Would this team Benefit from a Dome?

[Wildcatk23]

Just to think of a different stadium makes me wanna punch small children. But what does everyone think about a Dome? Would it keep Rodgers perfect year round?

 

[greenandgold]

NO! All the tradition of the "Frozen Tundra" shot to hell!

 

[Wildcatk23]

NO! All the tradition of the "Frozen Tundra" shot to hell!

You clearly ignored the question. Would this team Benefit from a year round warm stadium?

 

[VersusTheMoose]

You cannot sacrifice such history for one single player, and Rodgers plays solid in the cold anyway.

 

[neilfii]

Perhaps one of the mods could move this thread to the heresy section.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Sacrilegious. So we've won 17 straight I think. Yeah a dome would be better.

 

[longtimefan]

What prevents them form playing in cold weather places then? Chicago isnt a dome...Any New York area team wouldnt be a dome...

 

[Kitten]

No. The change in temperature would send them into shock and they'd start fumbling, throwing INTs and dropping passes. Chaos would reign. They are used to playing in such weather, it doesn't matter if the dome would be a year round thing. It's part of what makes Green Bay Green Bay. It's also an advantage for us when visiting teams who play in domes have to play in the Frozen Tundra. It's their game that would be thrown, not ours.

 

[Wildcatk23]

Good Good, Exactly what i was expecting to hear.

 

[PackersRS]

It would be better for Rodgers' numbers, yeah. But not better for the team.

First of all, weather isn't a problem for the passing game. Really bad weather is. Really bad weather doesn't happen every game, even in january and at Lambeau. Just think of how many really bad weather games have happened there. Against the Seahawks, and it wasn't that windy IIRC. The Ice Bowl. And that's it.

And even with really bad weather, it still would help the D. This D has proven it can win games by it's own, imagine even more opportunities for turnovers!

And this leads to the final point. Good offense in really bad weather is methodical, ball control offense. Brady is such a good bad weather QB because he makes tons of good decisions and rarely forces the ball. Rodgers is the same.

So, with Rodgers making great decisions, the offense not turning the ball over, as they rarely do, and our defense generating even more turnovers, playing at Lambeau is a plus for us.

The numbers might get worse, we might not score as much as we would indoors, but it's still an advantage, even against so called physical teams. Teams won't win games by running the ball against us, they just can't run the ball against us (Blount run notwhitstanding). In the end, it'll still be about our defense making more plays than theirs, and my money is on Capers' guys, and about Rodgers making more plays than the other QB. And my money is on Rodgers every time.

 

[Kitten]

It would be better for Rodgers' numbers, yeah. But not better for the team.

First of all, weather isn't a problem for the passing game. Really bad weather is. Really bad weather doesn't happen every game, even in january and at Lambeau. Just think of how many really bad weather games have happened there. Against the Seahawks, and it wasn't that windy IIRC. The Ice Bowl. And that's it.

And even with really bad weather, it still would help the D. This D has proven it can win games by it's own, imagine even more opportunities for turnovers!

And this leads to the final point. Good offense in really bad weather is methodical, ball control offense. Brady is such a good bad weather QB because he makes tons of good decisions and rarely forces the ball. Rodgers is the same.

So, with Rodgers making great decisions, the offense not turning the ball over, as they rarely do, and our defense generating even more turnovers, playing at Lambeau is a plus for us.

The numbers might get worse, we might not score as much as we would indoors, but it's still an advantage, even against so called physical teams. Teams won't win games by running the ball against us, they just can't run the ball against us (Blount run notwhitstanding). In the end, it'll still be about our defense making more plays than theirs, and my money is on Capers' guys, and about Rodgers making more plays than the other QB. And my money is on Rodgers every time.

I recall an Eagles game many years ago in GB. A bunch of bored Eagles and staff on the sidelines decided to do an experiment to see just how cold it was in GB. They wanted to see if it was so cold their spit would freeze before it hit the ground. It worked!

 

[Wildcatk23]

I started the exact same thread in a different forum months ago and people was all for giving rodgers a dome. YOu can clearly tell who has been a fan of the packers since Terrell Owens "The Catch" and Mcnabbs 4th and 26. They clearly know nothing of the history and the love of this field. Thanks for the comments.

 

[c33j44y]

Just to think of a different stadium makes me wanna punch small children. But what does everyone think about a Dome? Would it keep Rodgers perfect year round?

Exactly.

 

[Greenbayphil]

The only thing a dome would do would provide perfect conditions to play football in all year round, therefore we might get more games like the ATL divisional game.

In saying that, last year in december, the giants, 45-17.
Fair to say this team can play in any conditions.

Plus when the cold weather arrives it gives me that great nostalgic feeling of just straight up classic football!
Nothing beats it

 

[Bogart]

A dome has it's values and down sides, I know it from watching the Saints year in and year out.


Key points

No wind to screw up field goal kickers

No weather at all to slow down an offense

The crowd noise in a dome is a huge momentum to the home team. Particularly New Orleans, there has been many people, including Favre claim in recent years that dome has been one of the loudest places they've ever played in.

Elite quarterbacks have no weather or wet/muddy turf to slow them down.


The Downsides

If you play an entire season in a dome, you're not always equivalent for playing in the elements.
There is some teams that play in domes and can handle the snow and so on, but not very many.

Getting used to the dome and not playing in weather, also has it's downsides for cold games and rainy ones.


Rodgers has a great record in domes, but I hope we never have the Tundra turn into a dome. Minnesota and Detroit whom are Northern teams both have their nice big domes to avoid bad weather games, but it takes away the weather factor that has made football interesting.

 

[Southpaw]

I think every team would rather play in a dome and would play better in a dome. So yes. But when you talk about playing outdoors @ Lambeau in cold weather it's about handicapping the opposing team because we're already adapted to playing these conditions

 

[VolvoD]

Mods, lock this thread!

 

[weeds]

I would be curious to see how the players would respond to this question.

 

[weeds]

Oh... and I only say that because I live in this ***** year-round. It somehow loses it's charm and isn't so darned "storied" in February and you're paying the heat bill.

 

[Pat4DaPack]

I dont want them in a dome, but I think all teams probably play better in a dome since there is great conditions.

 

[packerfan4ever]

No dome like the cold, that's football season.

 

[VolvoD]

sometimes i wish this board had a "hate" button in addition to the "like" button.

 

[Dan115]

Mike Vandermause ,a writer for the Green Bay Press Gazette, did an interview with Rodgers a while back on this very subject.
Rodgers said he preferred playing in a dome because of footwear issues.
Vandermause also stated Lambeau was design in a manner that making it into a dome is feasible. He said The Packers have already been approached by a group willing to fund roughly 25% of the project. The rest by tax payers. I do no think The Packers are interested in this at this time. They have already announced their renovation plans.

 

[Wildcatk23]

sometimes i wish this board had a "hate" button in addition to the "like" button.

SOmetimes i wish people would respond to a question or thread instead of bashing it.

 

[Forget Favre]

In answer to your question:
Yes they would and they do. Look and see how the Pack have been doing in domes recently.

Of course there won't be one in Lambeau but I think you saw enough other threads on that already.
If Wisconsin residents and the Pack were really hungry enough for a dome in Wisconsin then perhaps they could always return to Milwaukee and play at Miller Park a few times a year.