Would you support the idea of turning Labeau Field into a Dome?

[Brandon]

I know this may seem sacrilege, and even as a life-long Packer fan I too would be hesitant to see them revamp such a classic stadium in such a drastic way.. but the reality is the Green Bay Packers of today, and for the foreseeable future, are a fast-paced team, not a power football team, and domes tend to cater better to those kinds of teams.

Now I know that when a team comes to Lambeau on a cold, blustery day the playing field is "level" in the sense that both teams have to play in the same conditions.. but if we are facing against a power running team and it is cold and windy, I think they have the upper hand.

The other part that bothers me is players in this day and age are PICKY and have more say in who they want to play with than ever before, and you always see free agents head for warmer climates if the option is there, regardless of the team.. (and as long as the money is decent).

So I dunno, I'm thinking it's time to move forward.. cover up the stadium and provide an entire season of ideal conditions for our team, while catering more to future free agents.

 

[El Guapo]

Ask the Vikings how they like their dome? Just because the Packers are a throw-the-ball team now, and that is all the rage these days, the pendulum will swing my friend. You want to spend all of that money and then be a power football team in 10 years?

I don't see any reason to cover the stadium. The seats are packed and everyone likes it. There are luxury boxes for the elite that don't enjoy the elements. A dome would be a giant waste of money.

 

[VolvoD]

i think i like the idea of banning Brandon a lot more.


(kidding, kidding!)

 

[Southpaw]

No. Absolutely not. Being an outdoor team is supposed to handicap opposing teams, not us. That's part of the allure and benefit of us playing there. The same as mentioned above with The Met. Nobody wanted to go up there November-January and play the Vikings. Sure most domed teams have an advantage in terms of noise but you can't compare than will bone chilling temperatures.

Plus you never know what the league will evolve into next, and our team dynamic could change at any time. We are a pass heavy offense now because we have a Stud QB, what happens when we don't anymore? What if somewhere down the road we switch HC's and become a Power Run team?

 

[okcpackerfan]

I know this may seem sacrilege, and even as a life-long Packer fan I too would be hesitant to see them revamp such a classic stadium in such a drastic way.. but the reality is the Green Bay Packers of today, and for the foreseeable future, are a fast-paced team, not a power football team, and domes tend to cater better to those kinds of teams.

Now I know that when a team comes to Lambeau on a cold, blustery day the playing field is "level" in the sense that both teams have to play in the same conditions.. but if we are facing against a power running team and it is cold and windy, I think they have the upper hand.

The other part that bothers me is players in this day and age are PICKY and have more say in who they want to play with than ever before, and you always see free agents head for warmer climates if the option is there, regardless of the team.. (and as long as the money is decent).

So I dunno, I'm thinking it's time to move forward.. cover up the stadium and provide an entire season of ideal conditions for our team, while catering more to future free agents.

If you are a life-long packer fan you should never want to put a dome on Lambeau

You don't have a business oriented mind, how smart of an idea would it be to build a dome (which would take years to put on) because we are a passing team right now? What if in 10 years we were a power running team playing a team like the st. louis rams circa 1999.

Please show examples of Free Agents heading to warmer climates. I think the NY Giants, Patriots and Packers have done very well in having players who want to play for them.

Bottom line is the vast majority of players want to win, regardless of where they play.

 

[Dan115]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

​

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Dan McGrath​

show details 11/30/11​

​

mvandermase opinion


Howdy y'all - haven't dropped in on this forum for a while now - had to actually reregister because I couldn't recall what email address I used to open my original account.

At any rate, this dome talk is interesting. I recall someone else on this forum by the name of funktrout bringing this up a few years ago. He was basically laughed right out the forum.

I've actually spoken with Rodgers about his dome play on a couple of occasions post-game. This may sound odd, but Rodgers prefers playing in a dome primarily because of footwear issues. He plays better when he gets to wear hisdome shoes. What most people don't realize is that lambeau has a transitional archetectural design... it was built in a manner that making a conversion to a dome is entirely feasible. Expect this to be a hot topic if the Packers do indeed win back to back Superbowls. The Koch brothers are willing to fund roughly 30% of this endeavor, leaving the rest for the taxpayers (likely a retail tax). I for one, am pro -dome. It will bring in much needed jobs to Green Bay put it up there with some of the more elite NFL cities, like Dallas.

 

[okcpackerfan]

​

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

​

​

​

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

​

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Dan McGrath​

​

show details 11/30/11​

​

mvandermase opinion


Howdy y'all - haven't dropped in on this forum for a while now - had to actually reregister because I couldn't recall what email address I used to open my original account.

At any rate, this dome talk is interesting. I recall someone else on this forum by the name of funktrout bringing this up a few years ago. He was basically laughed right out the forum.

I've actually spoken with Rodgers about his dome play on a couple of occasions post-game. This may sound odd, but Rodgers prefers playing in a dome primarily because of footwear issues. He plays better when he gets to wear hisdome shoes. What most people don't realize is that lambeau has a transitional archetectural design... it was built in a manner that making a conversion to a dome is entirely feasible. Expect this to be a hot topic if the Packers do indeed win back to back Superbowls. The Koch brothers are willing to fund roughly 30% of this endeavor, leaving the rest for the taxpayers (likely a retail tax). I for one, am pro -dome. It will bring in much needed jobs to Green Bay put it up there with some of the more elite NFL cities, like Dallas.

Rodgers in many interviews has stated that he does play better in domes, but would never want a dome on Lambeau. How would having a dome vs. no-dome bring in more jobs to Green Bay? It would only bring in workers to build and complete the dome (usually the cheapest bidder, good chance from out of state).

Also, what do you mean put Green Bay up there with elite cities like Dallas? The exact reason that Green Bay is so special is because it is a small community with a stadium that holds about half the population of the city.

 

[Dan115]

Rodgers in many interviews has stated that he does play better in domes, but would never want a dome on Lambeau. How would having a dome vs. no-dome bring in more jobs to Green Bay? It would only bring in workers to build and complete the dome (usually the cheapest bidder, good chance from out of state).

Also, what do you mean put Green Bay up there with elite cities like Dallas? The exact reason that Green Bay is so special is because it is a small community with a stadium that holds about half the population of the city.

Mike Vandermase opinion Nov 2011

 

[okcpackerfan]

Mike Vandermase opinion Nov 2011

OKCPACKERFAN March 2012

 

[jaybadger82]

​

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

​

​

​

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

​

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Dan McGrath​

​

show details 11/30/11​

​

mvandermase opinion


Howdy y'all - haven't dropped in on this forum for a while now - had to actually reregister because I couldn't recall what email address I used to open my original account.

At any rate, this dome talk is interesting. I recall someone else on this forum by the name of funktrout bringing this up a few years ago. He was basically laughed right out the forum.

I've actually spoken with Rodgers about his dome play on a couple of occasions post-game. This may sound odd, but Rodgers prefers playing in a dome primarily because of footwear issues. He plays better when he gets to wear hisdome shoes. What most people don't realize is that lambeau has a transitional archetectural design... it was built in a manner that making a conversion to a dome is entirely feasible. Expect this to be a hot topic if the Packers do indeed win back to back Superbowls. The Koch brothers are willing to fund roughly 30% of this endeavor, leaving the rest for the taxpayers (likely a retail tax). I for one, am pro -dome. It will bring in much needed jobs to Green Bay put it up there with some of the more elite NFL cities, like Dallas.

...and completely squander the home field advantage delivered by the elements in Green Bay.

Like others here, you're allowing some off-hand comments from current personnel to influence a very profound and lasting change, a change that will effectively squander what has become a very unique and potent home field advantage during the playoffs. Dumb.

Football wasn't meant to be played indoors.

 

[jaybadger82]

Rodgers in many interviews has stated that he does play better in domes, but would never want a dome on Lambeau. How would having a dome vs. no-dome bring in more jobs to Green Bay? It would only bring in workers to build and complete the dome (usually the cheapest bidder, good chance from out of state).

Also, what do you mean put Green Bay up there with elite cities like Dallas? The exact reason that Green Bay is so special is because it is a small community with a stadium that holds about half the population of the city.

If taxpayers are picking up any portion of the tab, the legislation will probably require bidding by Wisconsin state contractors, so that isn't really a problem.

Your second point is great: there's value in being unique!

I don't normally speak in broad generalities but anyone advocating turning Lambeau into a dome is a f*&$^#g moron.

 

[SEWICHEESE]

I'm about 99.9% sure they couldn't retrofit Lambeau to be a dome. And do you think the voters would approve a referendum vote for a new dome stadium and dump Lambeau Stadium? Pluuuuleeeezzzzzz!

 

[Brandon]

...and completely squander the home field advantage delivered by the elements in Green Bay.

Like others here, you're allowing some off-hand comments from current personnel to influence a very profound and lasting change, a change that will effectively squander what has become a very unique and potent home field advantage during the playoffs. Dumb.

Football wasn't meant to be played indoors.

Where is the home field advantage? Sure, during the pre-winter months the advantage is there when the crowd has our back, but as I pointed out that advantage is GONE when we get matched up against a power-running team. I understand the logic you are attempting to offer in that we might not always be a pass-first team, but the way of the featured running back and power running is diminishing and the NFL is swiftly becoming an arena-league. The Packers have ALWAYS been a QB school anyway, so I honestly don't see them ever reverting from their ways.

Just my opinion, I guess I enjoy watching the team play to its maximum potential rather than adjust to the weather conditions.

 

[Dan115]

I'm about 99.9% sure they couldn't retrofit Lambeau to be a dome. And do you think the voters would approve a referendum vote for a new dome stadium and dump Lambeau Stadium? Pluuuuleeeezzzzzz!

What most people don't realize is that lambeau has a transitional archetectural design... it was built in a manner that making a conversion to a dome is entirely feasible. Expect this to be a hot topic if the Packers do indeed win back to back Superbowls. The Koch brothers are willing to fund roughly 30% of this endeavor, leaving the rest for the taxpayers (likely a retail tax).

 

[Rocky11]

I know it is all about tradition but I would dome every NFL stadium. The money you pay for a ticket is way to high to sit in the cold and rain to watch a game. Why subject the players to that? High school are over before real cold weather comes. Even the college season never really has to deal with too much bad weather. The NFL is now played into February. You play in the NFL and make millions each season and you have to play in 30 degree temperatures and freezing rain? really? With the amount of money involved in the NFL I am surprise it's not a rule already. Think about it, you are a dome team and make it to the playoffs and you end up in Seatle where you are so cold and wet you can't even throw and catch a football, lose a game that if you were at a decent field you would have won easily? That would sure enough **** me off. It don't seem fair. If I was the commissioner I would give all teams 10 years to have their stadiums domed. I know you all will shoot me but why not?

 

[GeeDogWarrior]

No, we just need our WRs to show up and catch the ball.
We need our Defensive line to show up along with our Linebackers so we can shutdown power running teams.
etc. We just need to perform championship caliber football when it comes playoff time.

 

[VolvoD]

I know it is all about tradition but I would dome every NFL stadium. The money you pay for a ticket is way to high to sit in the cold and rain to watch a game. Why subject the players to that? High school are over before real cold weather comes. Even the college season never really has to deal with too much bad weather. The NFL is now played into February. You play in the NFL and make millions each season and you have to play in 30 degree temperatures and freezing rain? really? With the amount of money involved in the NFL I am surprise it's not a rule already. Think about it, you are a dome team and make it to the playoffs and you end up in Seatle where you are so cold and wet you can't even throw and catch a football, lose a game that if you were at a decent field you would have won easily? That would sure enough **** me off. It don't seem fair. If I was the commissioner I would give all teams 10 years to have their stadiums domed. I know you all will shoot me but why not?

A big part of football is about THE ELEMENTS. Why do you think games like "THE ICE BOWL" are legendary? Football is a TOUGH sport and part of that is braving the elements, even on a fan level....and its not supposed to be easy. if a team can't play in bad weather, guess what? they suck. Let traditional football be traditional football... Otherwise, its arena football...MAN UP!

 

[ivo610]

I don't know what to make of this thread.

 

[Lunchboxer]

To put it frankly um






























































































NO!!!!!!NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

 

[okcpackerfan]

Where is the home field advantage? Sure, during the pre-winter months the advantage is there when the crowd has our back, but as I pointed out that advantage is GONE when we get matched up against a power-running team. I understand the logic you are attempting to offer in that we might not always be a pass-first team, but the way of the featured running back and power running is diminishing and the NFL is swiftly becoming an arena-league. The Packers have ALWAYS been a QB school anyway, so I honestly don't see them ever reverting from their ways.

Just my opinion, I guess I enjoy watching the team play to its maximum potential rather than adjust to the weather conditions.

the person you quoted actually didn't make the point we might not always be a passing team, I did.

They have NOT always been a QB school, how about the years of the lombardi. His main philosophy was that "football is a running game" hence the lombardi sweep.

I like to watch football; players, teams and coaches adjusting to conditions, game situations, injuries, schemes, etc...

You apparently like to watch 7 on 7 2 hand touch. I am not trying to pile on here but you really offer no valid or intelligent arguments as to why the Packers should dome Lambeau but I would be interested if you did provide one!

 

[okcpackerfan]

I know it is all about tradition but I would dome every NFL stadium. The money you pay for a ticket is way to high to sit in the cold and rain to watch a game. Why subject the players to that? High school are over before real cold weather comes. Even the college season never really has to deal with too much bad weather. The NFL is now played into February. You play in the NFL and make millions each season and you have to play in 30 degree temperatures and freezing rain? really? With the amount of money involved in the NFL I am surprise it's not a rule already. Think about it, you are a dome team and make it to the playoffs and you end up in Seatle where you are so cold and wet you can't even throw and catch a football, lose a game that if you were at a decent field you would have won easily? That would sure enough **** me off. It don't seem fair. If I was the commissioner I would give all teams 10 years to have their stadiums domed. I know you all will shoot me but why not?

.......Really?

 

[Brandon]

the person you quoted actually didn't make the point we might not always be a passing team, I did.

They have NOT always been a QB school, how about the years of the lombardi. His main philosophy was that "football is a running game" hence the lombardi sweep.

I like to watch football; players, teams and coaches adjusting to conditions, game situations, injuries, schemes, etc...

You apparently like to watch 7 on 7 2 hand touch. I am not trying to pile on here but you really offer no valid or intelligent arguments as to why the Packers should dome Lambeau but I would be interested if you did provide one!

You are apparently living 50 years in the past. Are you trying to tell me that the passing game ISN'T the present and the future of the NFL? I want my favorite team to WIN as often as they can, not to test their mettle in the elements. The stats don't lie, and the stats show that teams like Green Bay play BETTER in domes. I don't know how much more intelligent of an argument you want--my wish for a dome is purely the desire to see as many victories as possible.

The Packers will never again be a run-first team, and so too will follow most other NFL teams. There is a very good reason why QB's and WR's are getting tons of money, while players like Matt Forte who practically carry their team still get snubbed. The Adrian Peterson's of the football world are far and few, the Aaron Rodgers's and Drew Brees's are where it is at in the NFL right now.

So in short what is my argument? It's quite simple, winning games at home when it is 70 and mild is fine and dandy.. but when we are faced with a blizzard come playoff time and we have home-field advantage, we are going to be at a disadvantage because playoffs start right around when the weather gets damn cold, and our beloved green and gold simply aren't used to it, and aren't used to pounding the rock. Cover up the stadium, problem solved.

 

[okcpackerfan]

You are apparently living 50 years in the past. Are you trying to tell me that the passing game ISN'T the present and the future of the NFL? I want my favorite team to WIN as often as they can, not to test their mettle in the elements. The stats don't lie, and the stats show that teams like Green Bay play BETTER in domes. I don't know how much more intelligent of an argument you want--my wish for a dome is purely the desire to see as many victories as possible.

The Packers will never again be a run-first team, and so too will follow most other NFL teams. There is a very good reason why QB's and WR's are getting tons of money, while players like Matt Forte who practically carry their team still get snubbed. The Adrian Peterson's of the football world are far and few, the Aaron Rodgers's and Drew Brees's are where it is at in the NFL right now.

So in short what is my argument? It's quite simple, winning games at home when it is 70 and mild is fine and dandy.. but when we are faced with a blizzard come playoff time and we have home-field advantage, we are going to be at a disadvantage because playoffs start right around when the weather gets damn cold, and our beloved green and gold simply aren't used to it, and aren't used to pounding the rock. Cover up the stadium, problem solved.

1. You are the one that said the Packers have ALWAYS been a passing team not me.
2. Please show me a significant sample size that shows teams that are really good and pass oriented lose more often in cold weather when playing running teams.
3. You can't make a statement saying the Packers will never be a run first team again because you don't know

Even without those three points your reasoning for a statement is completely flawed. You say the NFL is moving towards a passing league and QB's and WR's are where its going to be in the NFL and the future of the NFL. If thats the case then in your mind, in a few years all teams will be passing teams so the playing field is then leveled during inclement weather, right? So it wouldn't matter if we were a dome team or an outside team if all teams are passing teams.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

No

 

[Vltrophy]

Lambeau Field is one of the few stadiums that is historical. When something is historical like LF you don't dome it!!!!