I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The Saints beat the team that I considered to be the best in the NFC pretty handily. Up until then I was pretty skeptical about just how good the team actually was. Just makes sense to me.
I'm starting to believe in the Broncos now too. They just keep winning. You can't really argue with that. Granted that the Chargers have a porous defense, but they have a legitimate offense, and they did a good job stopping them.
The Steelers' next two games are at home against the Vikings, then (after a bye) away against the Broncos...should be interesting. They haven't really played any serious competition yet.
Goodell expects multiple games in Britain soon
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-london-goodell&prov=ap&type=lgns
I don't like it.
I meant it didn't take much to be the best in the NFC. Only Minnesota is any real competition
I don't like it either. Don't mind the whole pick a site somewhere in the World and play a game once in a while...showcase the NFL for some foreign fans. But I don't get the trying to expand thing...why? The sport is great in the states and the SB is a huge deal throughout the world...maybe second only to the World Cup? If anything, I'd rather see expansion in some US cities that may deserve a team and would help a city or region thrive (in our own country)?
Yeah. It has to be tough on the teams that go play. It's an unnecessary travel situation thrown at teams who may have to play the previous or next week. It's tough enough on teams when they travel across the US to play. It just seems like pure marketing at the expense of the actual players, and potentially at the expense of un-tampered-with game results.
All teams that have played in London get their bye week right after the London game.