NMA Fantasy Football

[Sander]

I actually lost a game. What the fuck?
And Leon Washington is out for the season after one carry in what was supposed to be a huge scoring game for him.


Still 1st, though. Fuel Cell Regulators, the guy who keeps playing byes and winning with them, is going down next week.

 

[Brother None]

one for one. no "add shit-tits to Orton and i'll give you L.T." type b.s.

you'd trade Orton for LT? Lulz.

Also, no thanks. The QB depth this year is out of this world, there's way too many top-performing QBs in the league right now. There's 11 QBs right now averaging between 15 and 20 ppg. That's otherwordly. That's more QBs playing at Pro Bowl level than we have teams in our fantasy league. As Silver put it, we have a pro bowl QB traffic jam.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

it was an example, retard. what am i going to do with the three 20+ scoring qb's i have? there ain't no flex for qb, man! i was all ready to dump Romo and then he returns to his previous year's stat-whoring now that he's found Austin. shee-it.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Also, no thanks. The QB depth this year is out of this world, there's way too many top-performing QBs in the league right now. There's 11 QBs right now averaging between 15 and 20 ppg. That's otherwordly. That's more QBs playing at Pro Bowl level than we have teams in our fantasy league. As Silver put it, we have a pro bowl QB traffic jam.

It's a passing league now thanks to all the bitching and crying that Bill Polian did.

 

[Brother None]

Really? I thought this league had too few professional-grade QBs to go around?
Man, you just complain about everything. What a parody of a Masshole you truly are, Cimm.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Really? I thought this league had too few professional-grade QBs to go around?
Man, you just complain about everything. What a parody of a Masshole you truly are, Cimm.

It still does, the mediocre QBs just look better now because the rules have been changed to handcuff defenders. It's called shifting the bell curve.
After the rules changes, journeymen hacks like Jake Plummer actually threw for more yards in a season for Denver then John Elways ever did. How do you account for that?
How many high paid 1st rounders still can't succeed under passer friendly rules? There's 4 starters with QB ratings in the 40s right now. They changed the rules and they still suck.

And I hope your dick is longer than your memory because I've told you plenty of times I live in Conn. not Mass..

 

[Sander]

It still does, the mediocre QBs just look better now because the rules have been changed to handcuff defenders. It's called shifting the bell curve.
After the rules changes, journeymen hacks like Jake Plummer actually threw for more yards in a season for Denver then John Elways ever did. How do you account for that?
How many high paid 1st rounders still can't succeed under passer friendly rules? There's 4 starters with QB ratings in the 40s right now. They changed the rules and they still suck.

It's a changing game. It's in the nature of sports: almost every sport changes over the years, as technology advances, the understanding of the game and technical and physical aspects of playing changes, and public appeal or medical discoveries demand new rules. You can whine about it, but it's how sports work and will continue to work. They're making the league more pass-heavy because that's what sells. Odds are this will increase.

But, you're disappointed that quarterbacks have better-looking results now than they did years ago. But that doesn't mean anything for the competitiveness of the teams. If all quarterbacks pass equally better, the balance of teams or the QBs doesn't change. It does make the league more heavy on passing as it increases the value of the pass relative to the run. And frankly, given research like this, it's probably a good thing to protect the players.

But fuck yeah, I like me some hard, rough, ugly aggressive football. I'm a Bucs fan, we won a Super Bowl by having the best D in the league, not by having the best pretty-boy passer. And we're not going to win by having pretty-boy passers in the coming years, either, with Freeman (similar to Roethlisberger in style) as the future QB. We've got a team that's based in D and the run (but our defensive coordinator is fucking things up and getting behind means we can't run as much).

Great quarterbacks draw crowds, and the NFL wants to capitalize on that. But great quarterbacks alone still don't make a team. Look at the Dolphins thriving on the run by eating up the time the opponent gets on the field, I love that strategy (too bad they fucked that up later on in the last game). Or the Saints being the best team in the league, with the only thing changing being a better D. Rodgers getting hammered behind a shaky O-line for the Packs. Passing is important, but passing alone still doesn't make a winning team.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It's a changing game. It's in the nature of sports: almost every sport changes over the years, as technology advances, the understanding of the game and technical and physical aspects of playing changes, and public appeal or medical discoveries demand new rules.

If this were true then why didn't the Colts ever outscheme, outmuscle, or outperform Ty Law? Why did they have to forgo all that and whine until the rules were changed? How is the Colt's GM using his position on the Competition Comitee to self-servingly change the rules in favor of his team somehow part-and-parcel of the changing nature of the game? That's not evolution.
Where's the innovation there? We can't beat him on the field, so we'll change the rules?

This isn't about the good of the NFL or it's evolution, it's about the Colt's GM having a hard-on for the Pats and abusing his authority. That this might help other teams, or passing in general is of not concearn to Bill Polian, The Golden Boy got his precious ring and all is right in the world. Everything else is an unintended byproduct.

You can whine about it, but it's how sports work and will continue to work. They're making the league more pass-heavy because that's what sells. Odds are this will increase.

I'm matter of fact about this holmes. The quick fix shot i your arm isn't always the best thing for long-term success. MLB looked the other way during the steroid era of baseball and people went to the game like never before "urrr, I like homeruns". Now the sport and it's sacred numbers are trashed, the people they held up as heroes look like lying scumbags.

How'd you like to be a HB these days? People wonder why Larry Johnson is so bitter? HBs are as interchangable and disposable as a spare tire these days. Use em up for all their worth and dump their asses in a few years.

But, you're disappointed that quarterbacks have better-looking results now than they did years ago.

No, I'm dissappointed that the league has extended itself far beyond the pool of adept QBs can sustain. They didn't expand for the good of the game, they expanded to make more money, to the detriment of the product.

Great quarterbacks draw crowds, and the NFL wants to capitalize on that.

Yeah so you better not rough up one of Peyton Manning's receivers of the zebras will come after you.
And that's why Michael Jordan never got called for travelling and Wayne Gretzky never backchecked in his life
You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Brother None]

If this were true then why didn't the Colts ever outscheme, outmuscle, or outperform Ty Law? Why did they have to forgo all that and whine until the rules were changed? How is the Colt's GM using his position on the Competition Comitee to self-servingly change the rules in favor of his team somehow part-and-parcel of the changing nature of the game? That's not evolution.

And you wonder why I call you a Masshole? You're a stereotype. The only people who behave like you do are Massholes and Eagles fans, either way.
I hope you don't expect me to be impressed by the whole bullying shouting thing, I've seen it before and you don't even pull it off that well. You focus too much on the Colts, it's a bit too transparent.

It still does, the mediocre QBs just look better now because the rules have been changed to handcuff defenders.

You mean rules like pass interference? Or the fact that we now allow a forward pass? You can try to revise history so it's no longer the Charlie Joiners of the world that set off as many rule changes as we have now, but it's not like the Devil Polian invented the forward passing game. Is this going to be one of those irrational things you do, where somehow the changes in favour of offense before were ok but the ones now are bad based solely on the fact that you say so? Is this like your whole classy player/clown thing?

Jake Plummer actually threw for more yards in a season for Denver then John Elways ever did. How do you account for that?

I account for it by people paying too much attention to garbage yardage? Plummer had a good team, but Jon Kitna had back-to-back 4000 yard seasons with the Lions. Doesn't really make him a better QB.

I mean in John Elways day, Ken O'Brien threw for more yards than Johnny Unitas ever had. And I bet there was some Masshole grinding his teeth back then too about how this can not be accounted for!

How many high paid 1st rounders still can't succeed under passer friendly rules?

Same amount as always, really. I think your whining about QB shortages is overdrawn and less insightful then you wish to believe, but it's essentially correct, there's not enough top-level QBs to go around and that was the case pre-expansion as well. Though with the obvious footnote that the NFL scouting apparatus is hardly infallible and some do slip the cracks (like, say, a Kurt Warner, or a Matt Hasselbeck, or a Matt Cassel).

 

[Sander]

If this were true then why didn't the Colts ever outscheme, outmuscle, or outperform Ty Law? Why did they have to forgo all that and whine until the rules were changed? How is the Colt's GM using his position on the Competition Comitee to self-servingly change the rules in favor of his team somehow part-and-parcel of the changing nature of the game? That's not evolution.
Where's the innovation there? We can't beat him on the field, so we'll change the rules?

This isn't about the good of the NFL or it's evolution, it's about the Colt's GM having a hard-on for the Pats and abusing his authority. That this might help other teams, or passing in general is of not concearn to Bill Polian, The Golden Boy got his precious ring and all is right in the world. Everything else is an unintended byproduct.

Okay yeah, this is just stupid. You honestly think that a company like the NFL, worth billions of dollars and being heavily invested into the idea of competition, would ever try to benefit one team over other teams? Bullshit. They want viewers and money, competition (and hence parity) and sensational plays get that. That's why they do this. Yes, it's commercial. That'd be extremely obvious if you were European, NFL is filled with commercialism where that is absent from European sports. It is also what made the game huge in the first place. And that stuff will keep chaning and evolving the game to please the market. The market makes the game, the NFL is only the player. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

At most, Polian's supposed preference for the Colts only

I'm matter of fact about this holmes. The quick fix shot i your arm isn't always the best thing for long-term success. MLB looked the other way during the steroid era of baseball and people went to the game like never before "urrr, I like homeruns". Now the sport and it's sacred numbers are trashed, the people they held up as heroes look like lying scumbags.

Okay, yeah, this conspiracy theory shit is just stupid. You're a total homer

How'd you like to be a HB these days? People wonder why Larry Johnson is so bitter? HBs are as interchangable and disposable as a spare tire these days. Use em up for all their worth and dump their asses in a few years.

I'd hardly call someone like MoJo, Ronnie Brown, or Purple Jesus (man I love these nicknames) indisposable.

But regardless: were you whining when the initial rule changes to benefit passes happened? Like BN said, legalisation of the forward pass? Pass interference? Shit changes, stop whining.

Add to that, not every position can be of equal importance. How would you like to be a long snapper?

No, I'm dissappointed that the league has extended itself far beyond the pool of adept QBs can sustain. They didn't expand for the good of the game, they expanded to make more money, to the detriment of the product.

What, so first passing is becoming too important, then passers are getting worse on average? Nonsense. It isn't "this is the talent pool, only these people are supposed to be good". The quality of players isn't defined by their innate talent for the game as it was 10 years ago, it's defined by their relevance in the game now. The game changed, so the definition of an 'adept' QB changed. This happens with every single rule change.
Of course, these rule changes are relevant for your poor Pats. Who have one of the top QBs anyway. The fuck are you complaining about?

Also, I don't get how you're acting that incompetent QBs are becoming somehow relevant. What, we don't have 5 or more terrible teams that have no chance of going anywhere with horrible QBs this year?

Yeah so you better not rough up one of Peyton Manning's receivers of the zebras will come after you.
And that's why Michael Jordan never got called for travelling and Wayne Gretzky never backchecked in his life
You hit the nail on the head.

Yeah, this "It's all for Peyton!" shit is just stupid.
The NFL is only interested in one thing: money. Competitiveness and spectacular plays get the money. That's why they're invested in the idea of parity and why they promote the pass: many more spectacular plays. Promoting one team over all others is vastly counterproductive.

Though with the obvious footnote that the NFL scouting apparatus is hardly infallible and some do slip the cracks (like, say, a Kurt Warner, or a Matt Hasselbeck, or a Matt Cassel).

Or Tony Romo, surprisingly.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

And you wonder why I call you a Masshole? You're a stereotype. The only people who behave like you do are Massholes and Eagles fans, either way.
I hope you don't expect me to be impressed by the whole bullying shouting thing, I've seen it before and you don't even pull it off that well. You focus too much on the Colts, it's a bit too transparent.

It's cute how you don't refute anything I said, or make a counter-argument but go right in for the hatchet job. That says a lot about your need to stuff me into one of your preconceived pigeonholes. Not sure how I've bullied anyone, I've never said my opinions are unassailable, I just back them up. I like talking about football, not really fond of pissing contests.

You mean rules like pass interference?

Big leap you're taking there my friend. Not sure how you're extrapolating all that from one specific rule change, due to one specific player, during one specific game that was pushed through by one particular person to benefit one particular team.
Look it up, and read up (clearly my opinion is no good) on Bill Polian. Someone is hunting the white whale here, and it's not me.

Did you see the game that this is all based on? You have to point out to me where the rules up to that point in time were good but had to be changed.
This is not the natural evolution of football, it's the artificial inflation of offensive numbers through rules enacted by a GM who's team benefitted the most from them.
Stop being so naive.

I mean in John Elways day, Ken O'Brien threw for more yards than Johnny Unitas ever had.

Ken O'Brien was a 1st rounder and whether he lived up to his perceived potential or not, he'll always keep company with the class of '83. He was no bum. Besides, Johnny U. was not a great thrower, he was a great QB. There is a difference.

And I bet there was some Masshole grinding his teeth back then too about how this can not be accounted for!

Way to miss the point and sneak in a backhanded shot at a group of people you've never had contact with in your life. Which one of us is supposed to be the asshole bully again?

Same amount as always, really. I think your whining about QB shortages is overdrawn and less insightful then you wish to believe, but it's essentially correct, there's not enough top-level QBs to go around and that was the case pre-expansion as well.

I'm not claiming it's insightful, anybody can clearly see there are not enough starting quality QBs to support a 32 team league. The same can be said for coaches, GMs front office. etc.

Okay yeah, this is just stupid. You honestly think that a company like the NFL, worth billions of dollars and being heavily invested into the idea of competition, would ever try to benefit one team over other teams? Bullshit.

Of course they would, certain teams draw more and make more than other teams. Parity be damned. That's reality. Parity does not apply to individual club profitability at all.

What would make more money Buffalo Vs. Tampa Bay in the SB or Colts Vs. Cowboys? If money is the be-all-end-all, and you're already conceding sacrificing the quality of the product for more money, why not?
Again, ever see Michael Jordan get called for travelling? Kobe Bryant? Ever see Wayne Gretzky backcheck? Strike zones in baseball are all over the place.

That'd be extremely obvious if you were European, NFL is filled with commercialism where that is absent from European sports.

I guess you forgot about those unis they wear in Europe with corporate logo feces smeared all over them. Or is that for aesthetics?

I'm matter of fact about this holmes. The quick fix shot i your arm isn't always the best thing for long-term success. MLB looked the other way during the steroid era of baseball and people went to the game like never before "urrr, I like homeruns". Now the sport and it's sacred numbers are trashed, the people they held up as heroes look like lying scumbags.

Okay, yeah, this conspiracy theory shit is just stupid. You're a total homer

What conspiracy do you speak of? There was a congressional investigation done, it's all out in the open.

I'm a homer, a truth homer. Get with it.

How'd you like to be a HB these days? People wonder why Larry Johnson is so bitter? HBs are as interchangable and disposable as a spare tire these days. Use em up for all their worth and dump their asses in a few years.

I'd hardly call someone like MoJo, Ronnie Brown, or Purple Jesus (man I love these nicknames) indisposable.

Come back and talk to me about them in 2/3 years.

But regardless: were you whining when the initial rule changes to benefit passes happened? Like BN said, legalisation of the forward pass? Pass interference? Shit changes, stop whining.

I answered this before, but
the forward pass???
Are you fucking serious? How old do you think I am? Guys, stop jerking me off here.

What, so first passing is becoming too important, then passers are getting worse on average? Nonsense. It isn't "this is the talent pool, only these people are supposed to be good". The quality of players isn't defined by their innate talent for the game as it was 10 years ago, it's defined by their relevance in the game now. The game changed, so the definition of an 'adept' QB changed. This happens with every single rule change.
Of course, these rule changes are relevant for your poor Pats. Who have one of the top QBs anyway. The fuck are you complaining about?

By any standards Derek Anderson, Josh Johnson and Jamarcus Russell are pieces of shit and they're dragging the quality of the league down. Are you watching these fucking blowouts? Are people climbing over each other to watch any game involving the Rams, Bucs, Bills, Raiders, Browns need I go on? Bills 6 Browns 3. Who in their right mind thinks that's good football. I'd rather walk down the street to see the HS kids play, at least they try. Titans put up -7 passing yards vs. Pats? Where are these exciting plays you speak of? We must need more rules against d-backs so this can never happen again!

This is not good football by any standard.

Where do they come from, they don't grow on trees. The NFL is too impatient to develop them properly. Now they are coming out of college earlier than ever.

Oh wait I know, let's tie the cornerbacks arms behind his back. Better QBs and more money. Win-win siutation!

Yeah, this "It's all for Peyton!" shit is just stupid.

Those are your words.

The NFL is only interested in one thing: money. Competitiveness and spectacular plays get the money. That's why they're invested in the idea of parity and why they promote the pass: many more spectacular plays. Promoting one team over all others is vastly counterproductive.

Then why, for the sake of propriety, would you populate the rule making comitee with active members of some, not all teams. You seriously can't recognize the conflict of interest there?

Seriously guys, did you watch the 2003 AFCC game? You can spin you rhetorical webs all day but without knowledge of the topic at hand it's academic. Google this shit, I didn't make it up.

 

[Brother None]

I like talking about football, not really fond of pissing contests.

Yeah, sorry to hurt your feelings, chief, but you don't talk about football. You froth at the mouth of your perceived injustices. Someone like el_Prez or Twinkie I can disagree with but at least they'll actually be saying something. You? No.

Big leap you're taking there my friend.

Not really, because:

This is not the natural evolution of football, it's the artificial inflation of offensive numbers through rules enacted by a GM who's team benefitted the most from them.

How is that not true for pass interference? There were passing teams, rare, and running teams. The passing teams benefited as running began taking a back seat. All of the artificial inflation of offensive numbers. There's no absolute difference between any rule made to benefit the offense, and there's a lot of them, and the recent rule changes you're complaining about. NFL has been coddywoddling offenses for years now, more and more, so why suddenly draw a line here and say enough is enough, and blame it all on one person? It's inconsistent.

Look it up, and read up (clearly my opinion is no good) on Bill Polian. Someone is hunting the white whale here, and it's not me.

Well it can't be me since I'm not focusing on one person. Getting your analogies mixed up much?

Also, dunno, how about you actually structure an argument on what you're talking about for once?

THe was no bum. Besides, Johnny U. was not a great thrower, he was a great QB. There is a difference.

You're calling Plummer a bum? He was a journeyman, but also a two time pro bowl alternate that led his team to a 13-3 record.

I'm sorry, but considering passing numbers have simply been on a steep incline for years, why - again - do you want to arbitrarily cut it off at the last ten?

Which one of us is supposed to be the asshole bully again?

You. I'm just responding in kind. I always do.

What would make more money Buffalo Vs. Tampa Bay in the SB or Colts Vs. Cowboys? If money is the be-all-end-all, and you're already conceding sacrificing the quality of the product for more money, why not?

Sure. And that applies to any sport. It applies to the perceived (though not necessarily statistically accurate) protection thrown about Tom Brady this year as much as it does to Peyton. And yes, I know, you'll go off again on how Patriots never whined for it, but that doesn't actually make a difference to the rules and how they're applied. And this is true for any professional sport, as you note, so again, why are we focusing on the Devil Polian, Mr Ahab?

Also, it's not like a finesse team like the Seahawks, Cardinals or Greatest Show on Turf Rams couldn't make it. That's hardly a big draw. Anyone can use the rules as they are. Or build a great smashmouth team and just ride on that, as the Bucs, Ravens, Steelers or Bears did. No one ruined the sport, though you might be ruining it for yourself.

TCome back and talk to me about them in 2/3 years.

This is new how? HBs wear out quick. I mean someone like LDT had as long a career as any HB in history but he's done now. Again, what's new about that?

Those are your words.

lolwut?
"due to one specific player, during one specific game that was pushed through by one particular person to benefit one particular team."
Those are your words.

Seriously guys, did you watch the 2003 AFCC game?

Hmmm? A good game with a lot of whining by the Colts afterwards? What's your point?

It's not like the 2001 AFC divisional playoff game which, you'll well remember, was handed to the Pats by a stupid call based on a rule meant to protect the passer. That's dynasty-building right there, thanks to all these "wrong rules".

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

*sigh*

i want a trade, dammit.

 

[Sander]

Of course they would, certain teams draw more and make more than other teams. Parity be damned. That's reality. Parity does not apply to individual club profitability at all.

You're more naive than I thought. Individual club profitability isn't interesting to the NFL, total profit over all clubs is what's interesting to them. If Peyton Manning had built a passing team in Jacksonville, these rules probably would've happened anyway, and then you'd be whining about how now the Jaguars were being given wins.

Your total conspiracy theorism makes this discussion just stupid. Occam's Razor, man, the simple explanation is simply that promoting the pass over the run makes the game more spectacular to watch (and it does). You're all over the place with this bullshit about promoting the Colts, and you have absolutely no reason to believe it, outside of your own tiny paranoid connections.

What would make more money Buffalo Vs. Tampa Bay in the SB or Colts Vs. Cowboys? If money is the be-all-end-all, and you're already conceding sacrificing the quality of the product for more money, why not?
Again, ever see Michael Jordan get called for travelling? Kobe Bryant? Ever see Wayne Gretzky backcheck? Strike zones in baseball are all over the place.

I don't watch basketball, hockey or baseball, so no idea where you're going with these examples.

But yes, duh, money is the be-all-end-all of commercial sports. That's what they go for. And in that respect, getting a competitive league and competitive games will gain them much more money than promoting one team over all other teams. Domination of a single team kills interest in a sport, aside from the supporters of that single team.

I don't get how you're saying that this is worse for the game. You're arbitrarily deciding that these changes are bad for the game, but previous changes weren't? How do you think they got to this point in the game in the first place? Hell, how are you defining what is good for the game, if it isn't defined by the total interest in the game?

I guess you forgot about those unis they wear in Europe with corporate logo feces smeared all over them. Or is that for aesthetics?

No, I mean that the commercialism is much more prominent in NFL football than it is in European football. Commercialism pervades every pore of the NFL, and I have no problem with that, but I don't see why you're trying to ignore that.

Come back and talk to me about them in 2/3 years.

Yeah, so? That was true in the '70s too. That has nothing to do with the rules, it's simply a consequence of the position (much more demanding than other positions). Moreover, more passing means fewer carries, and fewer carries means these running backs get to stay relevant/healthy for longer.
Hell, from that respect, the passing rules probably benefited QBs and WRs as they get to play longer. How is that a bad thing?

By any standards Derek Anderson, Josh Johnson and Jamarcus Russell are pieces of shit and they're dragging the quality of the league down.

So how is this a consequence of the passing rules? Are they suddenly better QBs when passing is harder? I'd think the opposite would happen there.

Are you watching these fucking blowouts? Are people climbing over each other to watch any game involving the Rams, Bucs, Bills, Raiders, Browns need I go on? Bills 6 Browns 3. Who in their right mind thinks that's good football. I'd rather walk down the street to see the HS kids play, at least they try. Titans put up -7 passing yards vs. Pats? Where are these exciting plays you speak of? We must need more rules against d-backs so this can never happen again!

This is not good football by any standard.

Where do they come from, they don't grow on trees. The NFL is too impatient to develop them properly. Now they are coming out of college earlier than ever.

Oh wait I know, let's tie the cornerbacks arms behind his back. Better QBs and more money. Win-win siutation!

If it makes the game more competitive and exciting, why not, eh?

Hint: completed plays on every down don't make the game more exciting.

Yeah, this "It's all for Peyton!" shit is just stupid.

Those are your words.

They're a paraphrasal of your words, smartass.

Seriously guys, did you watch the 2003 AFCC game? You can spin you rhetorical webs all day but without knowledge of the topic at hand it's academic. Google this shit, I didn't make it up.

Yes. The Colts whined. And the New England press and fans jumped over the rule changes.
Hell, you know what's funny? They aren't even rule changes. They just told their refs to pay attention to the rules that were already in place.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Yeah, sorry to hurt your feelings, chief, but you don't talk about football. You froth at the mouth of your perceived injustices. Someone like el_Prez or Twinkie I can disagree with but at least they'll actually be saying something. You? No.

You're not hurting my feelings at all, just confounding me with your need to turn this into a mudslinging contest.
You're free to rebut anything I put out there. I'm not forcing my opinion down anyone's throat. I'm giving you guys the facts as I know them, you make your own conclusions, I'm not here to tell you what to think, just tell you what I think. I took for granted that that goes without saying.
Tone down the hyperbole with the frothing there dude. It's unbecoming.

Big leap you're taking there my friend.

Not really, because:

This is not the natural evolution of football, it's the artificial inflation of offensive numbers through rules enacted by a GM who's team benefitted the most from them.

How is that not true for pass interference? There were passing teams, rare, and running teams. The passing teams benefited as running began taking a back seat. All of the artificial inflation of offensive numbers. There's no absolute difference between any rule made to benefit the offense, and there's a lot of them, and the recent rule changes you're complaining about. NFL has been coddywoddling offenses for years now, more and more, so why suddenly draw a line here and say enough is enough, and blame it all on one person? It's inconsistent.

That's a slippery slope I don't care to climb. If we want to play that game we can just roll it all back to rugby or whatever spawned American football in the first place.
There is a marked change in playstyle now in that teams like Philly, Indy, New England, New Orleans, Denver etc. That don't even pretend to try to establish a running game, frankly they succeed without it. They just spread it out and let it fly. They pass first, they pass more often. It is what it is.

I'm not complaining about more offense. I'm complaining about a system, aww fuck it I already wrote this and you both ignored it:

Then why, for the sake of propriety, would you populate the rule making comitee with active members of some, not all teams. You seriously can't recognize the conflict of interest there?

Yeah more and more the rules have really gotten ridiculous, it may not be one thing, but an aggregation of these rules that have hit a threshold for me. At what point does the QB not play by flag footbal rules, we're almost there.

Look it up, and read up (clearly my opinion is no good) on Bill Polian. Someone is hunting the white whale here, and it's not me.

Well it can't be me since I'm not focusing on one person. Getting your analogies mixed up much?

No, why would I make this argument about you? I'm talking about football people.

THe was no bum. Besides, Johnny U. was not a great thrower, he was a great QB. There is a difference.

You're calling Plummer a bum? He was a journeyman.

I mention that insofar as Plummer benefitted from the new rules and actually surpassed Elways numbers, when clearly he doesn't belong in the same conversation when it comes to great QBs.
You keep projecting this wild opinions on me that I really don't hold. A little more unassuming would be appreciated.

But Plummer did suffer from an acute case of Turnoveritis. 161TDs to 161 INTs plus 35 fumbles. and a career 75 QB rating.
What would you call it when the QB turns it over more than he scores?

You said it, journeyman.

I'm sorry, but considering passing numbers have simply been on a steep incline for years, why - again - do you want to arbitrarily cut it off at the last ten?

I want to see QBs protected better, by their own lineman. How about the game is forced to evolve and innovate instead of having corporate office dictate how the game will be played?

Real innovation is Bill Walsh and the West Coast Offense. A bunch of guys in a room with ideas and a blackboard. That's innovative, progessive football to me, not retroactively making rules becuase some pretty-boy QB twisted his knee., but not when it's manufactured by corporate office.

The league should evolve, in a progessive, organic fashion, not have it dictated by marketing. Then it becomes less about the game and more about "the show"!

Look how shallow the whole SB dog-and-pony show is to attract the mainstream. It's a damn good thing that the last few have been good games, because the SB used to suck, big time, and the superficial peripheral shit going on around it is not for football fans. It's for housewives.

Sure. And that applies to any sport. It applies to the perceived (though not necessarily statistically accurate) protection thrown about Tom Brady this year as much as it does to Peyton. And yes, I know, you'll go off again on how Patriots never whined for it, but that doesn't actually make a difference to the rules and how they're applied. And this is true for any professional sport, as you note, so again, why are we focusing on the Devil Polian, Mr Ahab?

Conflict of interest having him on the rule competition comitee making rules that specificaly benefit his team.
You honestly beleive he's so magnanimous that he did this for the benefit of the league and it's overall proftiability?

Excuse me? Watching shut down corners is not exciting football becasue it doesn't put points on the board? Millions of Deion Sanders fans would disagree.

TCome back and talk to me about them in 2/3 years.

This is new how? HBs wear out quick. I mean someone like LDT had as long a career as any HB in history but he's done now. Again, what's new about that?[/quote]
Evidently it's news to Sander. Serviceable HBs are a dime a dozen, and their careers are extremely taxing and short. Servicable QBs are not.

Hmmm? A good game with a lot of whining by the Colts afterwards? What's your point?

The aftermath that played out at the subsequent competition comitee meeting and the resultant rules changes and their application.

And no, neither of you watched it I take it. You should. Epic game. In the snow. Typical Manning meltdown. Maybe that should be the next rule, no more outdoor stadiums, clearly these dome teams can't cope with it. The southern market doesn't like snow, let's do away with it.

It's not like the 2001 AFC divisional playoff game which, you'll well remember, was handed to the Pats by a stupid call based on a rule meant to protect the passer. That's dynasty-building right there, thanks to all these "wrong rules".

I'm on record as embracing this:

The foundation of the Pat's dynasty is robbing, cheating and lying. I watched the Tuck Rule Game replay the other day - it's hard to remember that Brady and the dyasty's foundation was built on that bullshit call. It was the launching point for Brady and the dynasty.

 

[Sander]

That's a slippery slope I don't care to climb. If we want to play that game we can just roll it all back to rugby or whatever spawned American football in the first place.
There is a marked change in playstyle now in that teams like Philly, Indy, New England, New Orleans, Denver etc. That don't even pretend to try to establish a running game, frankly they succeed without it. They just spread it out and let it fly. They pass first, they pass more often. It is what it is.

Passing is more succesful than running. It's been like that since, well, the introduction of the forward pass more or less. That's why you have teams that pass first. The pass is simply better than the run. And it makes sense, a ball can travel much faster and farther when thrown than when run.

And ehm, honestly, none of those teams abandon the run. They use the run to set up their passes.

Really, what are you arguing for here? You want a bunch of teams that try to run the ball at every down no matter what happens? That's not efficient football, and it hasn't been for years.

But even with all these rule changes you so hate, you *still* have the Dolphins looking great and running the ball at every opportunity.

I mention that insofar as Plummer benefitted from the new rules and actually surpassed Elways numbers, when clearly he doesn't belong in the same conversation when it comes to great QBs.
You keep projecting this wild opinions on me that I really don't hold. A little more unassuming would be appreciated.

But Plummer did suffer from an acute case of Turnoveritis. 161TDs to 161 INTs plus 35 fumbles. and a career 75 QB rating.
What would you call it when the QB turns it over more than he scores?

I don't get why you're harping on the numbers if you then show that they're actually worse than Elway's. Yardage isn't the only statistic that determines what league a quarterback is in.

Real innovation is Bill Walsh and the West Coast Offense. A bunch of guys in a room with ideas and a blackboard. That's innovative, progessive football to me, not retroactively making rules becuase some pretty-boy QB twisted his knee., but not when it's manufactured by corporate office.

Bullshit. Innovation in sports isn't separate from the rules, it works both ways. Rules have always created opportunities for players and coaches to take advantage of. Again: this has happened throughout league history, your whining about it now as a fundamental point seems ignorant of history. Pass Interference wasn't first invented on the professional football field, and only then made into a rule.

Actually, your stance is actually focused on keeping the game static and unchanging. Now that would be a bad thing for American Football.

And even with the 'corporate' rule changes, look at the Wildcat offense of Miami. That isn't innovation?

Conflict of interest having him on the rule competition comitee making rules that specificaly benefit his team.
You honestly beleive he's so magnanimous that he did this for the benefit of the league and it's overall proftiability?

You're honestly so deluded that you think one man on a multi-people committee who have billions of dollars invested in that decision would hold so large a sway?
There's 8 people on that committee, not 1, and all of them have ties to different franchises. Your harping on Bill Polian is ridiculous, he isn't even one of the co-chairs for fuck's sake.
If there's a conflict of interest for him, there's one for every single person on the committee. The fact that 8 different teams are represented (and really, of the pass-heavy teams you mentioned only the Colts are represented on the committee).

Evidently it's news to Sander. Serviceable HBs are a dime a dozen, and their careers are extremely taxing and short. Servicable QBs are not.

Having a hard time paying attention? I'm well aware running backs don't last nearly as long as quarterbacks. That doesn't mean that MoJo, Ronnie Brown and All Day aren't irreplaceable for their current teams: those teams wouldn't be anywhere near as effective without those people.

Also, interestingly, more passing means fewer carries, which means that those HBs actually get to be relevant for longer.

 

[Maphusio]

Even though I'm getting slaughtered like a Gary Ridgway victim I'm still pleased that I've won two.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Between that and your Ron Jeremy analogy, I think I've got a man crush on you.

You're more naive than I thought. Individual club profitability isn't interesting to the NFL

Revenue sharing and a hard salary cap are unique cornerstones to the NFL business model intended to produce parity. Not a system of have and have nots.

Your total conspiracy theorism makes this discussion just stupid.

There's no conspiracy, it's wide open.

Occam's Razor, man, the simple explanation is simply that promoting the pass over the run makes the game more spectacular to watch (and it does).

That's shallow. Deion Sanders is probably the most electrifying player ever to lace em up. How is watching a shutdown CB not spectacular? It's incredible what they can do. Ed Reed isn't spectacular? Troy Polamalu?
What's an NFL without Darrell Greens, Eric Allens, and Ty Laws?

I don't watch basketball, hockey or baseball, so no idea where you're going with these examples.

Sports are willing to bend the rules to accentuate the offensive prowess of their cash cow superstars. Whether that's what drives the market is really irrelevant to the result.

I just heard on the radio how Andre Agassi failed a piss test for meth. He wrote a letter of apology with some bullshit excuse and Tennis supressed it.
Why do you think they would do that for Agassi?

But yes, duh, money is the be-all-end-all of commercial sports. That's what they go for.

There has to be a threshhold to this though, otherwise it will turn into Pro-wrestling. "Sports Entertainment" or whatever euphamistic marketing phrase they use.

And in that respect, getting a competitive league and competitive games will gain them much more money than promoting one team over all other teams.

Where were these competitive games you speak of last week?
There were maybe 3 out of the rest were unwatchably uncompetitive blowouts.

So how is this a consequence of the passing rules? Are they suddenly better QBs when passing is harder? I'd think the opposite would happen there.

No, this was in realtion to the overexpansion/lack of QB talent argument, not rules.

Oh wait I know, let's tie the cornerback's arms behind his back. Better QBs and more money. Win-win situation!

If it makes the game more competitive and exciting, why not, eh?

Yeah, why have defenders at all? Just line up like a home-run derby and let the offense tee off.

Sorry I'm slow, respond to that other stuff later.


edit:
Round II

Passing is more succesful than running. It's been like that since, well, the introduction of the forward pass more or less. That's why you have teams that pass first. The pass is simply better than the run. And it makes sense, a ball can travel much faster and farther when thrown than when run.

Passing is even more successful, productive and effective when you run it out of the play-action with an established running game. They're reciprocal, running opens up the passing game and vise versa.
The game really isn't about how fast you can score, or how many times you can score in 60 minutes, it's about outscoring your opponent.

Unless you're Bill Belichik, and we know your stance on his efficient execution of offense.

And ehm, honestly, none of those teams abandon the run. They use the run to set up their passes.

Never said they abandoned it. And they don't use the run to set up the pass, there's no need to, they succeed pretty well without it.
And passing is not more effective if your QB can't complete more than 50% of his passes.

Really, what are you arguing for here? You want a bunch of teams that try to run the ball at every down no matter what happens? That's not efficient football, and it hasn't been for years.

No, there's nothing more stodgy and boring than run-of-the-mill running games.
I'm arguing for contraction. When you have a Manning, Brees, Brady, it's all good. What about the other 25 teams? Anderson, Russell and Johnson sure aren't efficient passers in my book. They're pretty maladroit passers

But even with all these rule changes you so hate, you *still* have the Dolphins looking great and running the ball at every opportunity.

Here's another example, along with Bill Walsh, I would cite as innovative minds evolving the game in an organic, progressive manner. Not reactive game planning to comply with or exploit market-driven league rules.

I don't get why you're harping on the numbers if you then show that they're actually worse than Elway's. Yardage isn't the only statistic that determines what league a quarterback is in.

Because they tell the story of a clearly inferior, reckless QB, when under the new rules, benefiting to the point of surpassing his clearly superior HOF predecessor.
Jake Plummer was fun to watch, especially back in his ASU days. I like him, but he was sloppy and not in Elway's league.

If there's a conflict of interest for him, there's one for every single person on the committee.

I guess that's the closest thing to an answer either of you will give me.

MoJo, Ronnie Brown and All Day aren't irreplaceable for their current teams: those teams wouldn't be anywhere near as effective without those people.

I'm not saying they're irreplaceable now. But they will be, just wait. Props to Jimmy Brown and Barry Sanders for going out on their own terms om top, instead of lingering around like a bad case of VD like Edgerin James.

Also, interestingly, more passing means fewer carries, which means that those HBs actually get to be relevant for longer.

That's speculative and assuming they're sitting on the sideline resting or something. They'd probably be kept in for pass protection, and blocking a 300lb pass rusher running at you at full speed is hardly less taxing.
The NFL doesn't work that way, you milk the RB for all he's worth and dump his ass to some desperate, unsuspecting team before he's comlpletely spent. That's the modus operandi of a shrewd NFL GM.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Even though I'm getting slaughtered like a Gary Ridgway victim I'm still pleased that I've won two.

Nice Green River Killer reference.

C'sBP! C'sBP! C'sBP!

 

[Sander]

Revenue sharing and a hard salary cap are unique cornerstones to the NFL business model intended to produce parity. Not a system of have and have nots.

Yes, but promoting a single team over all others leads to an overall revenue loss, as it leads to a less competitive (and hence less interesting) league.

Look at baseball, I remember that at some point (don't know if it still is) it's highly

That's shallow. Deion Sanders is probably the most electrifying player ever to lace em up. How is watching a shutdown CB not spectacular? It's incredible what they can do. Ed Reed isn't spectacular? Troy Polamalu?
What's an NFL without Darrell Greens, Eric Allens, and Ty Laws?

Well, simply put, defensive play is less spectacular than offensive plays, except in the case of sacks and turnovers, basically. So yes, shutdown corners are less spectacular than Drew Brees passing his team down the field in a 2-minute drill.

But the most relevant part is that passes are more spectacular than runs.

Sports are willing to bend the rules to accentuate the offensive prowess of their cash cow superstars. Whether that's what drives the market is really irrelevant to the result.

I just heard on the radio how Andre Agassi failed a piss test for meth. He wrote a letter of apology with some bullshit excuse and Tennis supressed it.
Why do you think they would do that for Agassi?

He wrote that he had accidentally taken the wrong drink that he was unaware had crystal meth in it, and hence he got away with it.

But yes, that shit happens. Because of the money, succesful players get more breaks than others, they're more willing to forgive and think the best of the great players. But doping and drugs, and full changes to the game itself are miles apart.

There has to be a threshhold to this though, otherwise it will turn into Pro-wrestling. "Sports Entertainment" or whatever euphamistic marketing phrase they use.

Well, the limit is what popular opinion will allow for. If the NFL goes too far in promoting the pass and creates a boring league with only blowouts or incompetent games, then there will be a huge backlash. But I don't see that happening.

Where were these competitive games you speak of last week?
There were maybe 3 out of the rest were unwatchably uncompetitive blowouts.

From all reports this is only the first year that this has happened. To blame that on those rule changes seems spurious.

No, this was in realtion to the overexpansion/lack of QB talent argument, not rules.

Ah yeah, I don't disagree that there aren't 32 top-level QBs in the league. There probably can't be, but a proper feeder league (like the NFL Europe was, or the CFL and AFL might be) would do wonders.

Yeah, why have defenders at all? Just line up like a home-run derby and let the offense tee off.

I think you missed the 'competitive' note.

Passing is even more successful, productive and effective when you run it out of the play-action with an established running game. They're reciprocal, running opens up the passing game and vise versa.
The game really isn't about how fast you can score, or how many times you can score in 60 minutes, it's about outscoring your opponent.

There's a lot to football offenses, but setting up play action isn't the only thing the run is good for, it's also a game-theoretic necessity so that they can't simply defend against the pass every play, since you could use the run to blast by them on those plays. Screen passes work like that, too, only against blitzes. However, I also think you fall for the same trap that a lot of professional journalists do, which is the idea that you cannot win without the run, and that winning teams always win a lot (actually, most of the running the winning teams do is running out the clock).

Football Outsiders has a ton of interesting stuff on this kind of look at the game.

Never said they abandoned it. And they don't use the run to set up the pass, there's no need to, they succeed pretty well without it.
And passing is not more effective if your QB can't complete more than 50% of his passes.

New Orleans, with arguably the best passing attack, won two games (vs Buffalo and the Jets) while largely ignoring the pass and pounding the ball through their defenses with the run.

Also, your last statement there isn't really true. If a QB can only complete 40% of his passes, but doesn't throw many interceptions and gets a lot of yardage on those 40%, he'll do better passing than running.

No, there's nothing more stodgy and boring than run-of-the-mill running games.
I'm arguing for contraction. When you have a Manning, Brees, Brady, it's all good. What about the other 25 teams? Anderson, Russell and Johnson sure aren't efficient passers in my book. They're pretty maladroit passers

Well, most of the teams with mediocre passers don't try to pass as much. But those are also generally the teams, this year, with the shitty defense. Which means that they need to come from behind a lot, which is what forces them to pass more and run less.

Here's another example, along with Bill Walsh, I would cite as innovative minds evolving the game in an organic, progressive manner. Not reactive game planning to comply with or exploit market-driven league rules.

Yes, but these things aren't mutually exclusive.

Because they tell the story of a clearly inferior, reckless QB, when under the new rules, benefitting to the point of surpassing his clearly superior HOF predecessor.
Jake Plummer was fun to watch, especially back in his ASU days. I like him, but he was sloppy and not in Elway's league.

So your complaint is that he got more yardage than Elway, while it was in a completely different era?
That's a pretty lame complaint. Who the hell cares that some mediocre passer got more yardage, when if you look at all the other stats it's clear he's inferior?

Similarly, there's a ton of records in European football that won't ever be broken, mostly old scoring records. Because simply, play at that time was at a much lower level, especially defensively, so those records are basically impossible to break now. The game of European football is vastly different now from 30 years ago, in part due to rule changes, in part due to a better understanding of the game and simply increased level of play. Sports change and evolve, meaning that some old records can't be broken, and others will be broken quickly by inferior players. It's in the nature of sports.

If there's a conflict of interest for him, there's one for every single person on the committee.

I guess that's the closest thing to an answer either of you will give me.

Well, yes.

I'm not saying they're irreplaceable now. But they will be, just wait. Props to Jimmy Brown and Barry Sanders for going out on their own terms, instead of lingering around like a bad case of VD like Edgerin James.

But what does this have to do with the rule changes?

That's speculative and assuming they're sitting on the sideline resting or something. They'd probably be kept in for pass protection,
The NFL doesn't work that way, you milk the RB for all he's worth and dump his ass to some desperate, unsuspecting team before he's comlpletely spent. That's the modus operandi of a shrewd NFL GM.

Yep.
But there's quite a bit of statistical analysis of the idea that RBs decline after peak years, notably on Football Outsiders and Advanced NFL Stats as a reply. Whether or not it is due to overuse in the season, or simply that the position of RB naturally only has a very small number of peak years doesn't really matter: it's a fact of life that RBs can't compete for as long as QBs, simply because of the nature of the position.