern success than to pre-modern success. I also agree that the Cards and the Seahawks are not the most imposing Super Bowl opponents, but I'd also ask you to revisit just how impressive the Patriots wins were. Sure, beating the Rams as an underdog was impressive (although let's not forget that the Steelers win against Seattle came from a wild-card slot), but after that they squeaked by with 3 point wins against substantially inferior Panthers and Eagles teams before losing to a far less talented Giants squad.

You're right that Pittsburgh doesn't have the tradition and history of the Yankees and Packers. I just think that this is overshadowed by the fact that the Yankees have been poorly run since 1980 or so, despite IMMENSE financial advantages that the Steelers don't have, and are currently the kind of team where you assume they'll find some way to fuck up any success they stumble upon by virtue of their huge resources. Also, fair or not, it's worth pointing out that the Yankees have employed more than their share of prominent steroid abusers who got caught. Green Bay, on the other hand, has been a below average squad for the past 40 years with the exception of the Brett Favre era. While this certainly is a large and notable exception to their otherwise below average performance, I don't think that having one run of success, encompassing one Super Bowl win, led primarily by an exceptional player and an exceptional coach, really qualifies you for greatest franchise status. The franchises that really belong on top, in my view, are the ones that have an ownership and management strategy that allows them to be consistently successful regardless of who's cashing the paychecks, and that hasn't been the Packers. Saying that the Yankees or the Packers are the greatest is a slightly less extreme version of saying that Notre Dame is the greatest college football program in the country.

Also, I'm not a Pittsburgh fan, i'm a Philadelphia fan, and I was rooting for the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. So it's possible that my opinion is silly, but it's not because of the clouds of fandom.

Edit to add: James Harrison doesn't get much of the benefit of doubt with me. Let's recall a season or two ago, when Cedrick Wilson, marginal wide receiver, was charged with domestic violence and promptly released, followed shortly by James Harrison, star linebacker, being charged with domestic violence and retained. That one never sat well with me, and it's a mark against the generally high character that the Steelers as a franchise display. They're not unique in that one, though-- how'd Koren Robinson work out for the Packers?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 3, 2009, 9:43 pm

Well, a couple rebuttles here:
Packer presence at road games is quite massive. It is not unusual to see as many or more GB fans at an away game as home fans. Ask anyone who has had the packers visit. There is a good reason for this, as it is virtually impossible to get home seats sometimes. I think you are offbase on that assertion and my own experiences in going to away games since moving to Cali have both seen the Cheeseheads outnumber the Bolt Fans and Raider Nation. Also, there are not only Packer Bars, but Brett Favre Steak Houses and other packer related franchises throughout the midwest. Its not something you would get exposed to on the east coast, as much as the Pennsylvania stuff, so I understand that view.

Packers had four major eras of dominance, the 30s, the 50s, the Lombardi Era, and the Favre Era. Admittedly, the Favre era was the least successful and prolific and is crammed between two eras of suck, namely the Forest Gregg/Infante years and the forthcomming Thomson/Rodgers suckfest. It produced only two superbowls, and only one win. But before dismissing it out of hand, consider that this era was entirely post salary cap and produced only one losing season (year one of Ted Thomson), which is, if I am not mistaken, unequalled by any team in the post cap era. To the Steelers credit, they are one of the few other teams to make it to two (in the post cap era) SBs and they won both of theirs, but they have had some crappy seasons in that time frame as well. I would say that the divisions both teams are in are fairly equal, though until rescently, most of the North were always playoff contenders. If that, in your eyes, constitutes 40 "poor" years, then I don't think we are going to get anywhere in this discussion.

The Steelers ARE a dirty team, though far from the dirtiest. That is just how that division plays, though the AFC West and NFC East are probably worse. Outside of everyone in the North hating the fucking Vikings, the North plays their games pretty tough but clean. What passes for a day at the office for Taylor would be bitched about for years up in the NFC north. I think that is more a regional thing than anything else and when one team starts it the other tends to jump in and start with the cheap shit too, like what we saw in the SB. The key thing here is that most Steeler fans I am aquainted with are actually proud of it. Just look at a couple of the T Shirts posted last page. They eat that shit up. If you take that kind of mentality too far, you end up with Raider Nation before you know it. In GB, unless you are a Vikings fan, you are going to be treated pretty well when you come to visit. I don't know if the Steelers really have anything resembling a friendly rivalry, like the Packer Bear one (longest one in sports), as they seem to play every team like they hate them. I think that mentality got started with Cowher.

Anyhow, like I said, I am not disparaging Pitts place among the top sports franchises, but I think you cannot objectively call them the number one of all time, even if you are limiting the criteria only to the NFL. Also, I feel like you are changing gears on what constitutes a great franchise every time a point is brough up. I am operating under the assumption that you are considering all aspects, as in performance, tradition, and fan base. Correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2009, 10:15 pm

More good points, and the Packers do deserve credit for the longevity of the success of the Favre era. With regard to saying that the Pack have had a poor 40 years: Since 1968, and excluding the Favre years, the Pack is 160-211-9, with 2 playoff appearances and a 1-2 playoff record. I suppose it's not really fair to say that those 40 years have been poor, given the extended success under Favre, but this sure looks to me like a mediocre franchise with one highly successful regime.

The Steelers, in contrast, between the first season after the Steel Curtain and the first season of the Big Ben era, went 202-157-1, with 12 playoff appearances and a 9-12 playoff record. To me, that's a pretty stark difference.

I'll admit that I've never been to a Packers game, so I'm speaking from ignorance when I comment on their ability to fill up a road stadium. I'm also perfectly willing to accept that they're huge in the midwest, and perhaps some of my coastal bias is showing here (although the Steelers are a pretty solidly midwestern team as well). I will say that I've never seen a Packers bar or a Brett Favre steakhouse, and I've seen obvious Steelers bars in cities ranging from Washington DC to Los Angeles to Boise.

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on the physical v. dirty question. I'd be open to changing my mind if I saw some sort of empirical evidence, but I've watched a lot of Steelers games and I don't agree.

Obviously, you think the Pack are the top franchise in the NFL. Do you think that Pitt is #2?

Jice wrote:Also, I feel like you are changing gears on what constitutes a great franchise every time a point is brough up. I am operating under the assumption that you are considering all aspects, as in performance, tradition, and fan base. Correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

This is a fair point. The question is inherently hugely subjective, and I have an opinion, which means that I'm going to minimize certain facts and elevate others. It's not a question with a true answer, although I think that my answer is best, and I think that I'm being at least relatively consistent here. You're right about how I'm looking at it, although I would say that performance, tradition and fan base isn't an inclusive list of everything I think is important, but it'd be tough for me to put together a complete list of every factor that I think is relevant.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 3, 2009, 10:23 pm

Sueven wrote:
Jice wrote:Also, I feel like you are changing gears on what constitutes a great franchise every time a point is brough up. I am operating under the assumption that you are considering all aspects, as in performance, tradition, and fan base. Correct me if I am wrong on any of this.
This is a fair point. The question is inherently hugely subjective, and I have an opinion, which means that I'm going to minimize certain facts and elevate others. It's not a question with a true answer, although I think that my answer is best, and I think that I'm being at least relatively consistent here. You're right about how I'm looking at it, although I would say that performance, tradition and fan base isn't an inclusive list of everything I think is important, but it'd be tough for me to put together a complete list of every factor that I think is relevant.

This was the same point I was trying to make. You seemed to take it as some kind of personal attack though, which was amusing.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2009, 10:31 pm

That's almost too stupid to deserve a response, but it's getting one anyway.

I'm a pretty reasonable guy who's happy to take criticism from someone who's actually engaging in a conversation with me and contributing something. I have less patience for people contributing nothing who make asinine and obviously wrong points and then later claim that they meant something entirely different. What I meant was perfectly clear, Kilmoll and Jice seem to have had no trouble figuring it out.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 3, 2009, 11:16 pm

Sueven wrote:That's almost too stupid to deserve a response, but it's getting one anyway.

I'm a pretty reasonable guy who's happy to take criticism from someone who's actually engaging in a conversation with me and contributing something. I have less patience for people contributing nothing who make asinine and obviously wrong points and then later claim that they meant something entirely different. What I meant was perfectly clear, Kilmoll and Jice seem to have had no trouble figuring it out.

What were you actually basing your original post regarding the Steelers being the best franchise on? Look back at the responses you were receiving in regards to other teams which might qualify for that same tagline by whatever the other people would base it on. You eventually said that they were not getting your point, because they weren't basing it on the same thing you considered. Yet you then say that even your own qualifiers were essentially disqualified. Then you seem to take personal offense to someone that has been following the conversation trying to figure out exactly what you even intended to discuss in the first place. If you were looking to just discuss how one homer felt their team was better than another, see the story posted earlier in the thread about how <insert team name> is better than your team.

Based on the fanbase, I would never have chosen the Steelers. There are more Packer and Bears fans here than Steeler fans. (You mentioned the fan base in the original claim that there was no argument about how great the Steelers were) I could say the Cowboys were number one if you wanted to stick to football, but that would be the homer** in me basing all of my arguments on the popularity of the team in area in which I live. Should a smaller market really get a boost in the "best franchise ever" rankings? If it is that small of a market, there is probably not much else for the fans to flock to than their most successful local sports team.

How many Super Bowls have the Steelers and Patriots participated in since 2000? I believe the Patriots are 3-1, after being 3-0. The Steelers are 2-0. They have two more appearances to prove that they are better in that category. It all depends on what point you want to start tracking from...then again, the Patriots probably won all of their games through cheating.

It all boils down to what you want to actually consider when calling a team the best franchise ever. Do you want to go by merchandise sold? Do you want to go by total championships? Do you want to go by who sells their stadium out more consistently? The best this year? In the last decade? 20 years? The most home wins? The greatest fan presence on the road? The lowest total salary? The lowest number of felons? What?

That is the question I was asking in my original post. You seemed to contradict your own comments in that quoted section and later in the thread. It would have been nice if you would have just tried to answer the question rather than take offense to someone not understanding how you could say two different things in one post. I am sorry that you seem to only think the people responding are allowed to read your posts. Maybe you could just start using PM's once you find the person you would like to discuss things with. That would allow you to ignore the questions of others that might want to jump into the conversation.

**I am not a Cowboys fan.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2009, 11:42 pm

You eventually said that they were not getting your point, because they weren't basing it on the same thing you considered.

Well, I said that simply counting up titles and calling it a day wasn't what I was talking about. I was indicating that this is a subjective opinion, not an empirical fact. That seemed to clarify things pretty well.

Yet you then say that even your own qualifiers were essentially disqualified.

What does this even mean?

Then you seem to take personal offense to someone that has been following the conversation trying to figure out exactly what you even intended to discuss in the first place.

Looking back at your first post, I guess I can see how you were asking for me to clarify what I was talking about. At the time, I thought it was just a bunch of incoherent nonsense, and I would still think that if you hadn't explained to me what you were trying to get at. Asking a bunch of oversimplified questions that could easily be answered by the application of a little brainpower is a pretty poor way to make a point about internal consistency. You made three separate claims about what I said:

1. That I'm "looking at 2009 for the Steelers." While I'm including 2009 for the Steelers, I never said that I was looking at it exclusively, nor did I even imply so.
2. That "people cannot look at recent successful teams." I never said any such thing.
3. That teams that had "only had sustained success under one coach would not count." I sort of said this, saying that I wanted to see success under multiple coaches, but then you make this rejoinder about how this is inconsistent because I'm only talking about 2009 and mid-season coaching changes are rare, which suffers from the flaws that (a) I'm not only talking about 2009, that's a fiction that you invented in your head and (b) the Steelers did not make a midseason coaching change.

Then, after I made another post clearly indicating that I interpreted your post to mean that you believed I was only talking about 2009, you went ahead and posted a quote of mine which could have been twisted via unreasonable interpretation into saying such, leading me to believe that you simply didn't get what I was talking about. So... I'm sorry for misinterpreting your sarcastic and incoherent question. Next time, I promise that I'll try harder to think about what you might be saying if you promise to try harder to make coherent criticisms.

It all boils down to what you want to actually consider when calling a team the best franchise ever. Do you want to go by merchandise sold? Do you want to go by total championships? Do you want to go by who sells their stadium out more consistently? The best this year? In the last decade? 20 years? The most home wins? The greatest fan presence on the road? The lowest total salary? The lowest number of felons? What?

Well, this is the entire point of having the conversation. It's a subjective question, different people can take different factors into account, and can rationally argue about which factors should receive how much weight and so forth. It seems like you don't think that such subjective questions are worth discussing, because there's no right answer because one person might value recent Super Bowl wins and another might value fewest felons. OF COURSE there's no right answer, but that doesn't make it unworthy of discussion. If you think that it's not worth talking about, then don't talk about it.

You made some interesting points about how we should think about small market versus large market teams. That would have been a logical counterpoint in the first place, and is the kind of thing that I think makes this sort of discussion worth having. Similarly, my position (fairly clearly laid out) is that all titles mean something, but more recent titles mean more. You could have responded to that in any number of logical ways-- pointing out that several franchises have far more recent titles than the Steelers, for instance, or arguing that tradition is very important to the quality of a franchise and therefore older titles should not be devalued. That would have made sense. Instead, you skewed what I was saying into something I wasn't saying in order to create a false incoherence, and then got all pissy when I didn't respond by politely explaining myself.

I am sorry that you seem to only think the people responding are allowed to read your posts. Maybe you could just start using PM's once you find the person you would like to discuss things with. That would allow you to ignore the questions of others that might want to jump into the conversation.

Oh for christs sake. I never said anything remotely like this. I said that I wasn't going to bother to write well-thought-out responses to people who do nothing more than write a couple sarcastic lines that barely make sense. If I wanted to prevent others from reading my posts, I wouldn't fucking post them.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 3, 2009, 11:48 pm

It seems like Boogahz is trying to pick up where Midnyte left off. Not sure why!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 4, 2009, 12:25 am

Aslanna wrote:It seems like Boogahz is trying to pick up where Midnyte left off. Not sure why!

Trek · Post by **Trek** » February 4, 2009, 12:46 am

Eagles rule! Steelers drool!

Football sucks until next season

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 4, 2009, 1:28 am

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » February 4, 2009, 7:29 am

As an Eagles fan, i tend to see Cowboy's hats, jackets, and logo's everywhere i go. Every state i have been in has a good bunch of Cowboy fans. Its quite annoying, and listening to all of them claim that its "America's Team" just pisses me off even more.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 4, 2009, 12:26 pm

NFL wise, I would say that the Packers are probably the top all time franchise, with the Steelers and Cowboys being close behind. Current era I think you would have to give to the Patriots. The most prolific sports franchise of all time I think has to go to the Yankees, though it pains me to say it. There is more history and tradition with that team, plus they have better worldwide recognition down through the years than any other.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 4, 2009, 2:02 pm

I think the one thing you are missing in the arguments for franchise greatness revolve around one thing: the fans. Now, the fans have been discussed by you both, but not from a monetary standpoint, and that is the only way to judge a business...which a franchise is a business, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm a pittsburgh fan, and know that we do not have the revenue that other teams have, which is what Forbes measures against the "value" they put on a team each year. Its a useless thing to value a football team, because its really only worth what someone is willing to pay...but they do it anyway.

HERE are the 2008 figures (based after 2007 season). Now, don't use the estimated value of a team, use the REVENUE column. That's what matters.

A "great" franchise, or in other words, a great business, is the one that has the highest revenue. Which, every year in the past 30 or so (guessing on the time frame) is usually either Dallas or Washington. This is a good way to determine fan base as well. The more fans there are, the more jersey sales, the more junk sales, the more revenue. Obviously, there are economic factors as well, but for all intents in purposes, it proves the point that there is a larger money spending fan base for the top 3 teams than the rest.

On that link you will see that the Packers and Steelers have virtually the same revenue numbers. Which makes their businesses equal in that regards. Truly the greatest franchise in the NFL is the Redskins franchise, due to its money making power.

Of course, the argument can be made that my analogy is ignoring operating costs. Obviously, what an owner does with the money thier business makes is up to them...so I don't count a "good" or "bad" business owner against a franchise's greatness. But in the business of football...and all other businesses...Cash is King.

In closing, I consider the franchises of Green Bay and Chicago as fantastic franchises, steeped in history and greatness and pure meaning for the game. But, if trying to say a franchise is better than another...you must look at the money...not just at how long the season ticket waiting line is.

P.S. I'm trying to contribute to a debate that doesn't really matter...so I put this dribble together...enjoy!

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 4, 2009, 2:28 pm

Just curious, does this take into account the cost of living? For example, the cost of living in Washington DC is far and away more than it would be in Green Bay. I know our ticket prices over all are lower than the average in the NFL. We have had a sold out stadium for more years than I can remember and I seriously doubt that we'll ever not have a sold out stadium. If they raised ticket prices the people would still come.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 4, 2009, 2:30 pm

Wow... Had anyone even mentioned the Redskins yet?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 4, 2009, 2:31 pm

Fash wrote:Wow... Had anyone even mentioned the Redskins yet?

No, the discussion is about good franchises.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 4, 2009, 2:32 pm

It does not. It is pure dollars earned.

Again, ticket prices are a business decision by the owner...so its their problem to make more money or not.

Redskins tickets go up every year. The wait time here in DC for tickets is around 8 to 9 years. Much longer for "good" seats. The price for season tickets 3 rows from the back of the upper upper deck averages out to 67.50 per game, including preseason. That is without a parking pass, which is about 30 a game.

Obviously, the wait times on the cheap seats in DC are much less than Green Bay, Dallas, Jets, Giants wait times...but the franchise does make more money than any other.

All in all, the upper deck seats are a "reasonable" number. But if you are in the lower areas, the price is about double that.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » February 4, 2009, 3:00 pm

For a good breakdown of NFL teams (even if you disagree with the ordering of them) based on a critera to determine which franchise has the best fans (this was done in August, before they won the superbowl, and the "best fans" is a different debate than "best franchise"): http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview08 ... id=3530077

Green Bay is definitely in the upper tier of consecutive sell outs, but it's right along side the other teams being discussed here (yes, they have the smaller market).

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 5, 2009, 3:52 am

Funkmasterr wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:If someone did something they knew could destroy your career, then would you be apt to do something to hurt them?
Probably not, because that could have equal consequences, and it would be all my own fault. And judging by the way that the dude he was beating on was acting (scared and surprised, imo) I wouldn't say his intentions were to wreck anyone's career.

Funny how a "professional" acts like a criminal asshole and somehow that turns into me being racist, I you guys.

You have said you spit on someone and I believe I remember reading that you keyed someone's car. Both those incidents were done after an event far less extreme then someone trying to end your career. Doesn't that make your statement disingenuous?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 5, 2009, 11:18 am

Season's over!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 5, 2009, 11:48 am

Tyek wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:If someone did something they knew could destroy your career, then would you be apt to do something to hurt them?
Probably not, because that could have equal consequences, and it would be all my own fault. And judging by the way that the dude he was beating on was acting (scared and surprised, imo) I wouldn't say his intentions were to wreck anyone's career.

Funny how a "professional" acts like a criminal asshole and somehow that turns into me being racist, I you guys.
You have said you spit on someone and I believe I remember reading that you keyed someone's car. Both those incidents were done after an event far less extreme then someone trying to end your career. Doesn't that make your statement disingenuous?

No, cause had you read my last two posts in this thread instead of just reading what you want and then trying to annoy me, you would see my comment about your career being too important for your temper to wreck it. I have a terrible temper, but I put it aside at work because I've busted my ass too hard to get to where I'm at.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 5, 2009, 11:55 am

So it's ok to spit on someone on the street but not at work? Got it!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 5, 2009, 2:54 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I have a terrible temper, but I put it aside at work because I've busted my ass too hard to get to where I'm at.

No one likes a person with a bad temper. Fix it.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 5, 2009, 3:16 pm

To Kluden's argument:

Two points.

First, looking at the business aspects of a franchise is relevant, I suppose, although I only care about it to the extent that a franchise is solvent. Judging a franchise based solely on revenue makes a sort of sense if you're asking which franchise is best from a moneymaking perspective. I'm looking at this from a sports fans perspective, so I don't care that much. That makes sense-- you'll judge franchises differently if you're looking at them as businesses versus as sports teams.

Second, even looking at it from a purely business perspective, I think that your sole focus on revenue is mistaken. You're arguing that only revenue is important, and that we should ignore costs because costs are within the discretion of the owner. I think you're overlooking the fact that sometimes spending money is required to make money. For example, the Cowboys bring in a shitload of revenue. Let's assume (I'm making up facts) that they engage in extensive marketing campaigns that are far more expensive than those which any other team engages in. How do you disengage their high revenue stream from their high operating costs? Even if you're looking at this from a purely business angle, I think profitability and franchise value are at least as important as revenue.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 5, 2009, 5:20 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Tyek wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:If someone did something they knew could destroy your career, then would you be apt to do something to hurt them?
Probably not, because that could have equal consequences, and it would be all my own fault. And judging by the way that the dude he was beating on was acting (scared and surprised, imo) I wouldn't say his intentions were to wreck anyone's career.

Funny how a "professional" acts like a criminal asshole and somehow that turns into me being racist, I you guys.
You have said you spit on someone and I believe I remember reading that you keyed someone's car. Both those incidents were done after an event far less extreme then someone trying to end your career. Doesn't that make your statement disingenuous?
No, cause had you read my last two posts in this thread instead of just reading what you want and then trying to annoy me, you would see my comment about your career being too important for your temper to wreck it. I have a terrible temper, but I put it aside at work because I've busted my ass too hard to get to where I'm at.

I did read your posts and that was exactly my point. You were willing to risk an assault charge and possible jail time for some relatively small injustices. He may have thought the guy was ending his rather lucrative career. In the grand scheme of things, his outburst was far more understandable then the incidents you have cited were.

You come here and act like it is ok to harrass and threaten people on the street over stupid things. He was wrong to do what he did, and he got caught for it. He will probably pay a fine and possible suspension. You were lucky you did not get caught, or you may not be here typing your stupid thoughts.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 6, 2009, 5:48 am

And I do believe that this officially closes out the NFL 2008-2009 season.

=/
=\
=/
=\
=|
=0
=P --- --- -- -- \o/
=P --- --- -- --\o/grrr
=|
=D

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 6, 2009, 12:05 pm

Fuck that! Pro Bowl this weekend! THEN its over...

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » February 6, 2009, 12:30 pm

Kluden wrote:Fuck that! Pro Bowl this weekend! THEN its over...

The pro bowl did have more viewers than the NBA finals (2 years ago).

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » February 28, 2009, 9:17 pm

DAMN!!! $100-114 million for Albert Haynesworth???

He's good but thats a lot of coin for a lineman...damn the Redskins are throwing cash around.

With Cassel on the move to KC I wonder what happens to the Evil Empire if Brady gets hurt again next year. Him and Vrabel for a 2nd round pick seems a bargain...

Will Kellen Winslow be happy in Tampa? Who will be his QB?

Brian Dawkins a Broncorpse? It just doesn't seem right. Even Canelek has to agree!

Will T.O. be back in Dallas? If not where will he go?

So many questions and that doesn't even begin to touch on where does Detroit go from 0-16? 0-32 or will the Millen-less Lions finally turn into a football team?

And of course Winnow's most urgent subject: is Favre gone for good? And what about Warner?

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » February 28, 2009, 10:14 pm

So many questions and that doesn't even begin to touch on where does Detroit go from 0-16? 0-32 or will the Millen-less Lions finally turn into a football team?

If we get a left tackle with the first pick, we will win at least 4 games.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 2, 2009, 5:54 pm

Oy. Yeah, Dawkins to Denver is strange, but I liken it to John Lynch going there 5 years ago.

Small potatoes though--Denver has bigger problems in a not-so-popular and recently whining QB as well as a wideout who cannot seem to stay out of trouble with the popo. Glad they didn't get Cassel though--Coach Josh seems to want to force the evil empire into Broncoland quick and dirty-like.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 3, 2009, 5:54 pm

Since the Broncos seem to be going the "Cowboys route" to team unity, I almost welcome the rumored trade of Cutler to Cleveland for Brady Quinn and Shaun Rodgers.

Quinn is just DREAMY!!!

In other news, looks like Seattle got themselves a solid receiver in Hoosmanzanaaa. Now they need a #1 wideout!

Taylor released by the Skins.... guess he can finally trade in his cleats for some nice pink slippers...

In other news...looks like Tampa Bay may be more competitive this season...of course, they need a QB.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » March 3, 2009, 6:17 pm

Canelek wrote:Since the Broncos seem to be going the "Cowboys route" to team unity, I almost welcome the rumored trade of Cutler to Cleveland for Brady Quinn and Shaun Rodgers.

Quinn is just DREAMY!!!

In other news, looks like Seattle got themselves a solid receiver in Hoosmanzanaaa. Now they need a #1 wideout!

Taylor released by the Skins.... guess he can finally trade in his cleats for some nice pink slippers...

In other news...looks like Tampa Bay may be more competitive this season...of course, they need a QB.

Hmm...I see what you're saying with all the free agent signings, but I think Dawkins will provide some much needed leadership in the locker room for defense, which is something Dallas is definitely lacking. Of course, Brian Dawkins is one of the primary reasons I love the Eagles so much, and started watching football, so I may be a bit biased (I also refuse to change my avatar). Some of their other moves were typical Broncos, like picking up Buckhalter.

Good move by Seattle, I just wouldn't have done it if i was Houshmandzadeh, I do not think they'll have a competitive offense in the years he has left anymore than the Bengals would have. His other choice seemed to be the Vikings, which I guess has a worse QB situation.

Apparently Taylor was released because he wouldn't agree to a work out clause in his contract, as well as his productions/interest in football going way down. I think he's done in the NFL, but maybe he'll sign with someone for a few million.

Tampa Bay looks OK, I question how Derrick Ward will be on a team other than the Giants. Also, what happened with Jeff Garcia? He still seemed really good to me last year and the year before. I was already confused when they tried to get Brett Favre last year. Doesn't their D have big problems that weren't addressed in free agency?

As far as the Eagles go, I have no idea whats going on. I'm not sure if they're throwing away the current team, and going for people in the draft (we do have an shitton of picks since we traded down for picks 2 years in a row, multiple times), and if they are, why keep McNabb around? Why not trade him early in free agency for more picks? Also, if we are rebuilding, what is going on with Brian Westbrook? He's going to be on the tail end of his career by the time a new team is old enough to start being contenders.
If they're going to try and rebuild around McNabb, I feel like we missed the boat on some free agents, or they are just not available this year. I am still holding out hope for a 1st and 3rd rounder for Anquin Boldin to go through, but it's a very un-Eagle/Andy Reid style trade to happen. I'm pretty much OK with either at this point, as long as we don't lost another NFC championship for the same reasons we do every year.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 3, 2009, 6:50 pm

I think the Eagles would be silly to get rid of McNabb. He still has gas in the tank. Losing Dawkins hurts them to some extent, but everyone has to get younger at some point. Boldin would be a kickass score for them, but they still need another wideout to keep the d-backs honest. *If* the Eagles front office ponies up and gives McNabb the talent he wants, and their defense can remain solid, they will be competitive in 09.

Back to the AFC West--I am not seeing anything impressive, again. However, I am definately seeing an improved Broncos D, as long as Coach McJosh doesn't sacrifice the offense (which appears to be the path so far).

And here's to continued long life of Al Davis! Keep up the good work old man!

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » March 3, 2009, 7:05 pm

Canelek wrote:I think the Eagles would be silly to get rid of McNabb. He still has gas in the tank. Losing Dawkins hurts them to some extent, but everyone has to get younger at some point. Boldin would be a kickass score for them, but they still need another wideout to keep the d-backs honest. *If* the Eagles front office ponies up and gives McNabb the talent he wants, and their defense can remain solid, they will be competitive in 09.

McNabb definitely still has gas in the tank, but i'm not sure it's enough to deal with Philly fans/lackluster receivers again, without being a problem. I think Boldin would be enough, with DeSean Jackson and Kevin Curtis as backups (Curtis really did put up pretty good numbers, despite being injured most of the season. He's just not a #1 #2 reciever, but a great #3), but maybe they could draft someone else. The big problem I see is that we are going to have a new center, and new guards, which McNabb probably does not want to deal with.

The D really was not hurt much skill wise (who the F cares about Sean Considine, and Dawkins is getting older/breaking down), but leadership wise they have lost a ton of vets in the past couple years. I would think that they should still be able to play solid D, assuming we answer the question at safety. Our D Line and CBs are still going to be excellent, even if we don't have Lito Sheppard for the nickel.

Every year the Eagles do better than I thought they would, given the talent/players they have. It will probably happen again this year, even if they don't get McNabb any help at receiver. The future really does look pretty good, with the youngish D, and the fact that we have so many draft picks (woo tons of 2nd rounders too).

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 3, 2009, 8:13 pm

Oh, I forgot about DeSean Jackson. I got to see a bit of him in college since I am in Pac-10 land *sadface*.

Little fella, but definately has promise (as long as he keep the premature TD celebrations in check).

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 3, 2009, 8:13 pm

I think Dawk is a good pickup for the Broncos. He may not be performing as well as he did when he was younger, but he's still an above-average player, a good veteran presence, a hard worker, and a leader. The Broncos had one of the most pathetic defenses in the NFL last year; bringing in a prideful, hard-working guy like Dawkins should have a ripple effect across that side of the ball.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 3, 2009, 8:24 pm

That is what I am hoping. Plus, Dawkins is better in coverage than John Lynch ever was--not saying much there though!

Also, the broncos have not had a real leader-quality guy on defense (apologies to Champ) since Al Wilson....

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 4, 2009, 1:53 am

I love Dawkins and am sad to see him go. He has definately lost a step and JJ worked his scemes around backing him up and he was still burned many times last year. As far as being a leader in Bronco land, he definately couldnt hurt but outside of working hard im not sure how much of an emotional leader he can be in that situation. I just have a hard time seeing him pound his chest yelling BRONCOS!!! and getting anyone around him fired up. I hope he does well and glad he got 'paid', he deserves it. I understand why Philly didnt offer him that kind of money, but I am still sad he wont finish here.

I really hope the Eagles draft one of the stud TE, if they offer Thomas a 1 year deal to stick around that would solidify the OL nicely and Mcnabb will stay. They do need to draft a decent backup to Westbrook and of course need that dominant reciever even tho Jackson, Curtis and Avant are solid. People seem down on Avant, he really came through when he had to, no speed, but he did get open on a lot of 3rd downs and I dont recal him dropping many catchable passes.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » March 4, 2009, 4:18 am

They signed Andrews brother to a 6 year deal, who also plays O line.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 4, 2009, 2:22 pm

Aardor wrote:They signed Andrews brother to a 6 year deal, who also plays O line.

1 injured Andrews does not equal Tra Thomas and Runyan. Dont get me wrong, I think it is a good signing, but it does not fix the O-line and is why I mentioned the still need to sign Thomas for a year, unless you would rather they draft OL and let the good TE get away. Mcnabb is going to want to be confident in that line and have some good targets out there before he signs....I dont blame him at this point.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 9, 2009, 5:56 pm

Now that Tra has signed with the Jags that O-line doesnt look very good to me. I am quite suprised that Thomas, Runyun and Dawkins were all left to walk. I really hope they do something soon via trade otherwise I see Mcnabb bolting and I am not to excited to see the Kolb era. Pretty disappointed so far, Eagles came so close and have a lot of cap.