Page 1 of 3
Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:55 pm
by ChrisBabcock
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:21 pm
by BD Sullivan
The last touchdown in Los Angeles Chargers history was a two-yard third quarter run by Paul Lowe that cut their deficit to the Oilers to 17-16--they lost 24-16 on January 1, 1961.
The last touchdown in San Diego Chargers history was a 12-yard TD pass from Philip Rivers to Hunter Henry with just over two minutes left against the Chiefs--they lost 37-27 on January 1, 2017.
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:56 pm
by 74_75_78_79_
Crazy...and before the ink even dries a new logo already. In my personal opinion no NFL team should be in LA. The league survived 20 years without one so why force in a square peg? It's a college football (USC/UCLA) town. But Rams moving there at least somewhat understandable in that they obviously have a real history there. Being that they already established something in StL much more so than the Cards did (and a 'Greatest Show' era to nostalgically look back on), they simply should have stayed in the midwest. Raiders of course should stay in Oakland but if they must have another home, yes, LA would (in a distant-2nd-place) be it considering their previous time there though not quite as long as the Rams. Like many towns/areas outside Oakland, they do have enough of a fanbase in LA. A brand-new franchise with a new name perhaps the best option if an NFL team 'must' be in LA. But the Chargers?? And when there's already another franchise now present? They're not wanted there! Let's just hope no one shows up for the games so they can have no choice but to move back in a few years.
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:50 pm
by BD Sullivan
74_75_78_79_ wrote:Crazy...and before the ink even dries a new logo already. In my personal opinion no NFL team should be in LA. The league survived 20 years without one so why force in a square peg? It's a college football (USC/UCLA) town. But Rams moving there at least somewhat understandable in that they obviously have a real history there. Being that they already established something in StL much more so than the Cards did (and a 'Greatest Show' era to nostalgically look back on), they simply should have stayed in the midwest. Raiders of course should stay in Oakland but if they must have another home, yes, LA would (in a distant-2nd-place) be it considering their previous time there though not quite as long as the Rams. Like many towns/areas outside Oakland, they do have enough of a fanbase in LA. A brand-new franchise with a new name perhaps the best option if an NFL team 'must' be in LA. But the Chargers?? And when there's already another franchise now present? They're not wanted there! Let's just hope no one shows up for the games so they can have no choice but to move back in a few years.
The Raiders played 13 seasons in LA and the Rams had 21 in St. Louis, so that must mean that ETA in San Diego is 2034.
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:59 pm
by JuggernautJ
For decades Monday Night Football was the best show in the NFL.
But someone decided it would generate more revenue if the Sunday Night Game became the highlight of the week.
And so MNF was designated second best, getting poorer games and far less advertising hoopla than the Sunday Nigth Game.
Now "Football Night in America" (gag, wretch) is supposedly the hot ticket and MNF is seeing its ratings fall (perhaps in an orchestrated move to lead to its demise?) along with the rest of the NFL games.
The point is (IMO), the NFL decided what was best for the league (and to hell with their customers' opinions) and forced a change down the public's throat.
And the same thing is happening now with the Chargers and Raiders.
Tradition, reality and logic be damned, the NFL will have two franchises in LA and Oakland is too small a market too hold a big-league team.
It has been decided.
Next up: is Green Bay too small a market for an NFL team?
Marketing has decided to re-name the team the Wisconsin Packers and they will play their games in Milwaukee with an occasional game in Green Bay, to be phased out as the population ages.
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:21 pm
by BD Sullivan
JuggernautJ wrote:For decades Monday Night Football was the best show in the NFL.
But someone decided it would generate more revenue if the Sunday Night Game became the highlight of the week.
And so MNF was designated second best, getting poorer games and far less advertising hoopla than the Sunday Nigth Game.
Now "Football Night in America" (gag, wretch) is supposedly the hot ticket and MNF is seeing its ratings fall (perhaps in an orchestrated move to lead to its demise?) along with the rest of the NFL games.
The point is (IMO), the NFL decided what was best for the league (and to hell with their customers' opinions) and forced a change down the public's throat.
And the same thing is happening now with the Chargers and Raiders.
Tradition, reality and logic be damned, the NFL will have two franchises in LA and Oakland is too small a market too hold a big-league team.
It has been decided.
Next up: is Green Bay too small a market for an NFL team?
Marketing has decided to re-name the team the Wisconsin Packers and they will play their games in Milwaukee with an occasional game in Green Bay, to be phased out as the population ages.
Another aspect that's changed when it comes to giving the middle finger to the fans is that the scheduling of a late-season night game in a cold climate city is actually now encouraged as opposed to being essentially forbidden before.
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:55 pm
by Rupert Patrick
So are we to presume they have removed the gold out of the Chargers color scheme, and have gone to a blue and white a la the Colts and formerly the Rams. I for one don't like it; their new logo resembles the LA Dodger logo too much, same colors, same white letters on royal blue scheme, only difference the little lightning bolt thing and the font is thicker and a little askew.
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:57 pm
by Reaser
They said that it's not their new logo and that it's just marketing they put together to coincide with announcing their move.
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:07 pm
by jeckle_and_heckle
The league and its teams made these decisions, yes. But nobody is immune to the times in which they live. Today, movies are all CGI or animation, the music industry is toast, and network television is dead. The almighty dollar rules. It always has, of course. But everything is grinding, corporate, efficiency these days. The NFL is falling right in line. It has no choice.
Re: Los Angeles Chargers
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:11 pm
by JohnH19
I'm becoming little more than a casual fan. It wasn't long ago that I watched every game I could but this year I didn't care all that much if the Vikings weren't playing.