Year 2 of the overseas experiment should feature 2 games. It'll be made official sometime this week, but it's looking like the Saints are going to lose another home game, ignoring the games in San Antonio and Baton Rouge after Katrina, they've now been jobbed out of 2 home games the past couple years. Sounds like it'll be a week 8 game, with both teams getting the bye week 9.
Game 2 is also not yet official, but the last news I saw was that it was all but a certainty that Buffalo was going to get permission to play 1 game in Toronto. I knew they were also trying to get a preseason game up there, but no word on that.
For reasons of creative incompetence, this space will be left blank. Advertising opportunities are avaliable though!!! Contact (Number removed due to pending litigation) for details!
Well that may have me excited enough to travel south for the game.
I'd only have been going to the Giants/Fins game to hurl cowardly, drunken abuse at Eli and Shockey, and while that wouldn't have been without it's fun factor, the £'s needed were a bit steep to justify it.
Assuming neither team does stupid in the off season (looking especially at YOU New Orleans) both teams should be in playoff contention next season, and I've never seen LT play live before so that alone would be worth it.
Assuming the report's accurate, interesting that they went for two of the more explosive offensive teams than a match up of the 'old guard' again. Cruddy though they currently are, the Fins, 49ers and Raiders probably all still have bigger support here.
Nice to see them banking on the (likely) quality of play rather than name recognition. Long term,, definitely a wise move.
Of course, we don't "officially" know what the game in 2008 is going to be and won't until the commissioner's press conference on Friday, but this is one of the ones mooted that actually has me quite excited.
For the record, all we know is the home team will be either the Seahawks, the Bucs, the Saints or the Chiefs and it'll definitely be an intraconference game, which basically narrows down the list of possible opponents massively as well.
It's not even 100% sure that Wembley will host it - the other options are the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff (pro - a retractable roof; con - not good on transport links) or Murrayfield in Edinburgh (con - lower capacity than the other two stadiums). But London is still the favourite in my book.
Personally though I'd have thought they would have picked a Chiefs home game, what with all the work going on at Arrowhead next season.
Originally posted by CanardPersonally though I'd have thought they would have picked a Chiefs home game, what with all the work going on at Arrowhead next season.
(edited by Canard on 27.1.08 1706)
As you've said, their rules really limit the options. We've got New Orleans or Tampa Bay vs. Kansas City San Diego or Oakland vs. New Orleans Oakland or San Diego vs. Tampa Bay New England or NY Jets vs. Seattle.
I'm surprised they would put a west coast team in the London game, as you now are giving the Chargers a 6,000 mile trip to the game, and the bye week is the following week. Miami and the Giants were at least East Coast teams with trips that were similar to if they just went to the west coast. That would be a solid reason for Saints vs. KC, as then the trips would be of similar lengths for both sides, give or take a couple of hundred miles, rather than a couple of thousand miles. They need a better playing surface than the one for the Giants/Dolphins game, as that was not conducive to people the size of NFL players. Poor footing is only funny until you start having guys blow out knees at mid-season and have it dramatically impact the playoff race.
Originally posted by CanardIt's not even 100% sure that Wembley will host it - the other options are the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff (pro - a retractable roof; con - not good on transport links) or Murrayfield in Edinburgh (con - lower capacity than the other two stadiums). But London is still the favourite in my book.
Wembley also has a roof. If I recall right, the Dolphins and Giants asked for it not to be closed. I'd be amazed if the don't go with wembley for the reasons you stated, and also because the other two options would mean a lot more fans having to travel a lot further.
Originally posted by redsoxnationI'm surprised they would put a west coast team in the London game, as you now are giving the Chargers a 6,000 mile trip to the game, and the bye week is the following week.
The difference in travel is still the same as a regular East v West clash though right? whether its 4000 v 6000 or 0 v 2000 miles doesnt make any odds really as best I can tell. Unless you're questioning the wisdom of playing in Europe at all, which is a different argument altogether.
Originally posted by redsoxnationThey need a better playing surface than the one for the Giants/Dolphins game, as that was not conducive to people the size of NFL players.
Yeah, I think they figured what was good for rugby league would hold up for an NFL game, which was spectacularly dumb for so many reasons. They faced plenty flak over here* for the resulting state of the pitch the next time England played at home, so it should be a safe bet they get it right this time round.
*By over here I mean "In England". Up Scotland way we mostly found it hilarious.
I have always liked Emmit. He feels he can still play... and last year didn't show me a broken down football player... but an older man still playing decent. I dont like the Arizona football team. Maybe because Bidwell screwed st louis.