2013 NFL Football

[GangGreen]

Agreed...how 'bout them Birds, though. Gotta admit, I didn't have much in the way of expectations this year and all but wrote them off earlier. Not that I expect them to go far if they make the playoffs this year, but it's nice to at least be talking about the possibility. Feeling good about the Bears tonight too, this about the time of the year that the Cowboys start imploding!!!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Foles got a very favorable call yesterday on a roughing the passer call. I would have never called that, but I'll take it.

I guess it depends on what color your laundry is.

Agreed...how 'bout them Birds, though. Gotta admit, I didn't have much in the way of expectations this year and all but wrote them off earlier. Not that I expect them to go far if they make the playoffs this year, but it's nice to at least be talking about the possibility. Feeling good about the Bears tonight too, this about the time of the year that the Cowboys start imploding!!!

Yeah... with wind chill it's supposed feel like about 2° at game time.  Good luck to the fair weather Cowboys.

That said, nobody really likes playing in that sort of weather.  17° with an 11 mph breeze and no sun to mitigate the cold.  That's just nasty.

[GangGreen]

You know it!!! That's what surprises me the most about the NFL's decision to have NY host a Super Bowl.

[newtogolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yeah... with wind chill it's supposed feel like about 2° at game time.  Good luck to the fair weather Cowboys.

That said, nobody really likes playing in that sort of weather.  17° with an 11 mph breeze and no sun to mitigate the cold.  That's just nasty.

You know it!!! That's what surprises me the most about the NFL's decision to have NY host a Super Bowl.

A Super Bowl in NY is a bad idea.  I went to the Jets-Miami game last week and despite being dressed warmly and temps in the 40's everyone was still cold.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to incur the expense of attending the game given the traffic and poor weather that time of year.  If we get any snow or inclement weather it's going to be a complete nightmare.   I may go to Florida that week just to be completely away from the area.

[Golfingdad]

A Super Bowl in NY is a bad idea.  I went to the Jets-Miami game last week and despite being dressed warmly and temps in the 40's everyone was still cold.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to incur the expense of attending the game given the traffic and poor weather that time of year.  If we get any snow or inclement weather it's going to be a complete nightmare.   I may go to Florida that week just to be completely away from the area.

Just remember that the only thing different here is the weather at the actual game.  Just for those 4 hours, if it happens to be really cold, or rainy or snowy, will they get much flak for this decision.  Detroit has hosted 2 Super Bowls, Minnesota 1, and Indianapolis 1 as well.  Traffic is going to be bad at every Super Bowl every year everywhere.  Weather outside may suck at any of those venues.  Not to mention the chance of rain at all of the Florida games.

Everything about having a Super Bowl in New York makes perfect sense ... except for the possibility of bad weather DURING the game.  If it turned out to be anything like yesterday's Philly game, then they probably will never have another cold weather outdoor Super Bowl again.

PS.  Regarding your last comment ... you may want to look into renting your house for the week.  My wife's cousin and her husband live in Hoboken and they are already seeing people in their area getting promises of several thousand dollars for the week.  And these are people with condos smaller than their house.  He's pretty confident that they can rent their house for upwards of 10k for the week!

[saevel25]

Just remember that the only thing different here is the weather at the actual game.  Just for those 4 hours, if it happens to be really cold, or rainy or snowy, will they get much flak for this decision.  Detroit has hosted 2 Super Bowls, Minnesota 1, and Indianapolis 1 as well.  Traffic is going to be bad at every Super Bowl every year everywhere.  Weather outside may suck at any of those venues.  Not to mention the chance of rain at all of the Florida games.

Everything about having a Super Bowl in New York makes perfect sense ... except for the possibility of bad weather DURING the game.  If it turned out to be anything like yesterday's Philly game, then they probably will never have another cold weather outdoor Super Bowl again.

PS.  Regarding your last comment ... you may want to look into renting your house for the week.  My wife's cousin and her husband live in Hoboken and they are already seeing people in their area getting promises of several thousand dollars for the week.  And these are people with condos smaller than their house.  He's pretty confident that they can rent their house for upwards of 10k for the week!

True about the traffic. Traffic jams are not bad, but accidents caused by snow and ice are no joke.  If you get a good freeway close to volume capacity and then get hit with drifting snow, or ice. That is a serious safety issue.

We had our first snow and ice in Dayton over the weekend. Already talked about a few people dying because they hit a semi. That was on a normal roadway volume. I don't want to see super bowl volume of traffic + NE weather.

[newtogolf]

Just remember that the only thing different here is the weather at the actual game.  Just for those 4 hours, if it happens to be really cold, or rainy or snowy, will they get much flak for this decision.  Detroit has hosted 2 Super Bowls, Minnesota 1, and Indianapolis 1 as well.  Traffic is going to be bad at every Super Bowl every year everywhere.  Weather outside may suck at any of those venues.  Not to mention the chance of rain at all of the Florida games.

Everything about having a Super Bowl in New York makes perfect sense ... except for the possibility of bad weather DURING the game.  If it turned out to be anything like yesterday's Philly game, then they probably will never have another cold weather outdoor Super Bowl again.

PS.  Regarding your last comment ... you may want to look into renting your house for the week.  My wife's cousin and her husband live in Hoboken and they are already seeing people in their area getting promises of several thousand dollars for the week.  And these are people with condos smaller than their house.  He's pretty confident that they can rent their house for upwards of 10k for the week!

I don't know how it is during games at other stadiums but I live about 60 miles from Metlife Stadium and after a Jet game it takes about 3.5 hours to get home if I stay until the end of the game.  It can take over an hour just to get out of some of the parking lots and that's during a regular season game, I can't imagine what it will be like for the Super Bowl and bad weather.

I live too far away from MetLife or the city to rent out my house but I'm sure those closer to the city will consider it for that kind of money.  Only concern is what will be left of your house after people party in it for a week.  That's the real problem, where MetLife is located, there isn't enough infrastructure to support a SuperBowl.  Everyone will have to stay in or near NY City and commute to the game.  If there's snow or ice, it's going to be a complete debacle.

[RonTheSavage]

There were questionable calls on both sides yesterday. The Seahawks are the second most penalized team in the NFL for a reason, and the Niner home field advantage yesterday had nothing to do with that. The ref had no business putting his hands on Boldin, BUT Boldin has to be smarter than that. But if thats your beef fine, re watch the Superbowl last year when a Ravens DB who now plays for Philly did the same exact thing and no flag was thrown. I guess it happens............ From the Seattle Times that sums it up pretty well Every Monday, the day referred to as “tell the truth Monday,” the Seahawks go over film and poke at problems from their most recent game. A common topic this season: penalties. As in, too many of them. Here’s the truth from Sunday’s 19-17 loss against San Francisco, a defeat that doesn’t derail Seattle from its larger goals but still stings: The Seahawks lost in large part because they had too many penalties in too many critical moments. They were penalized nine times for 85 yards; the 49ers had seven penalties for 70 yards. “We’ve been talking about penalties, and the head coach has done a real good job emphasizing them, more than he’s ever done,” linebackers coach Ken Norton Jr. said. “And we still are 31st in the league in penalties. If we want to win the close games, we have to play smart football and not just give the game away from dumb penalties.”

[Golfingdad]

True about the traffic. Traffic jams are not bad, but accidents caused by snow and ice are no joke.  If you get a good freeway close to volume capacity and then get hit with drifting snow, or ice. That is a serious safety issue.

We had our first snow and ice in Dayton over the weekend. Already talked about a few people dying because they hit a semi. That was on a normal roadway volume. I don't want to see super bowl volume of traffic + NE weather.

I don't know how it is during games at other stadiums but I live about 60 miles from Metlife Stadium and after a Jet game it takes about 3.5 hours to get home if I stay until the end of the game.  It can take over an hour just to get out of some of the parking lots and that's during a regular season game, I can't imagine what it will be like for the Super Bowl and bad weather.

I live too far away from MetLife or the city to rent out my house but I'm sure those closer to the city will consider it for that kind of money.  Only concern is what will be left of your house after people party in it for a week.  That's the real problem, where MetLife is located, there isn't enough infrastructure to support a SuperBowl.  Everyone will have to stay in or near NY City and commute to the game.  If there's snow or ice, it's going to be a complete debacle.

But again ... this isn't a new thing (the bad weather) as they have played 2 Super Bowls in Detroit, one in Minnesota, and one in Indianapolis.  I googled "average monthly temperatures" and all three of those cities have lower averages in January than does New York.  And I know at least in the case of the Silverdome, that was a ways outside of downtown Detroit, so they'd have had the same travel issues.**  Jacksonville (I've read) is kind of a shitty town as far as other non-football stuff for Super Bowl week as well.  All of the different problems that can and are associated with the logistics of a Super Bowl have existing several times over previously ... except the actual game being played in the cold.

And the only thing about that that could be bad (I don't care if its zero and snowing out, I highly doubt that they'll have any trouble selling, and re-selling all of the tickets to somebody willing to pay top dollar) will be if the game itself is poorly played because of the weather.  And even then, I'm not so sure.  How cool was it that Philly and Detroit had to say "to hell with it" in regards to the kicking game and go for two after each touchdown near the end yesterday?

**I've been to several baseball games at Quallcomm in San Diego, and two football games.  One was a regular season Monday night game, and one was a playoff game in the rain.  We always drove to the baseball games, even when the stadium was full and never had any issues.  But with football, we never even considered it.  We were way better off taking the trolley.  (Or in one case, a limo ;))  People who drive to those games are nuts.  Traffic is nuts at all football games, and certainly all Super Bowls.  In New York, it will be no different.

[purple drank]

Quote:

Originally Posted by purple drank

Sure I could bitch about many questionable calls on Seattle yesterday...and Boldin hitting and pushing a ref and nothing happens(wow) but we aren't getting thos2 calls on the road..sad but true. The season must go on. We can wrap up the #1 seed next week. Go Hawks!!!

There were questionable calls on both sides yesterday. The Seahawks are the second most penalized team in the NFL for a reason, and the Niner home field advantage yesterday had nothing to do with that. The ref had no business putting his hands on Boldin, BUT Boldin has to be smarter than that. But if thats your beef fine, re watch the Superbowl last year when a Ravens DB who now plays for Philly did the same exact thing and no flag was thrown. I guess it happens............ From the Seattle Times that sums it up pretty well Every Monday, the day referred to as “tell the truth Monday,” the Seahawks go over film and poke at problems from their most recent game. A common topic this season: penalties. As in, too many of them. Here’s the truth from Sunday’s 19-17 loss against San Francisco, a defeat that doesn’t derail Seattle from its larger goals but still stings: The Seahawks lost in large part because they had too many penalties in too many critical moments. They were penalized nine times for 85 yards. “We’ve been talking about penalties, and the head coach has done a real good job emphasizing them, more than he’s ever done,” linebackers coach Ken Norton Jr. said. “And we still are 31st in the league in penalties. If we want to win the close games, we have to play smart football and not just give the game away from dumb penalties.”

Exactly...Like I said the season must go on. No use crying over spilled milk. 2 game lead with 3 to play and 2 home games. Can anyone say "Number 1 seed"...Go Hawks!!!

[iacas]

But again ... this isn't a new thing (the bad weather) as they have played 2 Super Bowls in Detroit, one in Minnesota, and one in Indianapolis.

I want to type "those cities have domes…" but surely you know that, so why is this relevant? This is the first northern outdoor Super Bowl, isn't it?

[flopster]

I want to type "those cities have domes…" but surely you know that, so why is this relevant? This is the first northern outdoor Super Bowl, isn't it?

I believe so, I think the other most coldest weather superbowl that was outdoors was Palo Alto at Stanford Stadium, not exactly the "Ice Bowl" but it wasn't your typical temperate climate for superbowls. basically a home game for the 49ers.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But again ... this isn't a new thing (the bad weather) as they have played 2 Super Bowls in Detroit, one in Minnesota, and one in Indianapolis.

I want to type "those cities have domes…" but surely you know that, so why is this relevant? This is the first northern outdoor Super Bowl, isn't it?

Yes.  That is the thing that is going to come back and bite them.  It's one thing to potentially impact the ticket holders getting to the game.  It's another thing entirely to have the play of the game significantly affected by the weather which can happen in New York in February.  A really stupid decision.  Just stupid.

[iacas]

Yes.  That is the thing that is going to come back and bite them.  It's one thing to potentially impact the ticket holders getting to the game.  It's another thing entirely to have the play of the game significantly affected by the weather which can happen in New York in February.  A really stupid decision.  Just stupid.

I disagree. Why shouldn't they play football games in somewhat inclement weather? They played the game in Philadelphia the other day. Didn't they? Why should Super Bowls always be 70° with light winds at game time?

In other words, I think it's good that the Super Bowl is being played outside of Arizona, California, or Florida.

[David in FL]

I disagree. Why shouldn't they play football games in somewhat inclement weather? They played the game in Philadelphia the other day. Didn't they? Why should Super Bowls always be 70° with light winds at game time? In other words, I think it's good that the Super Bowl is being played outside of Arizona, California, or Florida.

Absolutely right! Anyone remember the Ice Bowl in 1967.....when my Packers kicked the crappola out of the Cowboys?! :-D

[SloverUT]

Most of the arguments I've noticed aren't necessarily in regards to the weather the team is going to have to play in, but more how it will effect the fans.  A super bowl obviously is supposed to bring in a ton of fans, and not just on game day, but for that whole Super Bowl week.

Now if I was going to get to purchase tickets for a Super Bowl I don't think it would be this one.  If I am going to spend that much $$ to have a week long vacation ended by the Super Bowl game it sure isn't going to be in New Jersey at that time of year.  I want to be able to enjoy the rest of the week in good weather and have plenty of activities to do.

It also doesn't help that they have already stated that there will be no tailgating at the Super Bowl and that makes it even less fun for a lot of people.  I won't say that effects it more in comparison to other locations because I don't know how many other Super Bowl haves have allowed/not allowed tailgating.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yes.  That is the thing that is going to come back and bite them.  It's one thing to potentially impact the ticket holders getting to the game.  It's another thing entirely to have the play of the game significantly affected by the weather which can happen in New York in February.  A really stupid decision.  Just stupid.

I disagree. Why shouldn't they play football games in somewhat inclement weather? They played the game in Philadelphia the other day. Didn't they? Why should Super Bowls always be 70° with light winds at game time?

In other words, I think it's good that the Super Bowl is being played outside of Arizona, California, or Florida.

It has the potential to not determine the team which plays the best football, but he one who is most used to the weather.  That isn't what the championship game should be about.  They all may have to deal with some weather to get there, but it is patently unfair to have Miami to have to play a championship game against Green Bay in weather like they had in Philly.  They are giving Green Bay an advantage which has nothing to do with which is the better football team.

I'm saying this from the point of view of one is adamantly opposed to domed stadiums.  I agree with you in general that football should be played outdoors.  But when it comes down to teams which play most of their games in such completely different climates, the playing field for the championship game should be leveled as much as possible or they have failed in their intent to determine the best football team.

[iacas]

It has the potential to not determine the team which plays the best football, but he one who is most used to the weather.

So? You could say the same thing about playing in 80° heat too. I don't know about you, but "football weather" is closer to 40° than 80°.

I disagree that "it isn't what the championship game should be about." I think it should be about football. Good teams can adapt to different conditions, or else they wouldn't let the Patriots play in New England, the Eagles or Steelers to play in PA, the Browns to play in Cleveland, the Bills to play in Buffalo, etc. without domed stadiums.

They all may have to deal with some weather to get there, but it is patently unfair to have Miami to have to play a championship game against Green Bay in weather like they had in Philly.  They are giving Green Bay an advantage which has nothing to do with which is the better football team.

They'd be giving Miami an advantage playing it in south Florida against Green Bay in temperate conditions.

In other words, again, I disagree with you. I know your reasons. They just don't convince me. I've understood the "non-football" reasons (i.e. easier to have a two-week-long party in a temperate place, fan comfort, etc.), but the football reasons are weak. They don't convince me.