CaneBrain 95 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Yeah cause that was the point I was making....actually it basically was. your point was that the popularity of a sports league for casual fans depends on the success of iconic teams.His point was that given the immense popularity of the NFL at the moment (coinciding with the abject suckitude of the Raiders over the last 5+ years) that apparently the NFL is not dependent on the success of the Raiders or iconic teams generally for popularity. The NFL is so popular it does not matter who is good and who is not.I find his argument to be a sound rebuttal of your theory. Link to post Share on other sites
slink 1 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 actually it basically was. your point was that the popularity of a sports league for casual fans depends on the success of iconic teams.His point was that given the immense popularity of the NFL at the moment (coinciding with the abject suckitude of the Raiders over the last 5+ years) that apparently the NFL is not dependent on the success of the Raiders or iconic teams generally for popularity. The NFL is so popular it does not matter who is good and who is not.I find his argument to be a sound rebuttal of your theory.Nope. It is always better for any league to have it's iconic teams doing well. Perhaps I should have written "better" rather than "depends". And I am pretty sure he realizes that. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Nope. It is always better for any league to have it's iconic teams doing well. Perhaps I should have written "better" rather than "depends". And I am pretty sure he realizes that.Well, I'll bite.. Why?Also, how many teams count as iconic? Maybe it'd be easier to answer how many teams are not.. I'd appreciate an answer to either. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Well, I'll bite.. Why?Also, how many teams count as iconic? Maybe it'd be easier to answer how many teams are not.. I'd appreciate an answer to either.I'll save you some time. They don't know what they're talking about. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Nope. It is always better for any league to have it's iconic teams doing well. Perhaps I should have written "better" rather than "depends". And I am pretty sure he realizes that. The popularity of the sport (any sport) for the casual fan better on the "classic" teams doing well. In Football, there are a handful of teams that need to do well: Raiders (though, since they have been so bad this may not be true, but they have a huge fan base-if just for the team gear-and if they do well it would be great for the NFL), Cowboys and to a lesser extent the Steelers, 49ers, and the Colts. In baseball it is the Yankees. In basketball it is the Lakers and Celtics. In hockey it is...hell there are no casual fans. Parity also plays a big part, but I don't think for the casual fan, I think parity works for the fans of the other 27 teams.Well now it makes even less sense. GRAMMATICALLY.But (slightly more) seriously, the casual fan nowadays doesn't care about the "classic" teams as much as you seem to think. They care about whatever dynasty is currently dominating the NFL. For example, teams like the Raiders and 49ers, which haven't been relevant for a long time, wouldn't carry a bigger Super Bowl audience than the Patriots, a team that doesn't have a tremendous history from back in the day, but has (arguably) been the most dominant for the past ten years. If the Saints do well again this year, they'll be the team to bring big audiences, etc. The Yankees didn't start putting up huge tv numbers as soon as they pulled out of their 80s-90s funk, it took a few years of dominance to turn them back into the powerhouse they were before and are again. But I don't completely disagree with you. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Even though the Raiders are an "iconic" team, I don't think the NFL needs the Raiders to be good. I was under the impression that all NFL fans (other than Raider fans) hate the Raiders. I think everyone would be perfectly happy if the Raiders ceased to exist (again other than Raider fans).If we are going to keep talking about this point, I really don't think the NFL needs any one team to be good. In other sports you can make that point (ex: Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, and even NY Knicks). But I could care less if a random great team like the Steelers, Cowboys, or Niners vanished.Also, the Raiders have needed Al Davis to die for the last 20+ years. He is never going to die so get over it. Almost every time I hear someone get in a Raiders conversation they bring up Al Davis dying. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 Someone wake me up when next season starts. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 Someone wake me up when next season starts.McFadden looked good. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 McFadden looked good.Their running backs are always decent, they just get injured.It is the same problem every year... o-line, and defense not being able to stop the run. Also, in the past they have had great WR's which is not the case anymore. Not Campbell's fault at all. Link to post Share on other sites
kers2 0 Posted September 13, 2010 Author Share Posted September 13, 2010 That was pretty ugly. Still only 1 game, and still some positives to take. Turn it around next week against the Rams Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 lolll Bruce Gradkowski!!!He is the next Doug Flutie. Link to post Share on other sites
kers2 0 Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 They have to start him. Jason Campbell is basically JaMarcus Russell without the purple drank. He has no pocket awareness and holds the ball way too long. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 They have to start him. Jason Campbell is basically JaMarcus Russell without the purple drank. He has no pocket awareness and holds the ball way too long.Gradkowski is definitely more mobile which is a necessity for a team that isn't blocking anybody.It is really hard to judge Campbell though. He gets no time at all to throw the ball. The only big name QB I can see succeeding in the Raiders offense is Michael Vick, and that is just because he is fast. Put Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Roethlisberger, pretty much any star QB in Oakland and they would be just as bad as Campbell imo.Scratch that, I'm just going to blame the o-line for every single Raider problem for now on. Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 They have to start him. Jason Campbell is basically JaMarcus Russell without the purple drank. He has no pocket awareness and holds the ball way too long.throw any NFL QB in as the raiders starter and they will look bad to decent. you guys need an Oline more than a good QB. you have two good QBs in Cambell and Gradkowski. plus boyler is a decent third stringer (did he make the cut?). but ya, your line is bad. Link to post Share on other sites
dna4ever 2 Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Gonna get your chance to see if it's O-line or not, Campbell out, Gradkowski in Link to post Share on other sites
kers2 0 Posted September 28, 2010 Author Share Posted September 28, 2010 Jano... wtf Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 Jano... wtfhes a joke. 3 misses, wtf?! Link to post Share on other sites
kers2 0 Posted October 12, 2010 Author Share Posted October 12, 2010 THA RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIDERS WIN!!! Special shout out to Norv Turner for not being smart enough to kneel on the ball 3 times and kick the GW FG with no time left!!! Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I'm going to the game tomorrow. Whether the Raiders win or lose I will still be drunk! Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 What the fuck happened? When did Oakland get a football team? Link to post Share on other sites
kers2 0 Posted October 25, 2010 Author Share Posted October 25, 2010 That was fun. I laughed every time the Raiders scored and Tom Cable kept holding up 1 finger to say they were going for 1. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 This was the first time in a long ass time I can remember the Raiders going into the 4th with the lead without me worrying about them ****ing up. Link to post Share on other sites
kers2 0 Posted November 2, 2010 Author Share Posted November 2, 2010 Beast mode again! I cant wait for Sunday. Too bad the Bills couldnt hold up against the Chefs. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Their schedule the rest of the way looks tough. I'm still going through the "expecting the worse hope for the best" routine.Looks like JaMarcus worked out for the Redskins lol. If he somehow came back and turned into a star QB I would seriously have murderous thoughts towards the guy. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Looks like JaMarcus worked out for the Redskins lol. If he somehow came back and turned into a star QB...yeah, and then monkeys might fly out of my BUTT. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now