The Rams

Greg_Jennings · Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 22849 Location: Milwaukee

With the possibility looming, especially today, that the Vikings will be moving to Los Angeles, I thought this was a good topic to bring up. If the Vikes move to LA, the most likely scenario would be them swapping divisions with the St. Louis Rams. This would put the Rams in a more geographically logical division, the NFC North. So, if this happens, and the Minnesota Vikings are no more, how would you feel about playing the Rams twice a year? They've got a young QB, though it's one that not everyone has faith in. It's a young team that could get better in a couple years, so how threatening are they?

Regardless, I think it would be cool to have another team with a good history in the division.
_________________

In the end, it wasn't guns or bombs that defeated the aliens. It was the humblest of all God's creatures, the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Packerfaninmn · Joined: 03 Jul 2007 Posts: 6797

Except the fact that the Vikes aren't leaving. The same thing happened with the Twins and their stadium. Posturing is all it is. Dumb as all get out though. The longer they wait the more it costs.
_________________

Deep Mug · Joined: 29 Apr 2012 Posts: 586

It's not the 1950s anymore, travel is much easier and more convenient than it used to be; hell, Dallas still plays three teams all located in the mid/north East.

I don't care where the Vikings are, I want the Packers playing them twice a year. They are a huge part of Packer history.

The Rams shouldn't be in St. Louis anyway, that's all Georgia Frontiere's doing.

British · Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 482 Location: England

To answer the question I'd much rather play the Vikings than the Rams. The Rams have a talented young QB and 6 1st round picks over 3 years. If Fisher is as good as advertised they could do some damage down the road.

The Vikings seem to be sorting themselves out a bit. But I wonder if Ponder is the sort of QB just good enough not to get canned yet not of the quality to actually win a Championship with.

GBPACKMAN4LIFE · Joined: 17 Dec 2007 Posts: 16362 Location: Spokane, WA

Replace a crappy dome team with another. I like it.

But I'd rather beat the Vikings twice a year rather than the Rams. Hope they don't leave the North.
_________________

Willink · Joined: 26 Nov 2007 Posts: 10974 Location: Albany, NY

posting over from the last thread:

PackMan22 · Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 854 Location: Idaho

I think it is much more likely that the Rams move back to LA and then the Jags move to St Louis.

And if the Vikings moved, I would think they would leave the team behind, like the Browns did and then another team would move to MIN and take the Vikings name.
_________________
Adopt-a-Packer Frank Zombo

Can we please cease and desist with the term 'professional athletes representing their country'? That term should be reserved for one man and one man only: Pat Tillman.-Mike Bianchi, Orlando Sentinel

DavidatMIZZOU · Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 6025 Location: The ZOU

I would like it, so I wouldn't have a 10 hour drive to go to one game per year.

But the Rams have only a slightly better stadium than the Vikings and have already become the de facto London team. Also baseball is the #1 game here. Some people even like hockey more as well.
_________________
GO PACK GO!

I won an award on the Packers forum, most grumpiest or something.

spilltray · Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 8647 Location: Green Bay, WI

AmishMafia · Joined: 07 Apr 2011 Posts: 222 Location: Las Vegas

On behalf of all Packer fans in Vegas, and So. Cal, I would love for the Vikings to move and for them to stay in the same division. Hell, I would get season tickets just to make sure I had a seat for the Packer Viking game.

PossibleCabbage · Joined: 25 Apr 2011 Posts: 2442

I live in Minnesota, and I hate the Vikings but I don't want to see them leave. I just don't want to have to pay for their stadium.

If the Vikings were to bolt for Los Angeles, I do think that the NFL will eventually realign the divisions to put them in the NFC West. Not because the NFL isn't willing to allow geographical oddities in order to keep traditional rivalries alive, but because the Vikings/Packers rivalry won't survive the Vikings moving to Pacific time.

For one thing, people in Minnesota probably won't keep their loyalties with the Vikings once they've left (similar to how you see very few Dallas Stars fans in the Twin Cities), and the people of Los Angeles have no particular reason to dislike the Bears, Packers, or Lions. The Vikings/Bears and Vikings/Packers rivalries will eventually slouch towards irrelevancy, not from the perspective of Packers and Bears fans, but from the perspective of Vikings fans (both old and new). So the NFL would probably have to realign.

So I don't think it would be an immediate realignment, but there would be one inside of 4 years. Also, the NFL tries to minimize the frequency of "west coast teams crossing two time zones" games when they can, and swapping the Rams and the Vikings eliminates 6 of those games annually. Plus, the NFL generally tolerates geographical weirdness in order to protect series that have huge national TV ratings (which is why the Cowboys are still in the NFC East), but the Vikings just aren't that big a draw.

PackMan22 · Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 854 Location: Idaho

spilltray · Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 8647 Location: Green Bay, WI

PackMan22 · Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 854 Location: Idaho

If their lease runs through 2030 then there is a way to get out of it. Maybe they pay some sort of penalty, but there wouldn't be so much talk about them moving if they were locked in so tightly.
_________________
Adopt-a-Packer Frank Zombo

Can we please cease and desist with the term 'professional athletes representing their country'? That term should be reserved for one man and one man only: Pat Tillman.-Mike Bianchi, Orlando Sentinel

spilltray · Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 8647 Location: Green Bay, WI