NFL 2009

[UniversalWolf]

They are truly delusional. And cocky.

Well, you have to remember that most of them never wanted to trade Moss in the first place. They've been mad about that deal ever since. Oh, and their team's probably going to be moving to LA in a couple years.

On the other hand, I was listening to the Vikings radio call-in show after they beat Dallas in the playoffs, and the first three callers were whining like babies. One of them was ripping on Chilly's play-calling; one of them was upset that the Vikes ran up the score, and I forget what the third one was mad about. Their team crushes the favored team in a playoff game, and they're bitching and moaning.

Some of the worst fans in the NFL.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It should be interesting what transpires this weekend with all the big names out in various degrees of FA. For some reason, going into this year, I thought we'd have 32 George Steinbrenners throwing money around trying to build a champion. But actually it looks to be the opposite, uncapped year has so far shown it self to mean Heavy Contract Dump Year. Yay!

It makes sense that the owners, who've forced this due to their unwillingness to share a bigger piece of the pie, then wouldn't turn around and durrr.... start paying players more. Quite the opposite, they're using this year to dump bloated contracts w/o penalty. All these declarations of self-imposed caps are probably pleas for solidarity between ownership.

You have to think yahoos like Jerry Jones and Snyder could make a big splash (Is Dallas not hosting the SB this year? How bad would Jerry's massive ego be willing to shell out for a chance to see that?).
I guess the hapless Bears have no picks until like the 3rd or 4th round. They need to make some big things happen in FA or the trade market - Peppers? Martz needs personnel to do his thing.
Jets, emboldened off their AFCC appearance and headed into a brand new stadium that they still haven't sold all those b.s. PSA in yet will make some big moves, if only for publicity's sake.
I can see staid, established FOs maintaining the status quo - Pitt, Indy, NYG, NEP.
And of course, there's those tragicomic teams that can't even get out of their own way. They don't know what they're doing, how to do it, or what to do when they get there. Raiders, Rams, etc.

Fact is, there are a lot of big names out there, but a lot are older guys that want long term deals, and aren't going to deliver on the back end of them. (Or at all, Peppers is a massive risk IMO, Westbrook's egg's are scrambled, LDT is spent)


These final 8 and final 4 FA restrictions are pretty interesting. Softens the blow of the Pats laydown in the wildcard round for me, better off actually since they weren't going deep anyway. Now overachieving teams like BAL and especially NYJ are being held to the same standards as genuinely good teams like Indy and NOLA, sucks for them.

Florio had a nice synopsis on the whys and wherefores of the uncapped year.

 

[Sander]

There's a couple of reasons why owners won't spend big money in free agency. One is that there are only very few quality unrestricted free agents out there because it now takes 6 years of being in the NFL to be unrestricted. This means it's a lot more expensive in terms of draft picks to go after other players.

The second is the introduction of unlimited tenders. Those really fuck over the player, as teams don't need to sign them to multi-year contracts to keep them, they can just give them a moderate amount of money to keep them another year.

The third reason is the possibility of no football in 2011. I don't see this happening, but no doubt teams are preparing for this and insulating themselves from such an event by cutting back on salary costs.

The fourth is that without a cap, expensive contracts can be dumped without problem. The veteran who was good enough to keep around last year on his overpaid contract because hey, the money's counted against the cap anyway? No need to keep him at an overpaid level now, just cut him.




Some interesting free agents for the Bucs:

Anquan Boldin. The third round tender the Cards have given him is low and the Bucs aren't getting a better receiver with their third round pick. Age and injuries are concerns, though, but Bucs desperately need a new #1 WR and you can't count on whatever receiver we get in the draft to do well (immediately).


Antrel Rolle - we really need Sabby Piscitelli to be replaced. He's been horrible in coverage and a poor tackler all year long. Even though he basically plays strong safety and Antrel is mostly a free safety, going back to Tampa 2 should help with

Richard Marshell - second corner for the Panthers, got a 2nd round tender and we need a successor to Ronde Barber who's slowing down and getting old. Not that likely to happen, though, as there are two young corners on the roster who the staff supposedly really likes, and a 2nd rounder is very valuable in this draft.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Boldin is intriguing, for a 3rd he's worth taking a chance on, despite the injuries. Which, even given his injury status the last two years, I tend to think it's more indicative of him taking a beating and rushing to return too fast as opposed to him being injury prone or a cupcake. However, the end result here is that he's older, and regardless of what was the impetus behind the injuries, the cumulative toll of these amounts to something considerable.

I'd take him on the Patriots, Moss is a lame duck with a questionable motor, Welker is likely out the first half of the season still, big drop-off after that. Boldin for a 3rd and let the Vikes eat cake - Moss for Harvin straight up, get something before he walks for nothing.
Wouldn't mind hearing at 12:01 that they signed T. Jones either.

It will be interesting to see if the owners and NFLPA can put aside their self-interest and greed to get the cap (Ceiling and floor) put back in place. The NFL's secret to success over others has always been in it's hard cap and revenue sharing. It's not even worth mentioning how detrimental a lock out would be (NHL never recovered, MLB still catching up to where it was?). It wouldn't even be like the scab year if the owners lock out. Betcha the UFL loves to see this and all these big name tired vets get cut, they'd be smart to pick up some of these guys that fall between the cracks. Position themselves like the Japanese leagues - develop young prospects and bring in old vets for publicity.

The NFL has a great thing going, they practically have a license to print money, if they fuck it up due to greed, I hope they get burned.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Peppers and Chester Taylor to Da Bears! Too bad for them they're stuck with Cutler. They seem to be trying to trade Greg Olsen.

Boldin for a 3rd...I would think someone would take that deal.

The Raiders tendered Kirk Morrison at the 3rd rounder level too...and tendered Stanford Routt at the highest level, so they have to pay him 3 million, even though he sucks. Nicely done once again, Al!

 

[Sander]

Bears grab Peppers and give him a truly insane contract. $40M guaranteed.

Boldin gets signed by the Ravens. Seems like a good move and the one that might push the Ravens over the top to their Super Bowl before their aging defense declines too far for them to be contenders.

Also, fun article on the abundance of passing in football.

 

[Brother None]

There's a couple of reasons why owners won't spend big money in free agency.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Also, fun article on the abundance of passing in football.

This totally ignores that the recent, unprecedented boom in passing is not a result of innovation or evolution on the field at all, but rules changes that neuter what DBs can do (i.e. play football), and protect QBs from actually playing the same game as everyone else is.

Polian changed the way defenses play today to favor his team. It took the aggressiveness out of playing DB. Since then, just about every QB has smashed his own career numbers and this is the biggest reason why. Not innovation, that's bullshit. Take a look.

People have been complaining about too much passing since the first pass was thrown. It is a grand and storied tradition of the game, and one passed down through the generations. It has, in fact, been football for a long time, yet it has continually changed. That is the great thing about the game of football, because the power I, the wishbone, the shotgun, the wildcat, the run-n-shoot, the fumble rooskie, the surprise onside kick, the zone blitz, the dime, the 46 defense, the stretch play, and the hook-n-ladder are all football.

Innovation! Yet, all the examples he mentioned are pre-1980 Duh, some of them are pre-1930. How wonderful it would be were it innovation spurning the prolific offenses and not rules changes meant to limit the actual playing of football. It's just not the case. I see a copy cat league, half of which still runs Air Coryell from the 70s or Bill Walsh's little scheme there.

I've said it before, but this is not an organic, natural evolution of the game. Manning couldn't out-innovate, out-think, or out-play Ty Law, so his GM had the rules changed, look at what Manning and everybody else have done since. It's stark.

Who didn't smash their own career records after that AFCC game?
That's not innovation by any stretch. That's lowering the bar for QBs and WRs.


And Fumblerooskie, are you fucking kidding me, did he really trot that bush league shit out as innovation? Forget to mention the Statue of Liberty play there too douchebag? Not even legal in the NFL or elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Bump and run coverage was innovative too. What pray tell happened to it? As if passing is the only aspect of football that evolves, while everything else is stagnant. Preposterous.

Somebody explain to me how H.S. shit like a Fumblerooskie that's been outlawed for decades and been an evolutionary cul-de-sac is considered innovation.

 

[Sander]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Also, fun article on the abundance of passing in football.

This totally ignores that the recent, unprecedented boom in passing is not a result of innovation or evolution on the field at all, but rules changes that neuter what DBs can do (i.e. play football), and protect QBs from actually playing the same game as everyone else is.

Polian changed the way defenses play today to favor his team. It took the aggressiveness out of playing DB. Since then, just about every QB has smashed his own career numbers and this is the biggest reason why. Not innovation, that's bullshit. Take a look.

What, no it doesn't ignore that. All it does is argue that the game changes over time. Which it does. It also shows that the exact same things you're whining about now were also being whined about 50 years ago.

Innovation! Yet, all the examples he mentioned are pre-1980 Duh, some of them are pre-1930. How wonderful it would be were it innovation spurning the prolific offenses and not rules changes meant to limit the actual playing of football. It's just not the case. I see a copy cat league, half of which still runs Air Coryell from the 70s or Bill Walsh's little scheme there.

I've said it before, but this is not an organic, natural evolution of the game. Manning couldn't out-innovate, out-think, or out-play Ty Law, so his GM had the rules changed, look at what Manning and everybody else have done since. It's stark.

Who didn't smash their own career records after that AFCC game?
That's not innovation by any stretch. That's lowering the bar for QBs and WRs.

Your definition of 'organic change' is artificial. Legalizing the forward pass was just as inorganic as these rules.

And Fumblerooskie, are you fucking kidding me, did he really trot that bush league shit out as innovation? Forget to mention the Statue of Liberty play there too douchebag? Not even legal in the NFL or elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Bump and run coverage was innovative too. What pray tell happened to it? As if passing is the only aspect of football that evolves, while everything else is stagnant. Preposterous.

Eh...he doesn't claim that, at all. The article is about passing evolution. Hence, he cites passing evolution, not defensive evolution. Nowhere does he even imply that the rest of the game stood still.
Stop reading into what he writes and just read what he writes.

Somebody explain to me how H.S. shit like a Fumblerooskie that's been outlawed for decades and been an evolutionary cul-de-sac is considered innovation.

It was innovation at the time, that it was later outlawed does not make it any less so.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

What, no it doesn't ignore that. All it does is argue that the game changes over time. Which it does.

Yeah, ignoring whether the catalyst is actual, true innovation, on the field, on the chalkboard, X's and O's, or ramrodded, ham-fisted rules changes, which it does. I do not have an issue of whether it changes or not. It's an issue of what is driving those changes. The NFL's greatest innovators changed the game by forcing others to adapt to stop them. Not changing the rules to adapt to other people stopping them. See the difference? One is proactive and innovative, the other is reactive and artificial, forced "evolution".

It also shows that the exact same things you're whining about now were also being whined about 50 years ago.

I'm not anti-evolution, quite the opposite. I'm anti-rules changes masquerading as evolution or innovation. That's apologism. And pointing to rising passing stats is only a self-fulfilling prophecy, not to be pointed at as proof of successful innovation. Have I not been an outspoken proponent of Ryan's 4-6 and it and his sons' legacy? I've been a huge fan of Sporana and Lee since they smashed every DII record here at UNH. I love the natural, progressive innovative nature of football, especially at the collegiate level. That's where most if any comes from. The NFL is about as reactive as it comes as it relates to stealing innovations from upstart leagues and college. Jesus, how long did it take us to get a 2 point conversion in the NFL?

Your definition of 'organic change' is artificial. Legalizing the forward pass was just as inorganic as these rules.

Yeah if you define the game as being rugby, sure.

Eh...he doesn't claim that, at all. The article is about passing evolution.

If passing flourishes, it's at the expense of defenses that can't adapt (evolution).
If the rules are changed to prevent the defenses from adapting to cope, that's not innovation at all!

Hence, he cites passing evolution, not defensive evolution. Nowhere does he even imply that the rest of the game stood still.

He does? What did he cite other than an inaccurate account from some grumpy old timer who represents nothing but his own rose colored glasses?
the power I - power running, college set. Three FBs? What NFL team has 3 RBs on their roster. NOt a passing innovation
the wishbone - option based, collegiate formation. Has what to do with passing innovation? Primitive by college standards.
the shotgun - OK here's one - I'd appreciate some numbers here to back it if you want to call this analysis though
the wildcat - run heavey college option variant
the run-n-shoot - when was the last run-n-shoot team? 15 years ago. What further innovations has it spurned?
the fumble rooskie - outlawed gimmick play with no furhter innovative effect
the surprise onside kick - nothing to do with passing
the zone blitz, the dime, the 46 defense - Passing innovations?
the stretch play - is kind of part and parcel with passing, you wouldn't pass not to stretch the defense.
the hook-n-ladder - a desperation play you see teams use once a year if that? When was the last time you saw this work?

If this is what he cites as passing innovation he failed.
More likely he just rattled off some random terms he heard Terry Bradshaw say in between clowning one afternoon.

It was innovation at the time, that it was later outlawed does not make it any less so.

OK, so after it was outlawed it served as a basis for what further innovations?
It's an evolutionary cul-de-sac. And it was a gimmick at best. And not even a pass. Non sequitur.
I have a problem with calling something like this an innovation. It's a dead end.

 

[Sander]

Yeah if you define the game as being rugby, sure.

Football apparently started being football at the arbitrary point in the completely artificial rules development process that pleases you the most.

Yes, blah blah blah, Bill Polian is an asshole he changed the rules for his own good yadda yadda yadda.
I don't care why the rules were changed. I care what the effects of the rules are.

And no, again, your skit about all innovation being organic is blatant nonsense. The moving around of the goal posts (to first make it easier when people couldn't kick worth a damn, and then harder when people learned to kick) is just as damned artificial. As is the the pass interference rule. As is the facemask rule (what, are you going to argue that that's bullshit because it just penalised people smart enough to tackle by the facemask?) As is outlawing the head slap (totally invented to stop one player from succeeding. Totally artificial.) As was the outlawing of irregular shoes in field goal kicking (designed to stop one specific kicker from being good). Or the rule that does not allow people to step out of bounds and then make a tackle from that position.

This sport has changed *artifically* throughout its entire history. You continue to pretend that it's all normal, evolutionary change, but that is clearly nonsense and the argument exists only to serve your agenda of hating on Bill Polian. Maybe Bill Polian did try to get those rules through (by the way, rules were never changed, referees were only told to pay more attention), but even so Bill Polian does not make the rules. He is one of several different people on that board. He can whine all he wants, but unless those other people don't agree with him, nothing changes.

If this is what he cites as passing innovation he failed.
More likely he just rattled off some random terms he heard Terry Bradshaw say in between clowning one afternoon.

So you're saying that he listed a diverse number of innovations in the game, yet you

That list is obviously not meant to be exhaustive. Are you angry because it doesn't list every single innovation ever? If he lists so many non-passing evolutions, then how is this sentence of yours making any sense:
"As if passing is the only aspect of football that evolves, while everything else is stagnant. Preposterous."

You're railing against some non-existing insult here.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolution is based on adaptation, and survival of the fittest.
Crocodiles and shit have been on the top of the food chain for thousands of years, not because somebody made deer's legs shorter because not enough were getting eaten, but because they are highly evolved predators that have adapted beyond the means of their prey.

So do we agree then that the new PI rules are like playing golf from the ladies' tees? This is not innovation, it's a crutch because the league is scared of protecting the vertical game.

I don't care why the rules were changed. I care what the effects of the rules are.

The result is there is a huge spike in PI ticky-tack calls.
The result is an automatic 1st down for PI calls that have no effect on the play.
The result is you can be penalized 50 yards for PI by pulling a shirt, but 15 for kicking a guys teeth out.
The result is considered by many to be bad for the NFL.

Far be it from me to be the ruling authority, ask the League Officiating Office's VP.

And no, again, your skit about all innovation being organic is blatant nonsense.

Never said that either, I said there's progressive innovation that develops over the course of play, and there's mandated change from the powers that be. I'm not anti-head slap either.

You're railing against some non-existing insult here.

How can defenses innovate when playing smart, aggressive defense (Ray Lewis' TD saving hit in the end zone in playoff semi-final) is flagged? Let's go ahead and excommunicate all the defensive HOFers because they are all cheaters at football.

This is not innovation like Bill Walsh brought to the league, it's regression because nobody can be bothered to figure out how to beat the Ty Laws of the world.

Not all change can be equated with innovation, otherwise we'd be playing CFL right? I mean 12 players is more football than 11 right? Innovation. XFL, arena, league.

NERF Footballs, that's innovation!

 

[Brother None]

I'm sorry, Cimms, but I still don't see how your complaints about "artificial" innovation don't apply to the forward pass as well, or other rule changes in history. And that's kind of the point of the article. Football itself innovates, but rules have always changed too, and people have always complained about it. How is now different?

 

[Sander]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolution is based on adaptation, and survival of the fittest.
Crocodiles and shit have been on the top of the food chain for thousands of years, not because somebody made deer's legs shorter because not enough were getting eaten, but because they are highly evolved predators that have adapted beyond the means of their prey.

So do we agree then that the new PI rules are like playing golf from the ladies' tees? This is not innovation, it's a crutch because the league is scared of protecting the vertical game.

It's no less a crutch than any of the other rule changes I mentioned. You're trying to institute a nonsensical barrier here to discredit the PI rules - those rules are just as valid an innovation or change as any of the previous rule changes. Except this time, you really hate them, so now they must be artificial instead of..well, whatever the previous rule changes were.

Also, again, those rules weren't new. The only thing that changed after 2004 was that referees were told to pay more attention.

The result is there is a huge spike in PI ticky-tack calls.
The result is an automatic 1st down for PI calls that have no effect on the play.
The result is you can be penalized 50 yards for PI by pulling a shirt, but 15 for kicking a guys teeth out.
The result is considered by many to be bad for the NFL.

Far be it from me to be the ruling authority, ask the League Officiating Office's VP.

I've seen that before. I can agree with touching that doesn't interfere or doesn't cause an advantage not being pass interference.

I wouldn't mind the PI rules being called less strictly, but I also don't want to see a return to the days where you just bowled over a receiver so he couldn't catch any balls.

Never said that either, I said there's progressive innovation that develops over the course of play, and there's mandated change from the powers that be. I'm not anti-head slap either.

So? Over the course of play, it appeared that the already existing pass interference weren't being implemented properly. How is that less organic or progressive than when over the course of play, it turns out that some guy with an artificial shoe can kick much harder and then that shoe is outlawed?

How can defenses innovate when playing smart, aggressive defense (Ray Lewis' TD saving hit in the end zone in playoff semi-final) is flagged? Let's go ahead and excommunicate all the defensive HOFers because they are all cheaters at football.

This is not innovation like Bill Walsh brought to the league, it's regression because nobody can be bothered to figure out how to beat the Ty Laws of the world.

It's no different than outlawing the head slap, instituting pass interference, limiting the jamming of receivers to 5 yards from within the line of scrimmage and a dozen other rules.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I'm sorry, Cimms, but I still don't see how your complaints about "artificial" innovation don't apply to the forward pass as well, or other rule changes in history. And that's kind of the point of the article. Football itself innovates, but rules have always changed too, and people have always complained about it. How is now different?

OK, the forward pass was an artificial innovation to rugby, I'll grant you that. It's the single most defining and distinguishing feature of American football from all other sports. For a game that was in it's nascent stages spinning off of rugby, this kind of rule is essential in defining what the sport itself is and establishing it's identity as a distinct sport from Rugby rather than just rugby tweaked.

The AFL, CFL, USFL, XFL and WFL all chose arbitrary reasons to alter the game, not for the better of the game in all cases, but to differentiate themselves from their competitor's product.
Burger King flamebroils their meat, and the XFL had no fair catches. Substantial to product improvement or public posturing for brand recognition? Good business decision.

In a world that already has rugby there is no need for a NFL sans forward passing.

Guys, pre-forward pass football is so insignificant outside of an academic, rhetorical argument like this.

Or should we not be adopting the larger field and add a player like the CFL. There is no "Canadian" Football. They tweaked the rules and call it Canadian to pander to jingoistic urges. There's no way they can compete with the NFL heads up, and they know that. This is just good business sense to "innovate" the game.

Calling "advances" like that innovation is just spin, pure and simple.

It's no different than outlawing the head slap, instituting pass interference, limiting the jamming of receivers to 5 yards from within the line of scrimmage and a dozen other rules.

It's night and day. Head slapping, leg whipping, clothes-lining, facemasks etc. are player health issues.
I didn't see them outlaw the Tomahawk in LT's day - it never injured anybody.


edit:The forward pass opened the game (of rugby) up, these recent rules changes (not exclusively the Patriot Rule but also the Brady Rule et al) limit and restrict the game as it is played by defenses, not open it up. That's not innovation at all, it's not a natural progression. It's heavy-handed interventionism on the part of folks that don't always have the greater good of the state of football in mind.

The recent spike in passing numbers is not due to innovation at all. It's because the league has been gradually taking away what defenses can do. This guy couldn't name a passing innovation from the last 30, the biggest boom in passing numbers. The game changes sure, but not always for the better and not always due to innovation.

Does this mean that Arena Football or Flag Football are the evolutionary end game of football? Where do we stop? That's where things are headed. Let's just eliminate lineman altogether, nobody gives a shit about them, the casual fans have no idea or appreciation for what they do, they are a waste. More receivers, less lineman!

Reminds me of a book I read many years ago on the XFL, you guys should check it out. Good case study in how tinkering too much with the core game (and a lot of other b.s.) can turn into an unprecedented disaster. Good book IIRC.
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Bomb-Became-Biggest-Fiasco/dp/0609609920/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267931886&sr=1-1

 

[UniversalWolf]

Changing the force-out rule last year was a step in the right direction.

Kampman to the Jags. Sorry to see him go, but he's the definition of the type of player who doesn't fit the 3-4, so staying in GB would've been bad for both parties.

 

[Sander]

OK, the forward pass was an artificial innovation to rugby, I'll grant you that. It's the single most defining and distinguishing feature of American football from all other sports. For a game that was in it's nascent stages spinning off of rugby, this kind of rule is essential in defining what the sport itself is and establishing it's identity as a distinct sport from Rugby rather than just rugby tweaked.

The AFL, CFL, USFL, XFL and WFL all chose arbitrary reasons to alter the game, not for the better of the game in all cases, but to differentiate themselves from their competitor's product.
Burger King flamebroils their meat, and the XFL had no fair catches. Substantial to product improvement or public posturing for brand recognition? Good business decision.

Isn't the emphasis on passing a good business decision? Despite your personal feelings on the matter, American Football is basically the second biggest spectator sport in the world.

t's night and day. Head slapping, leg whipping, clothes-lining, facemasks etc. are player health issues.
I didn't see them outlaw the Tomahawk in LT's day - it never injured anybody.

Pass interference and jamming receivers weren't health issues.

edit:The forward pass opened the game (of rugby) up, these recent rules changes (not exclusively the Patriot Rule but also the Brady Rule et al) limit and restrict the game as it is played by defenses, not open it up. That's not innovation at all, it's not a natural progression. It's heavy-handed interventionism on the part of folks that don't always have the greater good of the state of football in mind.

The forward pass specifically added options. Pass interference, the defensive limitations, jamming receiver only up to five yards - those are all limits on the defense. Yes, the offense used them to diversify and improve - but that same argument can be made for the more recent rules.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

The greater issue here as I see it is, and in keeping with the evolution analogy which is a good one, is that offense and the passing game do change and innovate to adapt to and surmount good defenses, and this is an excellent thing, as it in turn spurns natural, organic innovations in defense to adapt and keep up. Competition is good for the NFL, it's good for football and it's essential to the continued evolution of the game. Neutering defenders isn't conducive to innovation, I'd argue that it stifles innovation since offenses now have it easier, they don't have to struggle as hard, scheme as much, push the envelope and truly innovate.

That's my issue, true innovation is arrived at through competition (struggle in Evolutionary terms). When you reduce competition, you reduce true innovation. I'd postulate that football innovation, much like economics, is guided by an invisible hand that self corrects and proves what is viable and what is not through the course of actually playing football. This is what I mean by a natural, organic progressive evolution. Not through forced interventionism meant to prop up passing games that can't adapt, survive and innovate.

If a play style needs rule changes to prop it up, then it's probably not a very good innovation, because it's not evolved enough to cope with good defenses. This is what it comes down to. How viable and innovative something is can only be proven through the course of struggle against another team, not how much the defense needs to be handicapped to force viability.

It's like what green tea does for your immune system. Yes, it makes it stronger when you drink it. But it's a crutch that takes the burden off your own immune system, a system which needs vigorous activity to remain in tip top form. When you reduce what a defense can do, you reduce the innovation that offenses would be forced to come up with, since they are not challenged as much. That's my problem.

Isn't the emphasis on passing a good business decision? Despite your personal feelings on the matter,

It may be although, it'd hard to draw a correlation. I'd argue that as accessibility to different aspects of the game has skyrocketed (internet, FF, Madden, NFL network, DirectTV, RedZone channel etc.) so hasn't interest.
Good business in the short term? I guess so, I never heard people walking away from the game due to lack of passing though, and a lot of folks like my wife couldn't care less how much there is even if Brad Pitt was under center with his shirt off.

The NHL thought that cleaning up thuggery would make them a household name - it hasn't and it's alienated many core fans.
Baseball looked the other way when an orgy or steroids resulted in an explosion of Homeruns and interest. It fizzled out, the Feds are exposing all these cheaters, and attendance went back down. Both leagues went through a strike during the same period and are still trying to get back to where they were. One wants to give the benefit of the doubt that the NFL is smart enough to avoid a lockout...

I can become more popular with my daughter by feeding her Cocoa Cheerios and letting her watch SpongeBob all day, she'd call me the best daddy ever. That doesn't mean it's the best thing for her development as a human being.

American Football is basically the second biggest spectator sport in the world.

What's the NFL's marketshare of that I wonder? HS and college each draw more spectators individually in a given day than the same city's NFL team I reckon.
NFL is more of a TV sport than a spectator sport. A good college game is way more fun live than sitting in a parking lot in New Jersey drinking Bud Light with a bunch of dudes at 10AM.

Changing the force-out rule last year was a step in the right direction.

Yeah, I would say generally the NFL has been great at fine tuning the game like this when they have the good of the league in mind. And rules like this and the ongoing presence of instant replay in different forms is proof that nothing in the NFL is written in stone. Look at them go back and forth and back and forth on face mask penalties. Ultimately the teams, the players, the fans and ownership have to accept these changes or not for them to stick around.

And let's not pretend that the NFL was ever on the cutting edge of football innovation rules-wise, it always seems like the NFL is 5-10 years behind college rules wise.

Kampman to the Jags. Sorry to see him go, but he's the definition of the type of player who doesn't fit the 3-4, so staying in GB would've been bad for both parties.

I don't know why you would want guys like this (or Peppers if he converted) dropping into coverage on TEs and RBs when they should be rushing the passer. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[UniversalWolf]

I don't know why you would want guys like this (or Peppers if he converted) dropping into coverage on TEs and RBs when they should be rushing the passer. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If it were a good idea, all 3-4 OLBs would be 280-290...