So, on opening day when the Seagals beat Detroit 9-6 and last Monday night when JAX beat the Steelers 9-0, those were drama-filled, exciting NFL games??stiffdeadman said:seahawks game all the way. this game could be a preview of the nfc championship game. last years seahawks-giants game blew away any cfl game for drama. the cfl is a boring one dimensional 2nd rate game.
Just a question: Way back in the day weren't the Patriots called the Boston Patriots??tao said:answer this question for me ... why are the new england patriots not called the boston patriots or the foxborough patriots?
![]()
You are correct, sir. When the AFL came into being in 1960, the original eight franchises were the Houston Oilers (now the Tennessee Titans), the Los Angeles Chargers (now the San Diego Chargers), the Dallas Texans (now the Kansas City Chiefs), the New York Titans (now the Jets), the Boston Patriots (now the New England Patriots), the Denver Broncos, the Oakland Raiders and the Buffalo Bills. Forty-six years later, only the Broncos and Bills remain in the same city with the same team name, the Raiders having flip flopped back and forth between Oakland and Los Angeles.Azcanuck said:Just a question: Way back in the day weren't the Patriots called the Boston Patriots??
yup ... its the best (and worst) of both worlds ... a good NFL game can beAzcanuck said:I like both the NFL & CFL. Bottom line: football is football. There's great games and stinkers in both leagues
AZC
stickdoctor said:The NFL really should be the CFL as far as I am concerned:
The Convict Football League.
I do believe they were known as the Boston Patriots up until the AFL-NFL merger. I guess the change to New England was to appeal to fans in that region of the US.Azcanuck said:Just a question: Way back in the day weren't the Patriots called the Boston Patriots??
I thought so. I wasn't positive if they were in the old AFL or not.JustAGuy said:You are correct, sir. When the AFL came into being in 1960, the original eight franchises were the Houston Oilers (now the Tennessee Titans), the Los Angeles Chargers (now the San Diego Chargers), the Dallas Texans (now the Kansas City Chiefs), the New York Titans (now the Jets), the Boston Patriots (now the New England Patriots), the Denver Broncos, the Oakland Raiders and the Buffalo Bills. Forty-six years later, only the Broncos and Bills remain in the same city with the same team name, the Raiders having flip flopped back and forth between Oakland and Los Angeles.
yes, originally they were the boston patriots. they changed their name in the early 70's when they moved to the new stadium at the time in foxborough.Azcanuck said:Just a question: Way back in the day weren't the Patriots called the Boston Patriots??
typical Bonehead move ... the guy makes the stupidest decisions at criticalAzcanuck said:So, who ended up watching the Riders-Lions game. Naturally, I'm pretty happy the Green guys won, but what about that bone-headed decision by Buono to punt on first down for a single in OT.
I can see the papers in Vancouver crucifying him tomorrow![]()
That the Riders won should not have been a shock. The Riders have won 3 of 4 from BC this year and their performance against BC the last 3-4 years has been really good, especially with Dickinson at QB. He always seems to get his head pounded when he plays us. Next time BC-Riders play, I would start Buck Pearce at QB.hornyitalian06 said:I was unable to watch the game on Sunday but I also shocked to hear BC lost to Saskatchewan Riders. However, in CFL anything can happen on any given day to any football team.
I didn't catch the line before the game, but it wouldn't have surprised me if the Riders were the favourite going into the gameMars_Man said:You do realise the Riders beat BC 3 out of 4 times this year?
Last year, Pierce came off the bench for Printers and marched BC down the field for a late score and a win so he has a history of doing well against Sask while DD generally does not do that well, except get beat up. Wally should have clued in and started Pierce or at least put him in earlier. Barrett does the same thing here with Kerry Joseph. He'll ride him the whole game even when he's stinking out the joint.Hardatwork said:The decision to punt on first down was questionable IMO but that's not the decision that had me questioning Wally. What had me questioning Wally is... What took him so long to pull Dickenson? I thought he looked bad for most of the game and when Buck Pierce came in and drove the team downfield and threw the touchdown pass to Claremont, it emphasized how badly DD was playing.
Azcanuck said:Last year, Pierce came off the bench for Printers and marched BC down the field for a late score and a win so he has a history of doing well against Sask while DD generally does not do that well, except get beat up. Wally should have clued in and started Pierce or at least put him in earlier. Barrett does the same thing here with Kerry Joseph. He'll ride him the whole game even when he's stinking out the joint.