I don't think the Packers will be leaving Green Bay anytime soon, so I'm good.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
NFL 2013 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter PUSH
- Start date
rael ramone
Well-Known Member
For those who think Tebow was a mistake for Denver:
His 'heroics' got a Denver team that was looking like a doormat into the playoffs, though as an 8-8 team.
If that team stayed with Kyle Orton and finished 5-11, does Peyton even grant them a visit?
As far as the game this weekend, Seattle needs 2 things to happen to win:
1. A referee crew that allows Seattle to play the recievers tough.
2. A pick-six. Even if they can hold Denver to a low score (for Denver) Seattles offense - by itself- won't score enough. They need points from a unit other than the offense.
I feel like Russell Wilson won't rise to the occasion and lead his team to the victory. He's good, but he's still young, and he has had several mistakes over the latter part of the year. I think the Broncos defense did an outstanding job against the Patriots, and if they can have a similar type of production against the Seahawks, I think the Broncos can score enough points to win, even against the Seahawks defense.
The only way I can imagine the Seahawks winning, is if they dominate the Time of Possession. Pound the ball with Marshawn Lynch. If the Broncos can stop Lynch, that forces Wilson to make plays with his arm, and we all know young QBs are prone to make mistakes. So for me, time of possession is huge in this game. That and turnovers. If you win those two, you should win the game.
The only way I can imagine the Seahawks winning, is if they dominate the Time of Possession. Pound the ball with Marshawn Lynch. If the Broncos can stop Lynch, that forces Wilson to make plays with his arm, and we all know young QBs are prone to make mistakes. So for me, time of possession is huge in this game. That and turnovers. If you win those two, you should win the game.
afar28
Well-Known Member
Looks like everything will go smoothly with the super bowl weather-wise. Expected to be a high of 48 and lows of 30 which is a total heat wave compared to the current 10 degree days. Plus only 10-15 degree winds which isnt that bad.
Also Super Bowl Boulevard in Manhattan has been a success. Im gonna try to go tomorrow to see for myself. I doubt another super bowl will be played here again anytime soon, but if this one goes well their is a chance.
Also Super Bowl Boulevard in Manhattan has been a success. Im gonna try to go tomorrow to see for myself. I doubt another super bowl will be played here again anytime soon, but if this one goes well their is a chance.
acishere
Well-Known Member
I also just remembered that Homer Simpson owns the Broncos. You would think he would be happier about that score.
acishere
Well-Known Member
My coworker called it a state fair with more advertising, but he is just bitter about it being crowded by Port Authority. I'm thinking of going after work in a bit. Depends on how soon I need to get back home for a friend's birthday party.
What I don't understand is this: Super Bowls have been played in cold-weather cities before, but it's never been a big media story like this one is. I understand that NYC is bigger than Indianapolis, Detroit, Minneapolis, etc, but the only real difference is it's in an opened-domed stadium. And game are played in terrible weather all the time, just look back to the week where we had dangerously cold temps and insane amounts of snow earlier this season.
afar28
Well-Known Member
I was literally just about to post that. stealing my thunder
afar28
Well-Known Member
The open airness has a lot to do with it, plus the weather in early February in NY is usually not the best. Imagine a blizzard delaying the super bowl. That would be a huge story
I remember back in the Packers-Steelers Super Bowl in Dallas, it was below freezing and they had an ice storm. the joke was that the Packers brought their weather with them.
jw24
Well-Known Member
I think I read somewhere that the Super Bowl team that scored on a pick six never lost the game. (11-0!) So it's good omen for Seattle if they can score that way.
Well, aside everything @afarese said, it's also the first Super Bowl in the Northeast US, as well and in one of the largest media markets in the country. The weather forecast and all those fears about a blizzard or snow may be an overreaction but for years, the Super Bowl has been played in warm weather or domed cities. Throw in something completely that breaks tradition, people will have concerns. Imagine if the NHL decided to make all Stanley Cup finals games outdoor ones. That would cause a firestorm for sure. Plus it's now sparking a conversation about if other cold-weather stadiums should host it like Chicago, Green Bay or even Kansas City.
It can't happen in Green Bay because of the hotels, etc. Green Bay only has just over 100,000 people. I think Chicago's stadium would be a concern. It has the lowest seat capacity in the NFL, and I doubt the NFL would like that. Kansas City I don't know enough about to judge. I think a Super Bowl in Seattle could be fun with the noise factor.
jw24
Well-Known Member
Good points. I read an article that Philly has interests in hosting a Super Bowl...if things go well in East Rutherford. SI did a polarizing article about places that in their view, should host the big game: http://nfl.si.com/2014/01/24/eight-in-the-box-future-super-bowl-host-cities-london-seattle/
I think the drawback is that other than Metlife, the stadiums in the Northeast are pretty small compared to others in the league. Plus with Fedex Field, the field surface is a big concern over there and I read somewhere that fans have to walk a mile to the stadium from the nearest Washington Metro station. It doesn't sound much but if it's snowing and all that, chaos!
The real question is who's going to host in 2018 and beyond? The new Vikings stadium, maybe? The next three following this one are in Glendale, AZ (2015), the new 49ers stadium (2016) and Houston (2017).
I'd think Minnesota would be on the list sometime soon after their stadium is finished. Miami won't get another one until their stadium is upgraded, and I believe that's at a halt. Same goes for San Diego.
jw24
Well-Known Member
It's going up against Indy and New Orleans so it has a chance. We'll have to wait until May for the answer.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9...s-minneapolis-three-finalists-2018-super-bowl
I didn't know there were finalists revealed already. On October 8, too.
I'd imagine Minnesota or New Orleans. Indy just seems like a boring option, despite it being a success last time.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The stadiums in the NE are pretty typical... it's that Dallas, FedEx, and Metlife are so BIG compared to everything.
The league average is basically 69-70k for stadiums
The southern favorites that have dominated SB selections
Miami
Tampa
NewO
Atlanta
SanDiego
Most are not much higher than that average.. with Miami being the big stand out at 75k
Recent fields like Detroit and Indy are significantly smaller than average.
The league wants the Super Bowl to be a destination trip for people. Given it's February... people like to head south for the winter.. not north
I doubt we'll ever see it in a town like Buffalo, Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburg, or Foxborough... even if they met the convention and hotel requirements. They just aren't sexy winter destinations. I think the idea of 'what town will people be most willing to make a blow-out bender trip to...' is far more important to the NFL than anything else
jw24
Well-Known Member
I think the idea of 'what town will people be most willing to make a blow-out bender trip to...' is far more important to the NFL than anything else
I can only hope if the NFL truly follows that logic, no London Super Bowl! Wait, maybe not....
Fun fact time! Dallas is actually NOT in the top three for stadium seating capacity. The top three are actually 1) FedEx Field, 2) MetLife Stadium, and 3) Lambeadu Field! Lambeau added 8,000 new seats for this season, making it larger than Dallas. If Dallas were to bring out all of the non-permanent seats and standing room only (which isn't counted in seating capacity), Dallas would have over 100,000 seats. But we all know how that went in 2011.