Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:45 am

I'm not really a huge fan of the NFL (or any so-called 'professional' sport for that matter....I just don't get or understand the whole tribal mentality thing and I don't care for the crass over-commercialization of it. But those are topics for another day.).

So with that in mind, can any of you explain something to me-namely the road to the Super Bowl?

Now to a layman such as myself, I would think that the best and most logical path would be taking the two teams, one from each division who had the best record in so-called "regular" season and THOSE are the teams that play in the Super Bowl.

But that's not the case. Why are the "wildcard" and "playoffs" necessary? It's those extra sets of games that can and have allowed generally mediocre teams (such as Carolina) to end up at the Superbowl, while teams that generally did much better (such as Green Bay) end up getting sent home. The only way I could see the need for a "playoff" game would be if two teams in the same league had a tied record, in which case they settle it with said playoff game.

If it's simply issue of "slipping in a couple of extra games", then so be it. But then why not just extend "regular" season to 18 games instead of 16?

Any explanations are welcomed.

Thanks.

[Edited 2007-01-17 16:49:13]
 
WrenchBender
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:59 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:51 am

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
the crass over-commercialization of it

You got it right the first time.

More hype=more TV=more hype=more TV=much more $$$$$

WrenchBender
Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids.......
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:51 am

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
But then why not just extend "regular" season to 18 games instead of 16?

I heard this is being explored to eliminate some of the pre-season games since most teams are now being forced to play 5 pre-season games than the usual 4. I, for one, support the idea of an 18 game season, 2-3 game pre-season. Keep the play-offs as it is.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
CRJonBeez
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:08 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:58 am

as far as i'm concerned, if you have managed to get in the playoffs as a "mediocre" team, so be it! obviously you've done something well enough to take care of business. if you manage to get to the super bowl, you've done EVERYTHING well. the wild card teams are there to balance out the playoff bracket system.

the additional games are to make people like me happy. i don't care for all the dramatics, but i LOVE watching football. if the market warrants the additional games, you go with it.
 
oli80
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:27 am

Quoting CRJonBeez (Reply 3):
if the market warrants the additional games, you go with it

So why not play 44+ games a season? If the market warrants it... (which I'm guessing it does - since everytime I'm over there people are going nuts about football)

Why set the limit at 18? They can't use the physicality of the game or fatigue as an excuse can they?!
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:29 am

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
Any explanations are welcomed.



Quoting WrenchBender (Reply 1):
More hype=more TV=more hype=more TV=much more $$$$$

There you have it.....
 
piercey
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:07 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:33 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 4):
Why set the limit at 18? They can't use the physicality of the game or fatigue as an excuse can they?!

 checkmark 

The other excuse is tickets. Look @, oh, the Cleveland Indians of the MLB. They do well in the beginning, end, and when the good/rival teams come to town, but the rest of the homestands are, what, barely 25,000? NFL doesn't want a similar effect. Also, the NFL would cut into NBA and NHL territory if they go any longer, and they really can't start the season any earlier (pads in early August in SD?) so, they're stuck.
Well I believe it all is coming to an end. Oh well, I guess we are gonna pretend.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11799
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:33 am

Also, if it's just gonna be the two teams with the best records who play in the Super Bowl, then far more teams may just give up 1/2 way through the season. More importantly, many fans may give up as well, and stop attending games or watching them on tv. That equals loss of profits.

On the other hand, if a team has a chance at making the playoffs, then for a lot of people, there's still a reason to watch and/or attend games.

Frankly, I think the playoffs and the race to get into the playoffs add some serious excitement to the game. I mean, look at baseball, where, what, 8 teams get into the postseason? And when a team is, say, 40-80 after 3/4 of the season, not as many people are gonna watch the last 42 games, since they have no chance at anything.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
KaiGywer
Crew
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:49 am

Team W L T PCT PF PA Home Road AFC NFC DIV Streak
Green Bay 8 8 0 .500 301 366 3-5 5-3 1-3 7-5 5-1 Won 4
Carolina 8 8 0 .500 270 305 4-4 4-4 2-2 6-6 5-1 Won 2

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
It's those extra sets of games that can and have allowed generally mediocre teams (such as Carolina) to end up at the Superbowl, while teams that generally did much better (such as Green Bay) end up getting sent home.

Seems to me they did pretty equal...
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:26 am

Why is this question directed solely at the NFL? The same could be said of any professional or college team sports league, excluding NCAA 1-A football. Playoffs insure that the best teams from each league play each other to determine which team is truly the best. The teams don't play the same schedules, so it is impossible to judge which team is the best by wins and losses alone. Just look at the Colts and Patriots - the 3 and 4 seeds in the AFC were obviously better than the 1 and 2 seeds that had superior records. This is not the case in the NFC, where the 1 and 2 seeds are still playing. Or Pittsburgh last year - a wild card team that won the Super Bowl. The regular season serves to weed out the teams that are clearly not contenders for the top spots. A playoff is the only way to determine which team is the best without a legitimate argument to the contrary. I don't see where the confusion comes from. It's pretty obvious.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:40 am

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
Why are the "wildcard" and "playoffs" necessary?

more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the owners.

Simple.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13071
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:27 am

At least the playoff system in the NFL is as big of a mess as the entire BCS and their stupid polls.

Anyway, this playoff system is pretty much universal for all sports in the US. The NBA, NFL, MLB, MLS and NHL all have one. They all play at first in a kind of league system and then the best of them, depending on the rules, qualify for either a wildcard round or directly for the playoffs. Also, the NFL and MLS are the only pro sports leagues in the US that play only one match per round (there is no best of 5 or best of 7, like in the NBA, NHL and MLB).

In contrast, if you look at European soccer football, a national championship is played in a league system (that is, the one that is number 1 in the standings, wins) and playoffs may only happen when they're to prevent relegation into a lower league or when it's to ascend to a higher league. Exceptions are the cup tournaments and European club tournaments (e.g. the Champions League, from which the MLS took their current playoff system and adapted it).
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:44 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 11):
At least the playoff system in the NFL is as big of a mess as the entire BCS and their stupid polls.

Completely wrong. The playoff system in the NFL makes sense because it is based on record against the division and such.

You are correct that the BCS is a mess since it depends on the human aspect of a poll to determine who is what rank...and that's coming from someone who's team just won the BCS title due to the craziness of it all.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13071
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:49 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 12):
The playoff system in the NFL makes sense because it is based on record against the division and such.

I never said that it doesn't make sense.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11799
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:07 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 11):
At least the playoff system in the NFL is as big of a mess as the entire BCS and their stupid polls.



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 13):
Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 12):
The playoff system in the NFL makes sense because it is based on record against the division and such.

I never said that it doesn't make sense.

I think, LTU, in your original post, you meant to say, "At least the playoff system in the NFL ISN'T as big of a mess...." instead of "...IS as big of a mess."

Correct?
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:16 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 4):
So why not play 44+ games a season? If the market warrants it...

The players bodies dont warrant it is the bottom line on that. They only play once a week and that would mean a 10 month season.
The reason they have the playoffs, is the same reason they play every Sunday. It is because nobody knows who wins until you play the game. A surging or experienced wildcard team is often able to defeat a complacent and idle division winner. It makes for exciting football and it makes everyone money. It is a good thing.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13071
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:39 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 14):
I think, LTU, in your original post, you meant to say, "At least the playoff system in the NFL ISN'T as big of a mess...." instead of "...IS as big of a mess."

That is correct. I just saw the typo now, thanks for noticing.
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:42 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 4):
So why not play 44+ games a season? If the market warrants it... (which I'm guessing it does - since everytime I'm over there people are going nuts about football)

From an economic standpoint, the market may not warrant it. Supply and Demand. By keeping the supply low, the demand is high. Fans are nowhere near as crazy for baseball because teams play over 160 games in season.
Then there's the health factor in that the players bodies couldn't handle 44 stressful weeks. This is why American style football will probably never be an Olympic sport. You couldn't play enough games in the short time span.

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
Now to a layman such as myself, I would think that the best and most logical path would be taking the two teams, one from each division who had the best record in so-called "regular" season and THOSE are the teams that play in the Super Bowl.

But that's not the case. Why are the "wildcard" and "playoffs" necessary?

The cream will rise to the top, so they should be given a chance too. A team that goes 12-4 may have had a far more difficult schedule than a team that went 13-3. Then there's the "choke" factor; the teams that can play well during the regular season but can't handle the pressure of the postseason. Also, with 32 professional teams (well, 28 since the Raiders, Cardinals, Browns, and Lions don't count as "professional teams"  duck   wink  ) in the NFL and only 16 games played in a season, not every team can play every other team. Plus, factors such as being on the road versus being at home have an influence in the game, not to mention injuries. Therefore, to say the teams with the "best" record from each conference deserves to be in the Super Bowl just isn't true.

For another example, look at the 1980 US Olympic Hockey team. They got humiliated by the Soviet Union in an exhibition game at Madison Square Gardens a couple weeks prior to the start of the Winter Olympics, yet upset the Medal Round, even though the USSR had a better record during the Preliminary rounds.

Quoting WrenchBender (Reply 1):
More hype=more TV=more hype=more TV=much more $$$$$



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10):
more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the owners.

Which I personally have no problem with.  Smile

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
The reason they have the playoffs, is the same reason they play every Sunday. It is because nobody knows who wins until you play the game.

 checkmark 
Hence the phrase, "Any Given Sunday".
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
oli80
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:54 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
The players bodies dont warrant it is the bottom line on that. They only play once a week and that would mean a 10 month season.



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 17):
Then there's the health factor in that the players bodies couldn't handle 44 stressful weeks.

Not trying to be funny here or anything, but NHL players put their bodies through a lot more (it would seem) and I'm sure you would all agree that rugby players go through just as much, if not more.

I've been to several NFL matches and have normally been there for around 3 hours. Of those 3 hours, I would say that the actual amount of time I saw football, was maybe 30-40 minutes.

My question would be then, why not play 1.5 games a week, 38-40 games a season. It works in the premiership (English top flight football), and the NFL has a much bigger market for seats in stadiums.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:57 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 17):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10):
more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the owners.

Which I personally have no problem with.

Nor do I. Just answering the queston first put forward.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:07 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 18):
NHL players put their bodies through a lot more (it would seem)

Doesn't seem that way to me at all. Since they are skating, there is much less pressure on the joints of the legs, especially. Huge hits in hockey are much less common than in football.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 18):
I'm sure you would all agree that rugby players go through just as much, if not more.

This is a common misconception by people who have never played football. In football, nearly every player, on every play, is involved in a violent collision. You may think that the linemen, because they're so close to each other and aren't the center of attention, don't get hit that hard. But taking into account that they weigh 300 lbs and are among the strongest men on the planet, that argument clearly doesn't hold water. If you line up against anyone and run into each other as hard as you can 65 times, you ARE going to feel it for a while, pads or no pads. Not to mention the receivers who cross the field while linebackers and safties line up to take their heads off. Rugby players may not wear pads, but they also get hit far less often during a game as they can pitch the ball to avoid getting hit. It is also easier to avoid a big hit.

Not taking anything away from either - they both have their positives and negatives and neither is for a lightweight, but I have played both so I can make an accurate comparison.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 18):
My question would be then, why not play 1.5 games a week, 38-40 games a season. It works in the premiership (English top flight football), and the NFL has a much bigger market for seats in stadiums.

As it is, you wouldn't want to trade places with an NFL player after 1 game, nevermind 16-20. If it was just a case of getting the players in shape to play, that would be one thing. But the body just can't recuperate in time to play more than one game a week. Playing 40 games a season with a game every 4 days would probably cut the average career down to 2 years. Hardly the best thing for a sport or its athletes.
 
oli80
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:19 am

Quoting WellHung (Reply 20):
Rugby players may not wear pads, but they also get hit far less often during a game as they can pitch the ball to avoid getting hit. It is also easier to avoid a big hit

This is just not true. A forward will get hit many many times in a match. Whether it be tackled, running into a mawl, or plowing into a ruck to clear the ball.

Not only that, but being stamped on, hair pulled, scratched and all sorts of other nasties. Sure, American Football players are bigger, but consequently run slower, so despite the power they may have, the momentum they have will be less.

You try watching someone like Habana (a 10 second 100m time) run head on into a stationary player. It hurts. Or pull out the old tapes watch a player like Jonah Lomu destroy Healey.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 20):
Not taking anything away from either - they both have their positives and negatives and neither is for a lightweight, but I have played both so I can make an accurate comparison

I have actually played both too. My university had an American football team, and I played with them several times. Sure it wasn't easy, but I found rugby much tougher on the body.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:44 am

The comparisons here arent quite fair, but some do hold water.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 18):
Not trying to be funny here or anything, but NHL players put their bodies through a lot more (it would seem) and I'm sure you would all agree that rugby players go through just as much, if not more.

I played hockey growing up and have the missing teeth, scars and the life long limp to prove it. The comparison to football doesnt take into account the off field preparation that goes into it. Think of American football as chess with real life men. The strain one also puts on thier body during the course of a game is tremendous. In hockey, one has to have the puck to be legally hit. In football that is definatly not the case. For instance on special teams, it is 22 guys lining up to run as fast as they can and smash into each other.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 20):
Doesn't seem that way to me at all. Since they are skating, there is much less pressure on the joints of the legs, especially. Huge hits in hockey are much less common than in football.

Huge hits are less common in hockey sure, but those huge hits do more damage probably. The pressure on leg joints are the same but in different parts of the legs. Instead of knees, it is hips and groins.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
Not only that, but being stamped on, hair pulled, scratched and all sorts of other nasties. Sure, American Football players are bigger, but consequently run slower, so despite the power they may have, the momentum they have will be less.

You would be quite surprised at how fast the big men are in American football. Thier speed is usually measured in 40 yard dashes. I am not detracting anything from rugby players, as I have watched plenty to know they punish thier bodies. But I do notice that Europeans and especially Aussies really like to give yankee football players a tough time about wearing pads. But if they had them play more than once a week and without pads, you would see people literally being killed on the playing field.
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:00 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
This is just not true.

So a rugby player can't pitch the ball to avoid a hit? And you don't think it's easier to avoid a hit when you're running forward with a ball with the entire defense in front of you than looking back to catch a ball and not being able to see half the defense?

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
You try watching someone like Habana (a 10 second 100m time) run head on into a stationary player. It hurts.

I could say the same for any NFL running back, though the running backs do it many more times in a game since they not only run and catch the ball, but pick up linebackers who are rushing the quarterback.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
American Football players are bigger, but consequently run slower,

That may be true for iinterior linemen, but you still have running backs, wide receivers, linebackers, defensive ends, tight ends and some quarterbacks who are both massive and fast.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
despite the power they may have, the momentum they have will be less.

That's a fundimental misunderstanding of the laws of matter. p=mv

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
I played with them several times.

So you weren't ON the team, you just 'played with them' a few times. Hardly qualifies as playing a sport. Of course, if you played so few times, you wouldn't know how to play. If you were used to rugby, you wouldn't be used to blocking, which is where most of the contact in football takes place. So naturally it wouldn't be hard on your body. I think you'd be better served if you learned how to play the game and endured an entire season.
 
oli80
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:21 am

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23):
So a rugby player can't pitch the ball to avoid a hit? And you don't think it's easier to avoid a hit when you're running forward with a ball with the entire defense in front of you than looking back to catch a ball and not being able to see half the defense?

I'm sorry, I quoted too much of your text, I meant to only select the bit about how many hits a player received during a game.

but...

When a rugby player goes down, the hits continue as players come flying in trying to ruck other players off the ball. There is no rest bite.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23):
If you were used to rugby, you wouldn't be used to blocking, which is where most of the contact in football takes place. So naturally it wouldn't be hard on your body. I think you'd be better served if you learned how to play the game and endured an entire season.

I have played in several training matches and have watched several NFL Europe games, and many NFL games on tv. I am not your average European bashing the NFL. I know the rules and commitment it takes to play this game.

I just think that the sport could do with some more games. Not for me, but for you, the fan. Sure it would be tougher for the players...

Anyway, we are never going to see eye to eye on this.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:36 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 25):
I just think that the sport could do with some more games. Not for me, but for you, the fan. Sure it would be tougher for the players...

Speaking for the average US football fan, which I think would be me. I dont live anywhere near a pro-football team. But 16 games and then the playoffs is enough. Because coming up here in a few months is the draft. Then it is mini-camp, then training camp, then preseason, then regular season. The ones who like thier football that much do pay attention to these sort of things. I simply change my focus onto hockey. Some it is baseball etc.
Hell ask ANCFlyer, as soon as NFL is over, you have 100,000 rednecks watching 40 rednecks take left hand turns, under the guise of NASCAR.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:06 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 16):
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 14):
I think, LTU, in your original post, you meant to say, "At least the playoff system in the NFL ISN'T as big of a mess...." instead of "...IS as big of a mess."

That is correct. I just saw the typo now, thanks for noticing.

No problem. Your correct thought makes sense. Sorry to be a bugger.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 18):
Not trying to be funny here or anything, but NHL players put their bodies through a lot more (it would seem) and I'm sure you would all agree that rugby players go through just as much, if not more.

You haven't played collegiate or professional football then.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
Not only that, but being stamped on, hair pulled, scratched and all sorts of other nasties. Sure

That happens every play at the bottom of a football pile.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
American Football players are bigger, but consequently run slower

You try telling that to a 250 pound linebacker tha runs a 4.8 second 40 yard dash. You'll be picking your butt up off the ground very slowly.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
You try watching someone like Habana (a 10 second 100m time) run head on into a stationary player. It hurts.

And you try watching two players running at each other at full speed and collide. The power is just as much as that one guy.

I'm not saying rugby and such isn't a tough sport but to say NFL players are slow is wrong and shows you have more to learn about the game. They are fast, big, and they will crush you more than any guy in rugby ever could do.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
piercey
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:07 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:12 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 18):

Not trying to be funny here or anything, but NHL players put their bodies through a lot more (it would seem) and I'm sure you would all agree that rugby players go through just as much, if not more.

As far as hockey goes, how many subs are in a game compared to american football (not counting injuries)?

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 21):
Sure, American Football players are bigger, but consequently run slower, so despite the power they may have, the momentum they have will be less.

 redflag 

Look @ any RB, WR, QB, LB, SS, FS, and CBs.
Well I believe it all is coming to an end. Oh well, I guess we are gonna pretend.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11799
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:13 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 25):
When a rugby player goes down, the hits continue as players come flying in trying to ruck other players off the ball.

This also happens in the NFL, though not necessarily on every play. Multi-person tackles happen quite often. On a fumble, you'll see 10 guys piling on top trying to get the ball. That's somewhere around 2000-3000 pounds of people.

As has been stated, these NFL linemen are some of the fastest huge guys you'll ever see. They are required to be quick to play in the NFL. When you're watching on TV, it's hard to get the impression that these guys are huge, because they pretty much are ALL huge. But watch a (relatively) small QB or receiver get blindsided by a 250 pound sprinting linebacker, and it's hard not to cringe.

I don't follow rugby at all, aside from having watched the odd match here and there. But in the NFL, I believe there have been at least 2 cases of people having their necks broken. I don't think we need to make it any harder on the players.

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 25):
I just think that the sport could do with some more games. Not for me, but for you, the fan. Sure it would be tougher for the players...

I understand what you're saying, but as has been said, 16 weeks is really about enough. It nicely fills in the fall and early winter.

~Vik
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:19 am

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):

But that's not the case. Why are the "wildcard" and "playoffs" necessary? It's those extra sets of games that can and have allowed generally mediocre teams (such as Carolina) to end up at the Superbowl, while teams that generally did much better (such as Green Bay) end up getting sent home. The only way I could see the need for a "playoff" game would be if two teams in the same league had a tied record, in which case they settle it with said playoff game.

Baseball basically used to operate in that way --

before the playoff system changed in....94???, the top two teams in each league (the national league and the american league) would play each other in a seven game series. The winners would go onto the World Series.

Many baseball purists still argue in favor of the old system.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:25 am

Quoting Piercey (Reply 28):
As far as hockey goes, how many subs are in a game compared to american football (not counting injuries)?

Comparing apples and oranges here if I may point out. Hockey usually fields a roster of 20. 2 goalies, 6 defensemen, 12 forwards. Of those in the rotation you have 1 goalie, 4-5 defensemen, and 9 forwards. There is changing on the fly in hockey, so subs are common. But it is play for 1 minutes balls out, then change and rest for 2 minutes. Football is play balls out for 10 seconds and rest for 1 minute and then they only play defense or offense. Plus there is lots of subs especially on the defensive side of the ball, changing from a 4-3 to a nickel or dime package etc. Both are hard on your body in different ways.
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:26 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 25):
I just think that the sport could do with some more games. Not for me, but for you, the fan. Sure it would be tougher for the players...



Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 26):
16 games and then the playoffs is enough.

 checkmark 

The current schedule really stresses the importance of every game, whether it means your team gets in the playoffs, gets home field advantage or a bye in the first round, whatever. Also, there are games on Sunday, Monday, and sometimes Thursday and Saturday. For five months. That's plenty for me. If one thing were to change, it should be the amount of play in a game. Shorten the play clock so teams are forced to get up to the ball and run more plays. The amount of time the clock runs while the players are just standing around or huddling is absurd.
 
User avatar
KaiGywer
Crew
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:08 pm

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 26):
Hell ask ANCFlyer, as soon as NFL is over, you have 100,000 rednecks watching 40 rednecks take left hand turns, under the guise of NASCAR.

 rotfl 

True, so true!
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
prosa
Posts: 5389
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 3:24 am

RE: Some Questions On The NFL

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting Oli80 (Reply 18):
I've been to several NFL matches and have normally been there for around 3 hours. Of those 3 hours, I would say that the actual amount of time I saw football, was maybe 30-40 minutes.

According to people who've timed NFL games with stopwatches, there's an average of about 12 minutes of ball-in-play action in a game, which as you note generally takes around three hours start to finish. Due to the use of offense and defense squads, as well as special teams, each starting player most likely sees something like five minutes of actual play per game.
Of course, as other comments have noted, that's five minutes of very intense physical action, not to mention the fact that the practice sessions can be brutal. Whether that makes football a physically tougher game than rugby or hockey is a matter of debate.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pu, Thunderboltdrgn and 18 guests