The 2012 NFL Thread

[King Postwhore]

As are contractions

Yeah bud!  We've got a meaningless game tonight!

[black_biff_stadler]

Alrighty, either DirecTV, the NFL, or both, are complete assholes since NFL Sunday Ticket doesn't include preseason games even though they're charging $300 for it (the $200 offer in the commercial is for a MUCH shittier package.) I'm living 1000 miles from New Orleans and really don't wanna miss the Saints/Pats game tonight and I can't find out if any networks are carrying it in my market, Raleigh, N. Carolina.

I don't wanna violate any forum rules since I don't know the policy on posting links for streaming sports programming that may or may not be protected by copyright. Instead, can anyone who knows what site(s) may be streaming the game please PM me WITHOUT the link so we can get contact info straight so you can email me the link. My email's already on my profile page, I believe, but I wanna make sure I can find you in case it gets diverted to my junk folder which happens sometimes.

As are contractions

Yeah bud!  We've got a meaningless game tonight!

Ahh...indeed we do. I'll have you know that the Pats are my team of choice for the Saints to play in the Super Bowl should we make it back there during Tom Brady's career. Reason being is that it would make the Saints easily one of the best two-title teams ever for doing so during the same era against the two best QBs not already playing on their team.

[King Postwhore]

That sucks man.  I'll watch the first quarter plus.  Not going.  We never go to the preseason games.

[black_biff_stadler]

I have much love for your unwillingness to go to preseason games. They're easily one of the most fucked-up aspects of the NFL's business model since, obviously, the players don't get paid anything more than their per diem (I'd be shocked to find out if this is any more than $100 a man) and also the way the scheisty owners basically steal from the same season ticket holders whom are their bread and butter by forcing them to have to spend 25% more money than they want to by buying the tickets to two meaningless, boring games that feature a product that's grossly inferior to regular season games.

[bosk1]

Wow, it's almost time... 

[black_biff_stadler]

The 9ers are in for quite a drubbing in the Dome this year

"Just like the one we gave you at Candlestick?"

5 turnovers ain't happening again. Nor is our D gonna give up 36 points to a run-first offense.

[bosk1]

Save the trash talk until you've earned the right.

[El Barto]

What I really despise is when folks talk shit or brag on behalf of teams that aren't even from their home area. Excuse me, what bragging rights do you have? What do you share with this team that makes you eligible to get mouthy based on their performance?

There's a whole bunch wrong with that post.  What bragging rights does anybody have, hometown or not?  Rooting for a team is one thing.  Even playfully talking shit against a rival.  Bragging rights, though?  Nah.  You have none. 

More to the point, hometown loyalty is just fucking stupid.  Those guys have nothing in common with you or your town, except they live there 6 months out of the year.  I don't fly AA, drink Pepsi or buy Exxon gas because they're based out of Dallas.  It's just a company.  I choose a team to root for based on whether or not I think they've done anything to deserve respect.  That's why I turned off of the Cowboys.  That's why I root for the Patriots.  At least one team in the NFL conducts itself with some class. 

[King Postwhore]

I wish the NFL would change the cost of the preseason games.  Nobody wants to go to pre season games anymore.  If the NFL doesn't want to loose money, charge $20 for the preseason and take the other $80 for the ticket and add that cost ($160 for 2 preseason games) and add that to the cost of the regular season tickets.  Then, when I don't go to the game and sell the tickets back through the Pats, I won't loose as much money.  Nobody wants pre season games seeing the starters playing 1 quarter.

[black_biff_stadler]

What I really despise is when folks talk shit or brag on behalf of teams that aren't even from their home area. Excuse me, what bragging rights do you have? What do you share with this team that makes you eligible to get mouthy based on their performance?

There's a whole bunch wrong with that post.  What bragging rights does anybody have, hometown or not?  Rooting for a team is one thing.  Even playfully talking shit against a rival.  Bragging rights, though?  Nah.  You have none. 

More to the point, hometown loyalty is just fucking stupid.  Those guys have nothing in common with you or your town, except they live there 6 months out of the year.  I don't fly AA, drink Pepsi or buy Exxon gas because they're based out of Dallas.  It's just a company.  I choose a team to root for based on whether or not I think they've done anything to deserve respect.  That's why I turned off of the Cowboys.  That's why I root for the Patriots.  At least one team in the NFL conducts itself with some class.

Yes, you do have bragging rights if you're from the same town where they play. Sports bragging rights are as old as sports themselves, don't be naive. What is "stupid", as you like to put it, is jumping on bandwagons since you obviously wouldn't bother cheering for a team that was winning 3-7 games a year on a regular basis. Part of the fun and foundation of bragging rights is that there's a sense of satisfaction when your team breaks through and establishes a period of sustained success. Any schlub can just ride the crest of the wave and only root for front runners. If the Pats enter a stretch of ineptitude following Brady's retirement, where will you be?

[KevShmev]

The 9ers are in for quite a drubbing in the Dome this year

"Just like the one we gave you at Candlestick?"

5 turnovers ain't happening again. Nor is our D gonna give up 36 points to a run-first offense.

Okay, but a regular season win will never erase a playoff loss.  A friend from work roots for the Steelers (only because her husband is from Pittsburgh), and with the Broncos and Steelers playing Week 1, she is already preparing her smack talk in case the Steelers win, but it's like I told her, "If the Broncos win, it's just another win over the Steelers, but if the Steelers win, that still doesn't erase the Broncos win over them in the playoffs!"  So, I win either way.

[El Barto]

What I really despise is when folks talk shit or brag on behalf of teams that aren't even from their home area. Excuse me, what bragging rights do you have? What do you share with this team that makes you eligible to get mouthy based on their performance?

There's a whole bunch wrong with that post.  What bragging rights does anybody have, hometown or not?  Rooting for a team is one thing.  Even playfully talking shit against a rival.  Bragging rights, though?  Nah.  You have none. 

More to the point, hometown loyalty is just fucking stupid.  Those guys have nothing in common with you or your town, except they live there 6 months out of the year.  I don't fly AA, drink Pepsi or buy Exxon gas because they're based out of Dallas.  It's just a company.  I choose a team to root for based on whether or not I think they've done anything to deserve respect.  That's why I turned off of the Cowboys.  That's why I root for the Patriots.  At least one team in the NFL conducts itself with some class.

Yes, you do have bragging rights if you're from the same town where they play. Sports bragging rights are as old as sports themselves, don't be naive. What is "stupid", as you like to put it, is jumping on bandwagons since you obviously wouldn't bother cheering for a team that was winning 3-7 games a year on a regular basis. Part of the fun and foundation of bragging rights is that there's a sense of satisfaction when your team breaks through and establishes a period of sustained success. Any schlub can just ride the crest of the wave and only root for front runners. If the Pats enter a stretch of ineptitude following Brady's retirement, where will you be?

So you stopped being a Saints fan when they were sucking? 

[bosk1]

Yes, you do have bragging rights if you're from the same town where they play. Sports bragging rights are as old as sports themselves, don't be naive. What is "stupid", as you like to put it, is jumping on bandwagons since you obviously wouldn't bother cheering for a team that was winning 3-7 games a year on a regular basis. Part of the fun and foundation of bragging rights is that there's a sense of satisfaction when your team breaks through and establishes a period of sustained success. Any schlub can just ride the crest of the wave and only root for front runners. If the Pats enter a stretch of ineptitude following Brady's retirement, where will you be?

Sorry, but that post is just dumb, and completely misses the point of what Barto said.  Yeah, it's great to have loyalty to a particular team through thick and thin because you like them (whether they are the "hometown" team or not).  But it can be equally great to root for and have loyalty to a team because you like their players, admire their organization, respect their coaching staff, or whatever other reason.  There's nothing intrinsically "better" about one or the other.  And the latter is not necessarily being a "bandwagon" fan--at least, not on the sense of jumping on the bandwagon just because the team is winning.

[black_biff_stadler]

What I really despise is when folks talk shit or brag on behalf of teams that aren't even from their home area. Excuse me, what bragging rights do you have? What do you share with this team that makes you eligible to get mouthy based on their performance?

There's a whole bunch wrong with that post.  What bragging rights does anybody have, hometown or not?  Rooting for a team is one thing.  Even playfully talking shit against a rival.  Bragging rights, though?  Nah.  You have none. 

More to the point, hometown loyalty is just fucking stupid.  Those guys have nothing in common with you or your town, except they live there 6 months out of the year.  I don't fly AA, drink Pepsi or buy Exxon gas because they're based out of Dallas.  It's just a company.  I choose a team to root for based on whether or not I think they've done anything to deserve respect.  That's why I turned off of the Cowboys.  That's why I root for the Patriots.  At least one team in the NFL conducts itself with some class.

Yes, you do have bragging rights if you're from the same town where they play. Sports bragging rights are as old as sports themselves, don't be naive. What is "stupid", as you like to put it, is jumping on bandwagons since you obviously wouldn't bother cheering for a team that was winning 3-7 games a year on a regular basis. Part of the fun and foundation of bragging rights is that there's a sense of satisfaction when your team breaks through and establishes a period of sustained success. Any schlub can just ride the crest of the wave and only root for front runners. If the Pats enter a stretch of ineptitude following Brady's retirement, where will you be?

So you stopped being a Saints fan when they were sucking?

My post was indicating that folks that root for out-of-market teams as their #1 team have a higher propensity for being fair weather. As teenagers in the 90s my brother and I listened to Saints home games on WWL 870 AM because the Saints couldn't sell out home games if they gave out vouchers for free Popeye's, good beer, and complimentary call girls.

Yes, you do have bragging rights if you're from the same town where they play. Sports bragging rights are as old as sports themselves, don't be naive. What is "stupid", as you like to put it, is jumping on bandwagons since you obviously wouldn't bother cheering for a team that was winning 3-7 games a year on a regular basis. Part of the fun and foundation of bragging rights is that there's a sense of satisfaction when your team breaks through and establishes a period of sustained success. Any schlub can just ride the crest of the wave and only root for front runners. If the Pats enter a stretch of ineptitude following Brady's retirement, where will you be?

Sorry, but that post is just dumb, and completely misses the point of what Barto said.  Yeah, it's great to have loyalty to a particular team through thick and thin because you like them (whether they are the "hometown" team or not).  But it can be equally great to root for and have loyalty to a team because you like their players, admire their organization, respect their coaching staff, or whatever other reason.  There's nothing intrinsically "better" about one or the other.  And the latter is not necessarily being a "bandwagon" fan--at least, not on the sense of jumping on the bandwagon just because the team is winning.

Not "necessarily" indeed but how many folks that jumped on the Raiders and Broncos bandwagons in the 80s/90s respectively do you still see rooting for them? A few here and there yes, but those herds thinned out considerably once the Raiders entered their decade-long swoon and the Broncos returned to mediocrity pre-Tebow.

The Packers and Cowboys were also big draws for bandwagoneers as well but the main reasons their fans have stuck around is because the Packers have yet to stop regularly making the playoffs and the Cowboys are the Yankees of the NFL in that they're the go-to team for the largest chunk of bandwagoneers much like Notre Dame in college football.

[El Barto]

All I'm saying is that of all the reasons to like a team, the fact that they base out of the same city you live in is a pretty weak one.  Support a team because they're worthy of your respect,  not because of where they play. 

[bosk1]

Not "necessarily" indeed but how many folks that jumped on the Raiders and Broncos bandwagons in the 80s/90s respectively do you still see rooting for them? A few here and there yes, but those herds thinned out considerably once the Raiders entered their decade-long swoon and the Broncos returned to mediocrity pre-Tebow.

The Packers and Cowboys were also big draws for bandwagoneers as well but the main reasons their fans have stuck around is because the Packers have yet to stop regularly making the playoffs and the Cowboys are the Yankees of the NFL in that they're the go-to team for the largest chunk of bandwagoneers much like Notre Dame in college football.

But who cares?  If you somehow feel morally superior to someone who fits in that category, I think you have your priorities mixed up.

[KevShmev]

Not "necessarily" indeed but how many folks that jumped on the Raiders and Broncos bandwagons in the 80s/90s respectively do you still see rooting for them? A few here and there yes, but those herds thinned out considerably once the Raiders entered their decade-long swoon and the Broncos returned to mediocrity pre-Tebow.

Uh, what?  The Broncos never returned to mediocrity.  Since Elway retired, the Broncos have only had three losing seasons in the 13 full seasons since (vs. six winning seasons), with an overall record of 111-97.  Okay, 2010 was rough, but one bad season does not equal a return to mediocrity. 

[black_biff_stadler]

All I'm saying is that of all the reasons to like a team, the fact that they base out of the same city you live in is a pretty weak one.  Support a team because they're worthy of your respect,  not because of where they play. 

No it isn't weak at all. If there was little or no importance to having geographic loyalty, they wouldn't even bother affixing city names to the teams in the first place. When you go to a game there's a sense of togetherness and synergy that creates an intense vibe that makes the game explosive and far more enjoyable than watching it at a bar or in your living room could ever be. If everyone just rooted for teams willy nilly, it'd be impossible to recreate that experience.

Not "necessarily" indeed but how many folks that jumped on the Raiders and Broncos bandwagons in the 80s/90s respectively do you still see rooting for them? A few here and there yes, but those herds thinned out considerably once the Raiders entered their decade-long swoon and the Broncos returned to mediocrity pre-Tebow.

Uh, what?  The Broncos never returned to mediocrity.  Since Elway retired, the Broncos have only had three losing seasons in the 13 full seasons since (vs. six winning seasons), with an overall record of 111-97.  Okay, 2010 was rough, but one bad season does not equal a return to mediocrity. 

They've won 2 playoff games in 13 seasons and missed the playoffs for 5 straight seasons from '06-'10 having only one winning season by the narrowest margin possible during that stretch (9-7 in 2006.) Yes, that is textbook mediocre.

[bosk1]

Denver is an interesting one for me.  I became a fan as a kid when DeBerg went over from the 49ers in 1981 or '82.  That first got me noticing them and liking them as a team.  Then when Elway came on over following DeBerg's short run with them, they became pretty fun to watch.  He was with them so unbelievably long that it is still hard to conceive of that team separate and apart from them.  After he left, I didn't really find anyone on the team to latch onto, and my interest waned.  I guess I still somewhat "like" them, but wouldn't really consider myself a "fan" anymore (they were my #3 team for all those years, behind SF and Grean Bay--my #1 and #2 spots have not changed since I was a kid).  Now that they have Manning, my favorite active non-SF player, I'll be rooting pretty hard for them again for awhile.

[El Barto]

And another thing, why does the team they play for endear any more respect for a player than their actions or conduct?  I think the overwhelming majority of NFL players are overpaid, whiny assholes.  I have no fondness for them, and I doubt that many of them would give a shit about me either, and if they have a Cowboys or Patriots patch on their shoulder isn't likely to change that.  BF asked if I'd still be a Patriots fan after Brady retires and they start to suck.  I don't really care about Tom Brady outside of the fact that he's a talented QB.  I'll be a fan as long as they have ownership and coaching that hold them to a level worthy of respect. 

[bosk1]

I think the overwhelming majority of NFL players are overpaid, whiny assholes. 

  Yes, but that's part of the inherent hypocrisy of watching profesional sports.  I think Elway and Manning fit that description.  But I still kind of like them despite that.  Mostly just because they play football at an unbelievable level. 

[black_biff_stadler]

And another thing, why does the team they play for endear any more respect for a player than their actions or conduct?  I think the overwhelming majority of NFL players are overpaid, whiny assholes.  I have no fondness for them, and I doubt that many of them would give a shit about me either, and if they have a Cowboys or Patriots patch on their shoulder isn't likely to change that.  BF asked if I'd still be a Patriots fan after Brady retires and they start to suck.  I don't really care about Tom Brady outside of the fact that he's a talented QB.  I'll be a fan as long as they have ownership and coaching that hold them to a level worthy of respect. 

Once again, you kinda missed my point. I basically meant "will you still like them if they start running off .500-or-worse seasons continually?" I threw Brady's name in since it's almost guaranteed they'll win 10-14 games a year until he's very much on the back end.

Denver is an interesting one for me.  I became a fan as a kid when DeBerg went over from the 49ers in 1981 or '82.  That first got me noticing them and liking them as a team.  Then when Elway came on over following DeBerg's short run with them, they became pretty fun to watch.  He was with them so unbelievably long that it is still hard to conceive of that team separate and apart from them.  After he left, I didn't really find anyone on the team to latch onto, and my interest waned.  I guess I still somewhat "like" them, but wouldn't really consider myself a "fan" anymore (they were my #3 team for all those years, behind SF and Grean Bay--my #1 and #2 spots have not changed since I was a kid).  Now that they have Manning, my favorite active non-SF player, I'll be rooting pretty hard for them again for awhile.

What was SB XXIV like for you? Any ambivalence about the drubbing Denver took since you still could've been happy about a competitive 9er win or were you satisfied with the record margin?

[KevShmev]

Not "necessarily" indeed but how many folks that jumped on the Raiders and Broncos bandwagons in the 80s/90s respectively do you still see rooting for them? A few here and there yes, but those herds thinned out considerably once the Raiders entered their decade-long swoon and the Broncos returned to mediocrity pre-Tebow.

Uh, what?  The Broncos never returned to mediocrity.  Since Elway retired, the Broncos have only had three losing seasons in the 13 full seasons since (vs. six winning seasons), with an overall record of 111-97.  Okay, 2010 was rough, but one bad season does not equal a return to mediocrity. 

They've won 2 playoff games in 13 seasons and missed the playoffs for 5 straight seasons from '06-'10 having only one winning season by the narrowest margin possible during that stretch (9-7 in 2006.) Yes, that is textbook mediocre.

32-32 over a four-year stretch (2006-2009), before dropping off to 4-12 in 2010, is decidedly average, not mediocre.  Mediocrity is the recent sustained records of teams like the Browns, Bills and Lions (prior to last year). 

[bosk1]

Denver is an interesting one for me.  I became a fan as a kid when DeBerg went over from the 49ers in 1981 or '82.  That first got me noticing them and liking them as a team.  Then when Elway came on over following DeBerg's short run with them, they became pretty fun to watch.  He was with them so unbelievably long that it is still hard to conceive of that team separate and apart from them.  After he left, I didn't really find anyone on the team to latch onto, and my interest waned.  I guess I still somewhat "like" them, but wouldn't really consider myself a "fan" anymore (they were my #3 team for all those years, behind SF and Grean Bay--my #1 and #2 spots have not changed since I was a kid).  Now that they have Manning, my favorite active non-SF player, I'll be rooting pretty hard for them again for awhile.

What was SB XXIV like for you? Any ambivalence about the drubbing Denver took since you still could've been happy about a competitive 9er win or were you satisfied with the record margin?

Actually, it was a lot of fun.  Even though I liked Denver, there was no question that I wanted SF to win it.  And while I love a competitive game, when it comes to my #1 team in the Big Game, the more points and the bigger the margin, the better.  Priorities, man! 

It wasn't too different from XIX, actually.  I really liked the Marino-led Dolphins back then as well.  (I was too young to really know what the national perception was, but around these parts, there was a great deal of admiration for guys like Marino, Clayton, Duper, and Shula, so it was hard not to like them)  They were probably my #4 behind the Broncos.  But I had exactly ZERO problem with the '9ers jumping all over them.

In a slightly different scenario, although the Packers were my #2, I had absolutely zero problem tempoarily hating them for one game a year when they were beating up on the '9ers during the run from the mid '90s through the '00s.

[black_biff_stadler]

Not "necessarily" indeed but how many folks that jumped on the Raiders and Broncos bandwagons in the 80s/90s respectively do you still see rooting for them? A few here and there yes, but those herds thinned out considerably once the Raiders entered their decade-long swoon and the Broncos returned to mediocrity pre-Tebow.

Uh, what?  The Broncos never returned to mediocrity.  Since Elway retired, the Broncos have only had three losing seasons in the 13 full seasons since (vs. six winning seasons), with an overall record of 111-97.  Okay, 2010 was rough, but one bad season does not equal a return to mediocrity. 

They've won 2 playoff games in 13 seasons and missed the playoffs for 5 straight seasons from '06-'10 having only one winning season by the narrowest margin possible during that stretch (9-7 in 2006.) Yes, that is textbook mediocre.

32-32 over a four-year stretch (2006-2009), before dropping off to 4-12 in 2010, is decidedly average, not mediocre.  Mediocrity is the recent sustained records of teams like the Browns, Bills and Lions (prior to last year).

Mediocre-adjective

    (often derogatory) average or ordinary in quality

[splent]

At least one team in the NFL conducts itself with some class.

And that team is the Packers.  Reason?  There is no owner to screw up everything.  It is the only community owned team in the NFL.  I wish more teams were run like this, but it's against policy because the owners want more money.   Yet, the Packers are consistently in the black.

And please don't call Packer fans bandwagoners... while I grew up in Green Bay, those fans are the most loyal... why do you think the waiting list for season tickets is like 100 years long?  I've been following the Packers since 1991; first year where i really started to understand football.  That was when I was 8.  Packers went 4-12.  This was the year BEFORE Favre. 

[bosk1]

decidedly average, not mediocre 

  Uh...what?  Those words mean pretty much the same thing (at least, in this context). 


EDIT:  ninja'd by Floyd

[black_biff_stadler]

At least one team in the NFL conducts itself with some class.

And that team is the Packers.  Reason?  There is no owner to screw up everything.  It is the only community owned team in the NFL.  I wish more teams were run like this, but it's against policy because the owners want more money.   Yet, the Packers are consistently in the black.

And please don't call Packer fans bandwagoners... while I grew up in Green Bay, those fans are the most loyal... why do you think the waiting list for season tickets is like 100 years long?  I've been following the Packers since 1991; first year where i really started to understand football.  That was when I was 8.  Packers went 4-12.  This was the year BEFORE Favre.

Spencer, ya gotta actually READ the posts, not just see what you wanna. My gripe is with folks rooting for powerhouses just cuz they're powerhouses and then flaking during lean times.

[bosk1]

At least one team in the NFL conducts itself with some class.

And that team is the Packers.  Reason?  There is no owner to screw up everything.  It is the only community owned team in the NFL.  I wish more teams were run like this, but it's against policy because the owners want more money.   Yet, the Packers are consistently in the black.

And please don't call Packer fans bandwagoners... while I grew up in Green Bay, those fans are the most loyal... why do you think the waiting list for season tickets is like 100 years long?  I've been following the Packers since 1991; first year where i really started to understand football.  That was when I was 8.  Packers went 4-12.  This was the year BEFORE Favre. 

Yeah, that's pretty cool, and stuff like that just solidifies why I like the team.  The reason I originally becamse a fan is much more simple.  In the run-up beween the NFC championship and Superbowl XVI (the 49ers' first one), my dad somehow got a copy of the Superbowl program and gave it to me.  I read that thing from cover to cover several times.  The best part was the full-page summaries of the prior 15 Superbowls.  The writeups on the Packers impressed me, and I just admired the legacy of the team even though they weren't very good at the point in time that I started following them.  I started actively following and rooting for them the following season.  I think Majkowski was the QB at that time.


EDIT:  Floyd, I don't think Splent was arguing with you.  Just taking the discussion in a different direction, which is fine.

[black_biff_stadler]

I thought it was Lynn Dickey back then. Wasn't Majkowski a flavor of the week kinda guy from '89-'91?

[bosk1]

Just did some quick research, and yeah, you're right.  For some reason, I thought he was earlier than that.  The mind can play tricks in one's old age.   

I view him similary to DeBerg.  He was drafted fairly well with somewhat high expectations, but never really made a big impact, and had only moderate success on a few different rosters without ever really cementing himself as "The Guy" on any of them.

[El Barto]

At least one team in the NFL conducts itself with some class.

And that team is the Packers.  Reason?  There is no owner to screw up everything.  It is the only community owned team in the NFL.  I wish more teams were run like this, but it's against policy because the owners want more money.   Yet, the Packers are consistently in the black.

And please don't call Packer fans bandwagoners... while I grew up in Green Bay, those fans are the most loyal... why do you think the waiting list for season tickets is like 100 years long?  I've been following the Packers since 1991; first year where i really started to understand football.  That was when I was 8.  Packers went 4-12.  This was the year BEFORE Favre.

I got nothing against the Packers and I haven't called anybody bandwagoners.  If you see redeeming qualities in the team, that's great.  Root for them by all means.  My only point is that city affiliation is a pretty dumb thing to base loyalty on. 

I'm guessing people from LA don't like the Raiders or the Rams anymore.  I doubt many Baltimore folk still root for the Colts.  I don't know of any Dallasites who are long-standing Chief's fans.  Same thing with Houston and the Titans.  Once an organization moves out of a city, the fans blow them off, or in some cases turn ruthlessly bitter towards them.  Same players.  Same coaches.  Same ownership.  Yeah, but fuck them now!  The city association is the only thing that matters, and frankly, I'd call that bandwagoning behavior. 

Another thing, if I actually cared about Dallas, I'd be annoyed that it was represented by a bunch of whiny millionaire assholes.  Are NFL players really the sorts of people you want representing your city? 

[bosk1]

Another thing, if I actually cared about Dallas, I'd be annoyed that it was represented by a bunch of whiny millionaire assholes. 

I know.  Perish the thought.

[KevShmev]

Not "necessarily" indeed but how many folks that jumped on the Raiders and Broncos bandwagons in the 80s/90s respectively do you still see rooting for them? A few here and there yes, but those herds thinned out considerably once the Raiders entered their decade-long swoon and the Broncos returned to mediocrity pre-Tebow.

Uh, what?  The Broncos never returned to mediocrity.  Since Elway retired, the Broncos have only had three losing seasons in the 13 full seasons since (vs. six winning seasons), with an overall record of 111-97.  Okay, 2010 was rough, but one bad season does not equal a return to mediocrity. 

They've won 2 playoff games in 13 seasons and missed the playoffs for 5 straight seasons from '06-'10 having only one winning season by the narrowest margin possible during that stretch (9-7 in 2006.) Yes, that is textbook mediocre.

32-32 over a four-year stretch (2006-2009), before dropping off to 4-12 in 2010, is decidedly average, not mediocre.  Mediocrity is the recent sustained records of teams like the Browns, Bills and Lions (prior to last year).

Mediocre-adjective

    (often derogatory) average or ordinary in quality

That's fine, but most people think of mediocre in sports as referring to teams that are usually among the worst, not average ones.  For example, despite their underachievement, the Dallas Cowboys are  34-30 (barely above average, and only two games better than the four-year stretch of the Broncos I mentioned), but no one ever says they've been mediocre.  In other words, regardless of the textbook definition, mediocrity in sports usually refers to teams or players who are regularly below average.  But this is splitting hairs...

[bosk1]

I've never heard "mediocre" and "bad" used synonymously.  "Mediocre" and "average," yes.  But if a team is "bad" or "poor" they are desribed that way, not as "mediocre."  And, yes, I've heard Dalls described as "mediocre" by some over the stretch you are referring to.