If the Rams stay in St. Louis.... (POLL)

RedAlice":3081qjjc said:

Maulbert":3081qjjc said:

Ramfan128":3081qjjc said:

If they do both move, there is no way the Niners or Rams would be moving. I've posted about this before, but both have been in the NFL FAR longer than the Cards and Hawks, and both have been in the NFC West a lot longer.

It would be either the Cards or the Hawks to move. Hawks make the most sense as they were there not too long ago, but the Cards have been kicked around too.

So I voted Cards and Chargers to swap because both teams have the worse history of all the choices, and I believe they would be the most likely to move.

Either way, the Rams aren't going to the AFC.

Click to expand...

The Cardinals pre-date the Rams by 38 years and the 49ers by 48 years. The Cardinals are the oldest football team in the NFL, at 117 years. In fact, they are the only NFL team that pre-dates the NFL itself. The Cardinals and the Bears are the only teams still in existence from the NFL's inagural season in 1920. So the Cards do have a history, it's just a history of sucking. I think the Rams gave up any claim they had to rivalries in the west when they moved to St. Louis.

Click to expand...

j

I just have to quote this comment for my laughs. The "Cardinals" pre-date the Rams means the "STL" Cardinals. Not the AZ Cardinals. And, we are talking about the "STL" Rams.

Ask ANY STL fan what they think about "history" hahahahahahah

eta: hahahahhaahahahhaaaahaa

Click to expand...

Both franchises are itinerant at best. The Cardinals didn't start in St. Louis anymore than the Rams started in Los Angeles. Neither one is the Cleveland Browns. When they move, their history goes with them. I wonder if you even know that the Rams won their first league championship as the Cleveland Rams in 1945. For that matter, the Cardinals only legitimate NFL championship was won as the Chicago Cardinals in 1947. Laugh all you want, the Cards are the Cards and the Rams are the Rams matter where they go.

Here's what I find interesting about all of this:

Rams have been an NFC West franchise for a long time and did everything remarkable in this division dating back to the Fearsome Foursome.

Cardinals became far more relevant in NFC West than they ever were in NFC East (SB appearance, and a tough team). There was nothing remarkable about the "Phoenix" Cardinals.

Seahawks become far more relevant franchise after moving to back NFC West (3 SB appearances and a Lombardi).

I wouldn't want anything to change, except moving the Rams back to LA.

As for SD & OAK, I'd rather they stay in their same cities albeit in newer stadiums.

I once saw a fan proposal to send the Cardinals back to St. Louis, but doing that would "require" a team to move to Phoenix, and that team was going to be Jacksonville.

Sounded nice at first, but St. Louis IMHO can do without a football team locally. The Rams are their team...

And I'm curious from St. Louis residents how many of them still are fans of their Cardinals? Wondering if that all went away after the Rams moved in 1995?

Okay I was wrong about how long the Cardinals have been around - but they are still brand new to the NFC West.

The Rams and Niners have a storied rivalry and history - sure, newer fans might not realize that.

Niners lead all time series 66-63-3 (including playoffs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49ers%E2%80%93Rams_rivalry

I can't say this enough - neither the Rams nor 49ers will be leaving the NFC West. They moved the Colts to the AFC South to keep the Dolphins in the East, so that their rivalries with the Jets/Bills/Pats would be kept alive.

Giants/Eagles and Bears/Packers are the only ones that have played more games and are relatively close in the all time series.

The most logical thing in all of this is to let one of the Chargers/Raiders move, keep the other one where they are.

Maulbert":2jtwa8cl said:

RedAlice":2jtwa8cl said:

Maulbert":2jtwa8cl said:

Ramfan128":2jtwa8cl said:

If they do both move, there is no way the Niners or Rams would be moving. I've posted about this before, but both have been in the NFL FAR longer than the Cards and Hawks, and both have been in the NFC West a lot longer.

It would be either the Cards or the Hawks to move. Hawks make the most sense as they were there not too long ago, but the Cards have been kicked around too.

So I voted Cards and Chargers to swap because both teams have the worse history of all the choices, and I believe they would be the most likely to move.

Either way, the Rams aren't going to the AFC.

Click to expand...

The Cardinals pre-date the Rams by 38 years and the 49ers by 48 years. The Cardinals are the oldest football team in the NFL, at 117 years. In fact, they are the only NFL team that pre-dates the NFL itself. The Cardinals and the Bears are the only teams still in existence from the NFL's inagural season in 1920. So the Cards do have a history, it's just a history of sucking. I think the Rams gave up any claim they had to rivalries in the west when they moved to St. Louis.

Click to expand...

j

I just have to quote this comment for my laughs. The "Cardinals" pre-date the Rams means the "STL" Cardinals. Not the AZ Cardinals. And, we are talking about the "STL" Rams.

Ask ANY STL fan what they think about "history" hahahahahahah

eta: hahahahhaahahahhaaaahaa

Click to expand...

Both franchises are itinerant at best. The Cardinals didn't start in St. Louis anymore than the Rams started in Los Angeles. Neither one is the Cleveland Browns. When they move, their history goes with them. I wonder if you even know that the Rams won their first league championship as the Cleveland Rams in 1945. For that matter, the Cardinals only legitimate NFL championship was won as the Chicago Cardinals in 1947. Laugh all you want, the Cards are the Cards and the Rams are the Rams matter where they go.

Click to expand...

I'm not laughing because of what I think (or any longtime fan of the actual Rams team) - my laughing is specific to the type of STL fans who like to believe that only the Rams time in STL matters and nothing before it. It is a very common viewpoint.

And, yes I am aware of the Rams' history to answer your question.

RedAlice":2c9biiiq said:

volsunghawk":2c9biiiq said:

Rams and Raiders... it's all about the shorter road trips.

Click to expand...

If it's only about shorter road trips, then either Raiders or Chargers would be the same.

Click to expand...

Heh, right. Complete brainfart on my part. :mrgreen:

RedAlice":244q6par said:

Maulbert":244q6par said:

RedAlice":244q6par said:

I just have to quote this comment for my laughs. The "Cardinals" pre-date the Rams means the "STL" Cardinals. Not the AZ Cardinals. And, we are talking about the "STL" Rams.

Ask ANY STL fan what they think about "history" hahahahahahah

eta: hahahahhaahahahhaaaahaa

Click to expand...

Both franchises are itinerant at best. The Cardinals didn't start in St. Louis anymore than the Rams started in Los Angeles. Neither one is the Cleveland Browns. When they move, their history goes with them. I wonder if you even know that the Rams won their first league championship as the Cleveland Rams in 1945. For that matter, the Cardinals only legitimate NFL championship was won as the Chicago Cardinals in 1947. Laugh all you want, the Cards are the Cards and the Rams are the Rams matter where they go.

Click to expand...

I'm not laughing because of what I think (or any longtime fan of the actual Rams team) - my laughing is specific to the type of STL fans who like to believe that only the Rams time in STL matters and nothing before it. It is a very common viewpoint.

And, yes I am aware of the Rams' history to answer your question.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were trying to disregard history for the Cardinals that occured in another city. I do agree St. Louis fans that want a Browns deal for the Rams records are stunningly delusional. All I was trying to say was moving shouldn't mean the history is disregarded, except in a name change situation.

Ramfan128":2dl6vpwj said:

Okay I was wrong about how long the Cardinals have been around - but they are still brand new to the NFC West.

The Rams and Niners have a storied rivalry and history - sure, newer fans might not realize that.

Niners lead all time series 66-63-3 (including playoffs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49ers%E2%80%93Rams_rivalry

I can't say this enough - neither the Rams nor 49ers will be leaving the NFC West. They moved the Colts to the AFC South to keep the Dolphins in the East, so that their rivalries with the Jets/Bills/Pats would be kept alive.

Giants/Eagles and Bears/Packers are the only ones that have played more games and are relatively close in the all time series.

The most logical thing in all of this is to let one of the Chargers/Raiders move, keep the other one where they are.

Click to expand...

They're stadium deal is for both. This question is hypothetical for the situation the league seem to prefer, and if the Chargers or Raiders move to the NFC in this situation, they would be destroying an AFC West that has been together for 55 years. If the idiots can move the Raiders or Chargers to the NFC, they can move the Rams to the AFC.

Maulbert":1gbz1ui8 said:

Cyrus12":1gbz1ui8 said:

how about leaving it as is?

Click to expand...

If the Chargers and Raiders both move to LA, there's no way the NFL will let them stay in the same conference. Besides, this is hypothetical in what I would personally feel is a worst case scenario.

Click to expand...

In that scenario, the Rams would still be in St. Louis, so I'd vote to banish them to the AFC. Probably for the Chargers, since the Raiders have so much history with Denver and KC.

Of course, it was reported in the LA local news that sources close to the situation say that the Rams to LA is a done deal, the NFL is just waiting to announce it. Given that the Rams ownership hasn't exactly been subtle about trying to move back to LA, I'd say there's probably fire where there's smoke, and you'll end up with the Rams in LA and there being no need for teams switching conferences.

kearly":3o731s96 said:

In that scenario, the Rams would still be in St. Louis, so I'd vote to banish them to the AFC. Probably for the Chargers, since the Raiders have so much history with Denver and KC.

Click to expand...

Yep. Even during the Chargers/Seahawks AFC heydeys of the early 80s we were both looked upon as 2nd tier rivals compared to DEN/KC/OAK-LA.

Chargers would definitely be the team to move in this scenario IMO.

Trenchbroom":nf8rpixg said:

kearly":nf8rpixg said:

In that scenario, the Rams would still be in St. Louis, so I'd vote to banish them to the AFC. Probably for the Chargers, since the Raiders have so much history with Denver and KC.

Click to expand...

Yep. Even during the Chargers/Seahawks AFC heydeys of the early 80s we were both looked upon as 2nd tier rivals compared to DEN/KC/OAK-LA.

Chargers would definitely be the team to move in this scenario IMO.

Click to expand...

The question wasn't what is likely, it's what you'd prefer.

Maulbert":3veytbtv said:

RedAlice":3veytbtv said:

Maulbert":3veytbtv said:

Both franchises are itinerant at best. The Cardinals didn't start in St. Louis anymore than the Rams started in Los Angeles. Neither one is the Cleveland Browns. When they move, their history goes with them. I wonder if you even know that the Rams won their first league championship as the Cleveland Rams in 1945. For that matter, the Cardinals only legitimate NFL championship was won as the Chicago Cardinals in 1947. Laugh all you want, the Cards are the Cards and the Rams are the Rams matter where they go.

Click to expand...

I'm not laughing because of what I think (or any longtime fan of the actual Rams team) - my laughing is specific to the type of STL fans who like to believe that only the Rams time in STL matters and nothing before it. It is a very common viewpoint.

And, yes I am aware of the Rams' history to answer your question.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were trying to disregard history for the Cardinals that occured in another city. I do agree St. Louis fans that want a Browns deal for the Rams records are stunningly delusional. All I was trying to say was moving shouldn't mean the history is disregarded, except in a name change situation.

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. And, I am currently a bit annoyed with the complete disregard for Rams history that I keep reading from supposed Rams fans.

Yes, the Cardinals own their entire history, as do the Rams. It belongs to the team and to the fans, regardless of the city it occured in. I believe this for both the good years and the bad years. If the Rams do move back to LA, there would be no attempt to disregard all of the last decade of losing just because it happened in a different city.

I actually don't know that much about the Cards historically other than they moved to my city. I should probably look it up.

Maulbert":2vduj9ck said:

They're stadium deal is for both. This question is hypothetical for the situation the league seem to prefer, and if the Chargers or Raiders move to the NFC in this situation, they would be destroying an AFC West that has been together for 55 years. If the idiots can move the Raiders or Chargers to the NFC, they can move the Rams to the AFC.

Click to expand...

It's a hypothetical question for a very real possibility.

Davis has said he is fine with moving to the NFC W and I'm sure Spanos will have no issue with it considering his push to move to LA is purely $$$$$ focused and football be whatevered.