LittleHurt05 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:31 PM) That game neutralized a very strong Detroit pass rush. This Super Bowl could have an adverse affect on Manning's passing game. The last thing I want to see is the losing team and it's fans complaining how they would have won if the weather were better. Please, Seahawks fans won't shed one tear if the weather gives them an advantage, not after getting a ref screw job in their last Super Bowl appearance. In the end, no one cares how you won a championship, all that matters is that you won it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 07:10 AM) ESPN is the worst To be fair, it was a fan who asked the question. Stephen A. Smith wasn't too happy about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:37 PM) But an awful, flukey, luck reliant game. Not how I prefer the most important game to be played. I prefer good football. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:37 PM) But an awful, flukey, luck reliant game. Not how I prefer the most important game to be played. I prefer good football. But then why is it OK for the NFC/AFC championship games and the rest of the playoffs to be played in s***ty conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 08:57 AM) But then why is it OK for the NFC/AFC championship games and the rest of the playoffs to be played in s***ty conditions? Control the weather there too, if you'd like. It'd make for better football. And your answer is, as if you couldn't figure this out, one team earned home field advantage there, and the Super Bowl is always a neutral site game. When you can control weather and field conditions and fan environment, you should, as it's better football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:19 AM) Control the weather there too, if you'd like. It'd make for better football. And your answer is, as if you couldn't figure this out, one team earned home field advantage there, and the Super Bowl is always a neutral site game. When you can control weather and field conditions and fan environment, you should, as it's better football. I know I'm in the minority here but I disagree. Any players can play well in a sterile controlled environment. I like to see the best players over come the adversity and prove they can adapt to win. While the quarterback is the most important player, can he lead the team to a win in adverse conditions. I like to see do things they aren't normally asked to do and see if they are great players or just someone who can operate when things are good. This is just my opinion and preference of what I like to see. I know most people disagree but it's just a preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I like that the art of team building involves preparing for all kinds of contingencies that are broderline random - weather, injuries, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:19 AM) Control the weather there too, if you'd like. It'd make for better football. And your answer is, as if you couldn't figure this out, one team earned home field advantage there, and the Super Bowl is always a neutral site game. When you can control weather and field conditions and fan environment, you should, as it's better football. Bad weather isn't a home field advantage. The Packers see zero benefit from hosting a single-digit temperature playoff game. A better team could lose early in the playoffs because of a "fluke" or luck caused by the weather, it's part of the game. If they are so adamant about only NFL stadiums hosting Super Bowls, then let every city host it. If the conditions are good enough for every other playoff game, they should be for the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:36 AM) I know I'm in the minority here but I disagree. Any players can play well in a sterile controlled environment. I like to see the best players over come the adversity and prove they can adapt to win. While the quarterback is the most important player, can he lead the team to a win in adverse conditions. I like to see do things they aren't normally asked to do and see if they are great players or just someone who can operate when things are good. This is just my opinion and preference of what I like to see. I know most people disagree but it's just a preference. I agree. I like to see what team can adapt on the fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:36 AM) I know I'm in the minority here but I disagree. Any players can play well in a sterile controlled environment. I like to see the best players over come the adversity and prove they can adapt to win. While the quarterback is the most important player, can he lead the team to a win in adverse conditions. I like to see do things they aren't normally asked to do and see if they are great players or just someone who can operate when things are good. This is just my opinion and preference of what I like to see. I know most people disagree but it's just a preference. I'm with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) Bad weather isn't a home field advantage. The Packers see zero benefit from hosting a single-digit temperature playoff game. A better team could lose early in the playoffs because of a "fluke" or luck caused by the weather, it's part of the game. If they are so adamant about only NFL stadiums hosting Super Bowls, then let every city host it. If the conditions are good enough for every other playoff game, they should be for the Super Bowl. There's much more that goes into picking a Super Bowl location than just the weather. Green Bay, for example, could never have a Super Bowl simply due to the lack of accomidations. People would end having to stay as far away as Milwaukee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:36 AM) I know I'm in the minority here but I disagree. Any players can play well in a sterile controlled environment. I like to see the best players over come the adversity and prove they can adapt to win. While the quarterback is the most important player, can he lead the team to a win in adverse conditions. I like to see do things they aren't normally asked to do and see if they are great players or just someone who can operate when things are good. This is just my opinion and preference of what I like to see. I know most people disagree but it's just a preference. Agreed. Also, they have to adapt to different conditions every week throughout the season. Whether it be indoors/outdoors, grass/turf, heat/cold, rain/snow, etc., every week in the NFL leads to varying playing conditions. It's not like the NBA suddenly holding the NBA Finals at Rucker Park after the entire season being playing indoors in arenas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) There's much more that goes into picking a Super Bowl location than just the weather. Green Bay, for example, could never have a Super Bowl simply due to the lack of accomidations. People would end having to stay as far away as Milwaukee. Yeah, I realize that. Chicago's seating capacity is also too small to host one. The point I was trying to make was that playoff games can be held in all types of conditions, I don't see why the Super Bowl is suddenly off-limits from that, unless they make one permanent host. (like the Rose Bowl) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I prefer watching the championship determined with both teams playing in excellent playing conditions with no excuses, less of a chance for flukes to win games. It's for all the marbles. I think conditions should be to make these teams as close to 100% capacity as possible. If it is 38 degrees, and not all that windy, that's OK. But if it was like it is in Chicago today, or a blizzard, if the Bears were playing, I would be sick it they lost because something flukey happened that had nothing to do with ability. Of course, I wouldn't mind if they put a dome on every NFL stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) I like that the art of team building involves preparing for all kinds of contingencies that are broderline random - weather, injuries, etc Can we stop with this silly line of thinking? What GM builds their team based on "cold weather guys," or something equally as stupid? There's no proof guys make constant signings and draft picks based on a possible few games of bad weather at the end of a season. You build the best team you can on paper. Injuries is way different than weather. That's just depth. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) Bad weather isn't a home field advantage. The Packers see zero benefit from hosting a single-digit temperature playoff game. A better team could lose early in the playoffs because of a "fluke" or luck caused by the weather, it's part of the game. If they are so adamant about only NFL stadiums hosting Super Bowls, then let every city host it. If the conditions are good enough for every other playoff game, they should be for the Super Bowl. If you ask the Packers, they'd probably say they have a benefit from hosting in single digits. Haven't the Bears said that about cold weather Bears football? When you can control luck or fluke, I'd rather control it and not have it be part of the game. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) Agreed. Also, they have to adapt to different conditions every week throughout the season. Whether it be indoors/outdoors, grass/turf, heat/cold, rain/snow, etc., every week in the NFL leads to varying playing conditions. It's not like the NBA suddenly holding the NBA Finals at Rucker Park after the entire season being playing indoors in arenas. Again, how many games are played in bad weather throughout the year for a team? 1? 2? See, the NBA playing in Rucker Park would be exactly like choosing to play the Super Bowl in New York. It'd be completely silly, as the NBA wants to make sure the conditions are as best as possible. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) I prefer watching the championship determined with both teams playing in excellent playing conditions with no excuses, less of a chance for flukes to win games. It's for all the marbles. I think conditions should be to make these teams as close to 100% capacity as possible. If it is 38 degrees, and not all that windy, that's OK. But if it was like it is in Chicago today, or a blizzard, if the Bears were playing, I would be sick it they lost because something flukey happened that had nothing to do with ability. Of course, I wouldn't mind if they put a dome on every NFL stadium. Exactly. Bad conditions even the playing field and make it more likely stupid things determine a winner. I don't see how anyone could say it'd be a great super bowl if you have Manning trying to throw into a 40mph wind and snow, when it's something that could have been controlled. In those conditions, every team in the league would have a great shot to win that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 ports Pics @TheSportPics 2h Floyd "Money" Mayweather is reportedly betting $10.4 million on the Denver Broncos winning the Super Bowl. pic.twitter.com/duZkb4S9Ar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 08:37 AM) To be fair, it was a fan who asked the question. Stephen A. Smith wasn't too happy about it. It was a producer who let that question on the air though, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The Ice Bowl and "The Greatest Game Ever Played" are two perfect examples of how awesome championship games can be in cold weather. Johnny Unitas marching his team down the field in OT. Cold and muddy field. You can't beat that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Cold is good but sloppy conditions make for a sloppy game with flukey plays. With no real rooting interest, it can make the game more fun to watch, but if the Bears were in it I'd want it to be 70F with no wind and immaculate turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 11:15 AM) The Ice Bowl and "The Greatest Game Ever Played" are two perfect examples of how awesome championship games can be in cold weather. Johnny Unitas marching his team down the field in OT. Cold and muddy field. You can't beat that. Football was a different game back then. Unitas was one of the few QBs that took to the air often. Yet, his career high in passing yards would be Peyton Mannings career low by a decent margin. Obviously they play a couple more games these days, but Manning threw for more than 2000 yards more than Unitas' career high this year. Seattle's defense should be the only thing limiting Denver's passing game. Not the weather when playing for a championship. Edited January 28, 2014 by Dick Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 In that 1958 championship game there was 500 yards passing. It wasn't like they were running it every play. I just think of Football as an outdoor sport in the winter time. I don't see it comparing to basketball and hockey. I think football should be in the elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 10:23 AM) If you ask the Packers, they'd probably say they have a benefit from hosting in single digits. Haven't the Bears said that about cold weather Bears football? When you can control luck or fluke, I'd rather control it and not have it be part of the game. They keep losing those single digit temp games, so any benefit hasn't helped. And anybody that talks about "Bear weather" is a meathead, including Lovie Smith. Cold weather doesn't help them at all. Again, how many games are played in bad weather throughout the year for a team? 1? 2? See, the NBA playing in Rucker Park would be exactly like choosing to play the Super Bowl in New York. It'd be completely silly, as the NBA wants to make sure the conditions are as best as possible. NBA teams play all 82 regular season games & all playoff games in indoor arenas, not one on an outdoor playground. That's not even remotely similar to NFL teams playing in an outdoor stadium that has already hosted 16 regular season games this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 12:26 PM) They keep losing those single digit temp games, so any benefit hasn't helped. And anybody that talks about "Bear weather" is a meathead, including Lovie Smith. Cold weather doesn't help them at all. NBA teams play all 82 regular season games & all playoff games in indoor arenas, not one on an outdoor playground. That's not even remotely similar to NFL teams playing in an outdoor stadium that has already hosted 16 regular season games this year. The NFL plays their entire season and playoffs in the elements, except for the very last game. Those games determine just as much of who goes to the super bowl as any others. I'm not sure why it changes for that one game. Even baseball which comes complete with rain delays and the like, plays in the cold for the playoffs. If the elements are such a worry for the Super Bowl, why aren't they the same level of important for who goes to the Super Bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) If the elements are such a worry for the Super Bowl, why aren't they the same level of important for who goes to the Super Bowl? I think the big difference there is that you earn the right to have games in your stadium whereas the super bowl is supposed to be a neutral field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 10:39 AM) ports Pics @TheSportPics 2h Floyd "Money" Mayweather is reportedly betting $10.4 million on the Denver Broncos winning the Super Bowl. pic.twitter.com/duZkb4S9Ar Floyd doesn't f*** around with his cash. He must feel very strongly about the result of this game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts