|
Homestar Runner posted:I am shocked and appalled bitch dont know about otto graham
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Intruder posted:Celtics and Lakers both for sure over the Cardinals, Spurs not so much I guess I just think of the spurs because they have been good literally my entire life. Hell doesn't Timmy have like 350 playoff wins or something ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:I guess I just think of the spurs because they have been good literally my entire life. Hell doesn't Timmy have like 350 playoff wins or something ridiculous. The Spurs have been good consistently for the last like 18 years yeah and this stretch is probably the most dominant stretch for any non Celtics team
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
If you ever won a title you cannot be the loseriest franchise ever
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
The Browns deserve special mention because the team that used to be the Browns has won two Superbowls since leaving
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:If you ever won a title you cannot be the loseriest franchise ever I know you weren't talking about the Cubs but if it's been literally 100+ years since you won a title this rule shouldn't apply anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Homestar Runner posted:what is the most loseriest active franchise, is it the Browns? Historically Cardinals in the NFL, even though they're good now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:I guess I just think of the spurs because they have been good literally my entire life. Hell doesn't Timmy have like 350 playoff wins or something ridiculous. The Spurs are the best "modern" NBA franchise. They only managed to beat the Lakers when they were good once, and the Lakers beat them a lot of times when the Spurs were in their prime on the way to their tiles, and I'll always have that to hold over Bashez, but the Spurs have just kept winning without any drop off so even I can't deny him "best team of the last 20 years." Celtics had 3-4 good years over the past 10 years, but the Cavs and Heat have had similar runs and were arguably better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Rick posted:The Spurs are the best "modern" NBA franchise. They only managed to beat the Lakers when they were good once, and the Lakers beat them a lot of times when the Spurs were in their prime on the way to their tiles, and I'll always have that to hold over Bashez, but the Spurs have just kept winning without any drop off so even I can't deny him "best team of the last 20 years." If it's over the last 20 years then it's still the Lakers.  e: I can't wait to see all the Kobe jerseys at the LA Rams and Chargers games!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Apparently Rams psls were transferable from Busch stadium to the dome and contract language says they are valid for all future seasons of the team so there's a case to be made that the current holders still get dibs on seats in LA and would be able to sell them on the open market (or keep them and buy tickets they intend to resell)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Apparently Rams psls were transferable from Busch stadium to the dome and contract language says they are valid for all future seasons of the team so there's a case to be made that the current holders still get dibs on seats in LA and would be able to sell them on the open market (or keep them and buy tickets they intend to resell)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:it's probably the cubs depending on the metric. You can just lock them in as the most loseriest ever if they don't win with that roster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Apparently Rams psls were transferable from Busch stadium to the dome and contract language says they are valid for all future seasons of the team so there's a case to be made that the current holders still get dibs on seats in LA and would be able to sell them on the open market (or keep them and buy tickets they intend to resell) It would be hilarious if all the rams ticket holders hosed the Rams out of having people attend their games and the stadiums just looked empty
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:It would be hilarious if all the rams ticket holders hosed the Rams out of having people attend their games and the stadiums just looked empty 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I cannot tell the difference between the throwback LA Rams uniforms and the Delaware Blue Hens uniforms. It's because the head coach at Iowa in the late 70s called the Rooneys and asked permission to use the Steelers color scheme, saying that if his team wanted to be winners, they should dress like them. know your steelers history, mang
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Robert Edwards sheds a cautionary tear. I love you for this post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Can someone do a big effort post for a meet your team for the Rams. I know basically no one besides Gurley and Donald
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Can someone do a big effort post for a meet your team for the Rams. I know basically no one besides Gurley and Donald That's pretty much it
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:the Cardinals aren't the second most successful franchise in US pro sports you giant homer in my defense I forgot about the NBA in my rage, whoops. AMEND THAT. overall point stands, the Rams blew on a historic scale for over a decade while the Cardinals were down the street having probably their most successful run ever while already owning the town so yeah, shockingly, attendance declined.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
old dog child posted:That's pretty much it ahem https://twitter.com/JOEL9ONE/status/687492236859326468
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
old dog child posted:That's pretty much it Nah, the DL as a unit is pretty legit, although Nick Fairley apparently disappointed. The Rams are perpetually "oh poo poo they should be really good next year if x happens", then whatever it is that should happen never does. They have no QB which is the biggest problem, they do have Jeff Fisher which is probably the second biggest problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Oh I never payed much attention to them and couldn't name any players without googling the roster. I guess I get to see everybody now though!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
What happened to Steadman Bailey and Tavon Austin? Edit: and Tre Mason
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Steadman Bailey got shot in the head but he's ok.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
And nothing happened to Tre Mason, except that Todd Gurley showed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
kiimo posted:What happened to Steadman Bailey and Tavon Austin? Volkerball posted:Steadman Bailey got shot in the head but he's ok. and Nick Foles and Gurley for the other two guys
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Nick Foles rules*. *I haven't watched him play more than one game since college.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Nick Foles was garbage from the trash can and should never begin another season as a starter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
They also have James Laurinaitis! Remember that guy? And, currently, they have the Seahawks in their back pocket. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:in my defense I forgot about the NBA in my rage, whoops. AMEND THAT. The Football Cardinals were historically bad and still wanted a fancy new stadium when they left, the StL Rams had a losing record in 17 of 21 seasons (15 total wins in 5 years!) but still sold out most of them and got offered a sweet publicly-subsidized stadium in the middle of downtown, obviously St. Louis is a baseball town that doesn't support the NFL.  Edit: The good news is the NFL will suddenly remember what a great football town St. Louis is as soon as another city needs bullying into a new stadium subsidy. PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
My dad's good friend and business partner of 20 years has 2nd row endzone PSL's that he purchased as soon they went on sale back in the early 90's when STL sold them and he's held them ever since. He is eagerly awaiting news on the PSL front as he potentially has a jackpot on his hands via reselling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Case Keenum is the Rams current starting QB.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:in my defense I forgot about the NBA in my rage, whoops. AMEND THAT. Also writing on the wall post-Kroenke buying the land in LA
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
I know I'm supposed to hate Kroenke but he is businessing circles around other businessers. He's making them look like total chumps at this point and an insider was just on the radio saying the way this is going is increasingly that Kroenke will own the LA market alone and the Chargers and Raiders will use their 100m to stay in their towns. Neither team apparently wants to be the lamprey to Kroenke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
The only way Kroenke doesn't own LA is if the Raiders come. I just don't see how or why anyone here without a team would voluntarily choose the Chargers over the Rams as their team of choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:The only way Kroenke doesn't own LA is if the Raiders come. I just don't see how or why anyone here without a team would voluntarily choose the Chargers over the Rams as their team of choice. This is why the Raiders moving to LA would be funny as gently caress. The Ghost of Al's amazing marketing coming back to haunt Kroenke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
I don't know that what's happening is a function of Kroenke's business acumen as it is a function of him marrying into American royalty. He's basically the most attractive option because he'll throw the most money into the deal. although I guess marrying into the Waltons was a pretty good business decision by itself. Really on paper this is a tremendously terrible business move by Kroenke. He's putting forth a loving lot of money, like a loving LOT, into this Inglewood thing and it's pretty much a guarantee that he won't see his money back in his lifetime. I think I read last night he was putting 1.3 billion into this project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Kroenke is making basically a 3 billion gamble when you include the stadium, land and relocation fees. He's the only owner of the 3 who can do that, considering he and his wife are worth 13 billion or whatever. It's a huge gamble because you are relying on LA to embrace the team who won't play in a new stadium for three years. Also in a time of decreasing PSLs from businesses you can't really count on that corporate sponsorship. Consider the lack of sales for Atlanta's stadium. So Kroenke is one of the only owners who can actually afford to take this gamble, the Chargers and Raiders are forced to saddle up to the big fish now that Carson is dead. So what's the point? Does anybody think Spanos or Davis truly believes that a partnership with Kroenke is a benevolent deal? NO chance on that. The NFL is saying hey you need to offer them partnership for the next two years. I forsee that offer getting worse and worse with each passing day as Kroenke figures out ways to exploit it. He just ponied up all the cash to take the risk. He is probably thinking he is entitled to all the revenue and he is right. The risk of this thing failing increases with a second team considering Los Angeles' climate regarding football. What possible benefits would having the Chargers or Raiders share the stadium that he built on the land that he bought be? He doesn't need their cash and their presence decreases the odds of success. I'm convinced the Chargers would be stupid to move and the Raiders will get forced out. Just my limited opinion based on talk radio today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:I don't know that what's happening is a function of Kroenke's business acumen as it is a function of him marrying into American royalty. He's basically the most attractive option because he'll throw the most money into the deal. although I guess marrying into the Waltons was a pretty good business decision by itself. That's how real estate investments work though? He could completely cash out if he sold the land and the team though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:The only way Kroenke doesn't own LA is if the Raiders come. I just don't see how or why anyone here without a team would voluntarily choose the Chargers over the Rams as their team of choice. Because they might actually have a quarterback for a couple years, and they have a cooler song.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:09
|
|
