Valuation of NFL Teams

[milani]

Good points. Jerry, or any owner, can't buy a SB championship, unlike MLB. The 30-year drought for the Cowboys is fine w/ me. The Cowboys and the Vikings are heated rivalries. Sure the Packers/Bears goes back about 1,000 years, but aren't as intense as the Cowboys/Vikings.

Of course the Bears sucked for decades, with the big exception of 1985. It's hard to call it a rivalry when one team dominates so much. But things come around, and it looks like the Bears are legitimate rivals, finally. As despicable as Johnson is, he's a good HC with a talented team.

So right. It was hard to get mad at the Bears except for the Ditka years. The Vikes were the rival from the Tarkenton teams and then the jinx of playing in that crazy Humpty Dome. And the Boys, of course, go way back to the Landry days of intensity.
The Bears were never that good for very long. Will they put together a decade of dominance again? Maybe Indiana will make that happen.
During the Halas- Lombardi years the Bears were the big rival. In 1959 Vince takes over a 1-10-1 team and beats the Bears on opening day. In 1960 Hornung scores 19 points in Chicago and throws a football into the stands enflaming Halas. In 1961 the Packers beat the Bears on a Hornung 51 yard FG. In 1962 the Packers trounce the Bears twice by a combined score of 87-7! Halas wrath showed up in 1963 and a not so great Bears team steals the Championship from what should have been ours. In 1964 the Packers get back at the Bears but seem to forget the rest of the league.
Finally, the arrival of Sayers-Butkus in 1965 renewed the battlefield for several years and then it faded as both teams deteriorated at the same time. 32 teams is a lot more than 14.

 

[rmontro]

Packer fans were hoping to get the Boys in the postseason. But after beating Denny Green and the Vikes, Dallas loses to Carolina and it resets the scenario.

It would have been satisfying to beat them in the playoffs, but they had been such a huge thorn in our side, I was fine with them being eliminated. The Super Bowl win was no less sweet. I loved Holmgren's oft noted quote about the trophy being named after Lombardi, and that as much as it meant to the other teams in the league, it means more to us. Maybe I'm a sentimental, romantic fool, but I totally buy that, still.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The players did not like him, but they played for him.

That's what I remember. He was a polarizing guy. I think he's the first owner to allow players to grow facial hair.

 

[Heyjoe4]

So right. It was hard to get mad at the Bears except for the Ditka years. The Vikes were the rival from the Tarkenton teams and then the jinx of playing in that crazy Humpty Dome. And the Boys, of course, go way back to the Landry days of intensity.
The Bears were never that good for very long. Will they put together a decade of dominance again? Maybe Indiana will make that happen.
During the Halas- Lombardi years the Bears were the big rival. In 1959 Vince takes over a 1-10-1 team and beats the Bears on opening day. In 1960 Hornung scores 19 points in Chicago and throws a football into the stands enflaming Halas. In 1961 the Packers beat the Bears on a Hornung 51 yard FG. In 1962 the Packers trounce the Bears twice by a combined score of 87-7! Halas wrath showed up in 1963 and a not so great Bears team steals the Championship from what should have been ours. In 1964 the Packers get back at the Bears but seem to forget the rest of the league.
Finally, the arrival of Sayers-Butkus in 1965 renewed the battlefield for several years and then it faded as both teams deteriorated at the same time. 32 teams is a lot more than 14.

Great history milani, thanks! Yeah the Bears/Packers is still considered the longest/best rivalry by many. Of course every team has natural rivals. None quite seem to match the longevity of the Bears/Packers.

 

[Heyjoe4]

It would have been satisfying to beat them in the playoffs, but they had been such a huge thorn in our side, I was fine with them being eliminated. The Super Bowl win was no less sweet. I loved Holmgren's oft noted quote about the trophy being named after Lombardi, and that as much as it meant to the other teams in the league, it means more to us. Maybe I'm a sentimental, romantic fool, but I totally buy that, still.

There's no doubt that the naming of the SB trophy after Lombardi means something special to Packer fans, regardless of who wins the game. Holmgren was right.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Sounds like nobody liked it. But that seems kind of contradictory. Sounds like they hit it just fine.
I doubt if it really made that much of a difference, but one game isn't much of a sample size.



I don't know if it's a good idea or not, I just like it. Seems fun.

A day-glo orange baseball would really mess with baseball purists. I think it would improve play, I'm just not quite 100% sold on it.

 

[rmontro]

There's no doubt that the naming of the SB trophy after Lombardi means something special to Packer fans, regardless of who wins the game. Holmgren was right.

I remember back in the days of Usenet, the Vikings trolls used to always complain about naming the trophy after Lombardi. They would always say they just named it after him because he died - which was a factor, admittedly, but you can't say he was unworthy of it.

A day-glo orange baseball would really mess with baseball purists. I think it would improve play, I'm just not quite 100% sold on it.

Back in the early 70s, the purists didn't even like the Oakland A's uniforms. They said they were too brightly colored, and looked like softball uniforms.