• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

124 Excellent

About rocketman44

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Sports, weight training

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Team
  • Favorite Player(s)
    Alan Page Tom Rathman
  • Jersey(s) Owned
    Eagles, 49ers, Titans
  • Fan Since
  1. It amazes me how teams give lucrative contracts to QBs that are marginal, at best. Glennon has played in all of 21 games - not even a season and a half of starts. I guess his eye-popping 91% completion rate* from 2016 puts him over the top. * on a whopping 11 attempts
  2. I don't see him being dominant, but I can picture him making some plays if used properly and being a nice utility guy. He makes me think of Sproles, or one of the myriad backs that New England keeps coming up with, with James White being the latest.
  3. Tennessee Oilers just wouldn't sound right. But I understand the OP's sentiment. And although the Titans' uniform and logo is pretty cool, that Oilers' uniform was a gem, and that oil derrick was pretty iconic. In a way, I like what Cleveland did - by keeping the Browns' team name, colors, and history in Cleveland, they are still the Cleveland Browns, albeit it a sort of 2.0 Cleveland Browns. But they have the identity tied with the city. But I can also see the value of taking the team name, colors, and history with a franchise when it moves. I'm perfectly fine with the Cardinals as the Arizona Cardinals, for example. Interestingly, had every team done what Cleveland did, the Rams could have become the Cardinals when they moved to St. Louis, then become the Rams again when they recently moved back to LA. That would seem silly, not to mention confusing. Luckily for the Browns (and us), the NFL expanded back to Cleveland, instead of some other team moving there. My guess is that Cleveland retained the team's identity only because of the possibility of getting a new franchise. In other words, had, say, the Rams moved there, my guess is that they'd have been the Cleveland Rams*, not the Cleveland Browns, and would have worn blue/gold and kept the emblem. * The Rams did in fact start out as the Cleveland Rams, playing there from 1936-45 before moving to LA. They took the name, colors, and history with them, of course.
  4. I collected them for the bubblegum. Seriously, I enjoyed getting cards of players I liked. Back then, I identified strongly with players. When I played, I WAS Alan Page. I WAS Jack Snow. That's how I felt about them. I no longer have my old cards though. I'd imagine that my mom threw them out with my comic books.
  5. I'm all for the white horns - but only if they change the rest of the uniform. When they wore the white-horned helmet for that Thursday Night game this past season, it didn't look right with the current uniform. Plus, their current all-white look isn't very compelling anyway, neither is their all-blue look. I'd even argue that their look since the 2000 season makeover (switching to gold instead of yellow) has been a mistake. On top of that, going all-blue and all-white makes it even worse. When they wear the blue pants with the white jersey, the look improves, and the blue jersey/white pants look isn't bad. But they need to get away from the current gold and either go back to blue-white or the blue-yellow.
  6. In the case of Playoff OT, to me, the simpler, the better. Visitor gets the ball first - no coin toss. Home team gets it last. Sudden death after that. In the Super Bowl, there is always a visitor and home team - this year, the Pats were the visitor. No complaints about coin toss, no complaints about a team never getting the ball.
  7. Ironically, a tie can break a tie. For example, hypothetical NFC East Standings: Cowboys 12-4-0 Eagles 10-5-1 Giants 10-6-0 Redskins 4-12-0 In this case, the Eagles' tie effectively becomes a tie-breaker. No need to go through a tie-break scenario, especially since, let's just say, the two teams would split the season series. This assumes that the tie came against a team other than the Giants. For the sake of simplicity, let's say they played a tie game against team in another division. So ties should be rare, but I don't think they need to be eliminated entirely, because sometimes they can decide things more easily than a tie-breaker formula.
  8. The Niners are still my favorite team. I never left them. The passion just isn't what it was. It's sports. What's the big deal? Also, I mentioned that I've liked the Niners since the days of John Brodie, Ken Willard, Dave Wilcox, Gene Washington. Bear in mind, I was a kid back then. Preferences can change. Once I became an adult, I settled on the Niners. I simply like those Walsh/Montana teams better than anything since.
  9. I wouldn't say it "reinvented" the game. I watched the 30/30, as well as the first couple of XFL games, and while there certainly were some innovative things added, I would stop well short of a reinvention of football. It was an interesting segment, and I must say too that the uniform designs were pretty cool for the most part. But yes, some stuff was carried forward and adopted by the NFL. The NFL, even though it opposed leagues such as the AAFC, AFL (NOT referring to Arena League), USFL, and XFL, was influenced in some ways by all. There was also the ill-fated WFL of the mid-1970's, but besides signing Larry Czonka, Jim Kiick, and Paul Warfield, and potentially raiding other NFL teams for talent (players such as Ken Stabler signed, but were eligible to play only after their NFL contract ran out), the league left perhaps just one true legacy - by raiding the Dolphins of three key players, the balance of power in the AFC was affected.
  10. UK_EaglesFan89, that is a bit unusual. Your investment in the team, considering the fact that you don't live or work anywhere near the city of Philadelphia, is commendable. In regard to this thread: I have left teams. When I was a kid, I loved the Rams of the late 1960s. Later, I loved the Vikings of the late 60's-mid-70's. All along, I also liked the 49ers a lot, but it wasn't until the Joe Montana era that I loved them, though I really liked the John Brodie-era teams a lot too. For me, it's eras that make the difference. If a certain group of players and a certain run that a team is on, championships or not, I tend to "adopt" that team. The Niners' era of Montana, Rice, Lott, Walsh, Rathman, etc, for example, was unique and different, and it captured my attention and frankly, my love. Watching that team was so special. But after those players retired or left, it just wasn't the same. I did stick with that team through some really bitter losses - the 1990 team's loss to the Giants in the NFC Championship Game, for example. Or the huge upset loss to the Minnesota Vikings, an 8-7 team, after the strike-shortened 1987 season. But once that group was gone, things were different. I still have a jersey and memorabilia, but the passion is no longer there, and even their nice run under Jm Harbaugh did not elicit the same feelings. Technically, they're still my "favorite" team, but it's in name and uniform only.
  11. By the way, a lot of people are questioning the Falcons' play-calling, and rightfully so. What also bothered me were the deep drops that Ryan was taking, and drops are designed into each play. On the sack\fumble sequence earlier, he was hit ten yards behind the line of scrimmage on a 3rd and 1. No reason to call a play with that kind of design in that situation. If you're going to pass, go with a shorter drop.
  12. I don't see them recovering next year. I can see a hangover developing from what they just experienced. In recent years, Losing teams usually don't get back; and even though the Falcons have a lot of good pieces in place and a good young team, I don't foresee a return to the SB, especially playing in a tough conference, as they do.
  13. I'd take a QB and I'd go with Joe Montana or Tom Brady. If I had a defensive pick, I'd take LT.
  14. Their player development must be outstanding. They keep finding guys, plugging them in, and winning games. To me, that's coaching and player development. Their players are properly COACHED. On the flip side, I'm quite sure that a lot of latent talent has been wasted by teams that simply do not develop players properly, or are unable to surround them with the right culture and talent. An example, I think, might be David Carr. The first QB in Texans' history, he was sacked so often, he never had a real chance. He was sacked a staggering 76 times in 2002, and 49 times in 2004. In 2005, he was sacked 68 times, and 41 times in 2006. That's a lot of time to be spending on your back. I'm not saying Carr would have been great, but I'm quite certain that, with a better team, he could have been serviceable. The Patriots place guys in situations in which they'll likely succeed. Every facet of the game is properly coached. The players are properly coached. That greatly increases the likelihood that any one player will succeed, because the team succeeds. It doesn't hurt either that they play in a weak division and can bank on 5 to 6 wins a year just feasting on the AFC East. Thus, they usually end up with around 12 wins a year and a playoff bye, and two home games. They end up hosting a team from Wild Card weekend that often isn't very good (Jags in 2006, Tebow's Broncos), Texans this past season)). Before you know it, they're a game away from the Super Bowl. There aren't many teams that have really been able to challenge them when they play at home in the playoffs. Besides the Ravens, no AFC team has ever really challenged them at home. So all the pieces are in place, some under their control, others by luck, for an extended run of success. But the bottom line is that they're a well-coached team that gives proper attention to player development.
  15. Another example is what has happened after Giants/Dodgers games. Pure hatred there. Dodgers Fans Beat Giants Fan