A message to the NFL

[BuffaloBill]

buffalo bill:

 

I think there's plenty of parity in the NFL. Any given Sunday :beer: :

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-parity-graphic-2013-11

 

Neither of the 2 QB's in last year's Super Bowl I would consider elite. 2x Super Bowl MVP Eli Manning looks like garbage this season. If it was only about the QB, Brady, P. Manning, Brees, Rodgers would have been alternating super bowl victories every year. 10 different QB's and 9 different teams have won Super Bowls since 2000 (14 super bowls). Not too shabby.

 

Eli over his career has flashed elite ability. Last year Flacco was considered to be emerging and on the brink of elite. Kaepernick was viewed as having elite potential. However, to your point, maybe having a next tier QB with an elite defense gives you a shot. The problem is that to consistently have a shot you need a better QB.

 

I still say the league needs to get creative on the issue of developing young QB's. There is no more important position in the game today and it is recognized that colleges are not doing a good job of getting them NFL ready. There are teams like buffalo that have been in perpetual mediocrity. I would throw in there, Cleveland, Detroit, the Raiders, Tampa and others could be considered. Tje lack of solid QB play is certainly prevalent in this group.

 

There is also a coaching turnstile around the league. I think much of it is due to the lack of QB talent. New Coaches are brought in with the hopes of rectifying this and in very rare cases they actually do.

 

 

[bobobonators]

I hear ya BuffaloBill. Not really sure what can be done in terms of making it easier for perpetual losers like the Bills, Browns, Lions, Raiders, etc to land a "franchise" QB. I thought Detroit had gotten there's a few years back w/ Stafford, but he's turning into a trainwreck. As crazy as it sounds, I think some franchises have such a rich history of losing that it's pretty hard to crack through that, even if you find a decent QB..something will always tend to go wrong.

 

As simple as it sounds, I think the most effective way to succeed in the NFL is to hire the right GM who in turn hires the right coach and assistants, who in turn implement a system that works. A system can work without having an elite QB. An elite QB hides an average team's weaknesses, but if you are able to build up a team as a whole with a great system in place, I feel you can win with an average/to above-average QB - certainly you can make the playoffs..winning the super bowl is another story. We can go down the list of QB's who are nowhere near elite and who managed to make it all the way to the Super Bowl. Every year average QB's make the playoffs...even Tebow can win a playoff game in the NFL.

 

Lets hope we have the right coaches in place.

[BackInDaDay]

long live the king, and the London Monarchs!

 

of course the NFL wants to open international markets for their product, but desire to succeed doesn't guarantee success. this old World League/NFL Europe club and it's league died due to lack of interest.

 

that said.. London fans of the NFL may vigorously support a singular franchise that competes with NFL teams that they're familiar with - as a previous poster expressed - if only for the opportunity to root for their visiting favorites.

 

are the Buffonto Bills such an international model being developed on this continent?

an NFL franchise that attracts as many fans of the visiting team, as it does for the locals, until a history is compiled and allegiances are grown?

 

perhaps.

 

eventually, a Buffonto franchise may have as many rabid Canadian fans as it does American

[boyst]

Build a stadium halfway between Toronto and Buffalo. Have in the middle of Lake Ontario. Make it floating, maybe even.

[bobobonators]

LMFAO. A floating stadium. It would surely sink.

[NoSaint]

LMFAO. A floating stadium. It would surely sink.

 

and then be featured in pictures on mailouts for ticket renewals.

[GunnerBill]

Yes there are Premier League soccer matches on Sundays but the NFL already communicates with the Premier League and the British police with respect to the scheduling of games in London and there really isn't a big issue. This year the day the Jaguars played the 49ers there was a crucial Premier League soccer game in London between arguably the two favourites for the championship and it had zero impact on the attendance at Wembley. I also hear the point about the London Monarcs, but the biggest issue with the World League / NFL Europe was that the quality was a huge downgrade compared to the NFL. That's why it didn't hold the interest, the games were sub standard. I think having actual NFL standard games in London would be a totally different scenario to be honest. Add that to the fact that the interest in the sport has grown massively since the London Monarchs folded and the fact that the games in London are not just attended by Londoners but NFL fans from elsewhere in Europe who watched other NFL Europe teams and I really do not think the fan interest would be an issue. As I've said previously, that isn't to say you would establish a hardcore London fan base very easily... but the interest in the games would be there. I'm 100% convinced of that.

 

There are problems with a London team, but Premier League soccer and lack of fan interest are not among them.

[NoSaint]

 

There are problems with a London team, but Premier League soccer and lack of fan interest are not among them.

 

i dont know that you can rely on people to come from across europe in large numbers every week like you can for a once a year spectacle where you are just excited to see a team, any team. establishing a "london whatevers" fan base is a different beast than putting on a big old show once annually. you dont get the hullabaloo around the game after 8 weeks, especially if the team isnt winning weekly.

 

then you get all the travel issues for the teams.... and any answer ive seen (ie do road trips of months long nature and home stands with the other team coming off byes) totally neglects how near impossible it would be to account for the playoffs (atleast until we have a quicker and easier form of travel. how would you ever justify them either going to chicago or coming from london to chicago on 6 days? do you put their home playoff games at a neutral site in the US? if so, sucks for the london fans.

 

the london issue just isnt as feasible as the nfl would like it to be unless travel options change drastically.

[BillsBytheBay]

4 more teams.

 

12 more QBs have NFL jobs when there already aren't enough good QBs.

 

230 other guys in the NFL who don't have NFL talent.

 

4 more billion dollar arenas that will sit idle a huge portion of the year.

not all stadiums are without use. Everbank field holds many events. The Gator Bowl im attending for example, monster trucks, even highschool proms. As for a lack of talent, i figure with more opportunity, more talented players will have the chance to show it.

[NoSaint]

not all stadiums are without use. Everbank field holds many events. The Gator Bowl im attending for example, monster trucks, even highschool proms. As for a lack of talent, i figure with more opportunity, more talented players will have the chance to show it.

 

are there a lack of spots for good qbs to get to play? it seems about half the league would kill for one. with more spots you may get a couple more diamonds in the rough, but you will get a few hundred more practice squad players active on sunday.

 

at some point, the appeal of the nfl is that im not watching guys that are just good (dont get me wrong, i often enjoy college football), its that its a limited pool of the BEST. i dont know how anyone could argue that adding more teams wouldnt dilute the talent levels.

[chris heff]

The NFL is going to have difficulty popularizing the sport outside of the US and Canada. I knew the guy who was the first commissioner of the defunct North American Soccer League. He once told me that it takes three generations of kids playing a game, to make the sport popular. No one played little league soccer when I was a kid and very few high schools did. We are just now hitting the third generation of soccer players. Someone can correct me, but I don't believe many kids are playing football in Europe. With the concern about head injuries I find it unlikely they will start. I think European expansion is a fantasy.

 

You want yhe Bills to stay in Buffalo? "Just win baby".

[Prickly Pete]

All this so the Bills stay? I don't think realignment is gonna make any difference in that, and I want the inter-conference games to stay. That is as important to me as them playing 2 games a season against division rivals.

 

It's odd, because there is all this talk about the NFL facing problems in the future, and I think having a team with an established fanbase is in their best interest. I don't think the Bills will leave. (I know full well the arguments, I don't need another listing).

Edited December 26, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro

[BillsBytheBay]

 

 

are there a lack of spots for good qbs to get to play? it seems about half the league would kill for one. with more spots you may get a couple more diamonds in the rough, but you will get a few hundred more practice squad players active on sunday.

 

at some point, the appeal of the nfl is that im not watching guys that are just good (dont get me wrong, i often enjoy college football), its that its a limited pool of the BEST. i dont know how anyone could argue that adding more teams wouldnt dilute the talent levels.

I believe the lack of talented quarterbacks is more a case of today's here and now mentality. if quarterbacks coming into the League had more of an opportunity to adjust and learn before they were forced into starting rolls I think more quarterbacks would be successful. Edited December 27, 2013 by JaxBills

[GunnerBill]

i dont know that you can rely on people to come from across europe in large numbers every week like you can for a once a year spectacle where you are just excited to see a team, any team. establishing a "london whatevers" fan base is a different beast than putting on a big old show once annually. you dont get the hullabaloo around the game after 8 weeks, especially if the team isnt winning weekly.

 

They wouldn't come every week, no, but the three games next year will sell out and could sell out twice over without a single problem and that's at Wembley (90,000 capacity) which is realistically too big to be the permanent home of a team should one be established. The 60,000 capacity re-developed 2012 Olympic Stadium is a much more likely venue for a London based team. What I'm saying is that there is easily enough NFL interest here in the UK and in Northern Europe to sell 60,000 tickets x 8 home games. It costs next to nothing to fly from Berlin to London or Barcelona to London these days.... I met a group of German guys at the Steelers game this year who had flown in on an early flight and were flying back the same night after the game. It's perfectly practical. Building a fan base is a different thing altogether though, because as I say, you won't get people to abandon the teams they have always supported to actually root for London.

 

then you get all the travel issues for the teams.... and any answer ive seen (ie do road trips of months long nature and home stands with the other team coming off byes) totally neglects how near impossible it would be to account for the playoffs (atleast until we have a quicker and easier form of travel. how would you ever justify them either going to chicago or coming from london to chicago on 6 days? do you put their home playoff games at a neutral site in the US? if so, sucks for the london fans.

 

the london issue just isnt as feasible as the nfl would like it to be unless travel options change drastically.

 

I totally agree with that and I said in my first post I'm not arguing for a London team, nor do I ultimately think one will happen (although we have 3 regular season games next year and I'm pretty sure are headed for 4 by 2016) because I think ultimately the travel logistics make it unworkable.

 

All I take issue with is the assertion that the stands would be empty because us Europeans just don't really get American Football, or only want to follow a winning team, or would lose interest quickly and all wander back home to watch soccer. It's simply not true. I know there is a perception of that in America but it just doesn't ring true over here.

[Santana]

Cost of living is a non-factor. A rookie making the league minimum playing for the New York Giants does not get paid more than a rookie making the league minimum on the Green Bay Packers despite the fact that New York is insanely more expensive than Wisconsin.

 

Player safety is a non-factor. London is not a hazard-pay destination. There are no travel restrictions or warnings imposed by the State Department on citizens traveling to London. This would be of concern if the city truly were a potential hazard location (like the Damascus Argonauts).

 

I dont understand your point regarding travel to surrounding countries?? That is akin to being concerned about a players travel to another state during the season. Or a Bills player traveling to Canada during the season, or a texans player traveling to Mexico. Not really following your concern..

 

IMO, at the end of the day the biggest and most obvious hurdle for a London team is the travel. Travel between east coast teams to London wouldnt be bad, as the distance from ny to london is similar from that of ny to the west coast. But to have the london team travel to the west coast and a west coast team travel to london is a bit much. For an entire season, the london team would be at an extreme disadvantage bc EVERY road game it has would be equivalent/worse than an east coast team having to travel to california for every road game. Having to do that trip back and forth 16 times (to and fro) would be taxing and unfair to the london team in my opinion.

 

But then again, plenty of "regular" folks do that trip numerous times a year and dont get paid millions to do it. Good luck attracting free agents though...

 

I think a team in London in the future would be pretty cool.

 

 

 

 

 

Player safety is always a concern whether it's in London or wherever. It doesn't matter if it's a place of high crime or not. It's an unfamiliar place for NFL players.

 

 

I don't understand how you can't comprehend how travel to other countries isn't a concern. Canada and Mexico are our neighbors for one, I mean for crying out loud most of us have been to either canada or mexico. Being in London, players can be any where within a few hours via the euro tran. It could definitely lead to a lot of issues.

[Mr. WEO]

Cost of living is a non-factor. A rookie making the league minimum playing for the New York Giants does not get paid more than a rookie making the league minimum on the Green Bay Packers despite the fact that New York is insanely more expensive than Wisconsin.

 

 

The cost of living is a huge factor. Top individual rate of 45%. 20% VAT on purchases. Insurance taxes. Plus state taxes in each away game. And housing is more expensive than NYC (many pros live in cheaper parts of Jersey or LI).

[Dragonborn10]

4 more teams.

 

12 more QBs have NFL jobs when there already aren't enough good QBs.

 

230 other guys in the NFL who don't have NFL talent.

 

4 more billion dollar arenas that will sit idle a huge portion of the year.

Couldn't have said it better myself except to add that the stadiums would be paid for by tax payers who can't afford it.

[Doug Flutie Band]

Expansion of the league is a TERRIBLE idea.

 

The modern game of football is about QUARTERBACKS.

 

There already aren't enough quarterbacks to go around for every team to have a legitimate chance of competing every year.

 

Adding more teams just further dilutes the product.

 

The NBA would be a much better product if they had 2-4 fewer teams, for example.