The League Sucks, and is injured. Does that bother anyone?

We have obviously not won the Super Bowl yet, but every year is Super Bowl or bust when we have our coach and QB... This year the league really sucks, and its not just this specific year only.

However, I have occasionally wondered why I am so jacked up year after year, with the hope my team will win the trophy of this bleeping league.

In summary of my point..
32 teams.
-Without question 33% of the league completely sucks.. at least ten teams absolutely have no shot whatsoever and are in fact terrible.. one third!

The middle third, the mediocre, well if you are honest with yourself they suck too. Two thirds basically suck.

So basically, on a good year you might have ten good teams.. One third. Now you only have to beat one team from the other conference ultimately in terms of winning the Super Bowl. So you widdle it down to like 6 teams. Ultimately the Patriots, on a very up year for the NFL, are competing with like maybe 4 serious AFC teams and whoever shakes out on the NFC. So when you hold the trophy up at the end you are champs basically of like 5 teams, with maybe 2 on your level. (Yippee)

I have been a Pats fans since Steve Grogan's rookie year. When I was a kid I looked at those "World Champs" like the Steelers and did not yet understand that most teams just sucked, and there really weren't that many teams any way in the league and most sucked like we kinda did.

Very random, negative thought, I apologize ahead of time.. League so bad this year you could have several 16 and 0 teams as long as they don't play each other.

Don't worry, the Kommishioner is on top of the problem. Expand the playoffs, expand the league, go to an 18 game season, and put teams overseas to increase the travel load. This is the only way to improve the product, it's what the fans want #INTEGRITY

During the bye week, IIRC, there wasn't a single game on that didn't have a terrible team in it and many had two.

I think it reflects on the board here too. This year it seems like fans don't want to benchmark the Pats compared to other teams, because it's kind of pointless this year, and instead benchmark this Pats team to other Patriot squads from other years.

IMO

What killed teams was the fact that they jumped on the bandwagon of the running QB and players like Geno Smith, EJ Manuel, Ryan Tannenhill, Kaep, RGIII, etc... were drafted way too high and thrust as starters. Reading defenses and not getting hit is more important. I think the running QB is pretty much dead.

Since the NFL expanded to 32 teams there have been 25 teams that had perfect records after week 6. There have also been 22 teams that were winless. This season there are 5 undefeated teams and 0 winless teams. Since the league is always .500 that means there are more teams with losing records than usual at this point. Give it a few weeks and it should look more normal.

There have always been plenty of bad teams in the league.

SalemPats said:

What killed teams was the fact that they jumped on the bandwagon of the running QB and players like Geno Smith, EJ Manuel, Ryan Tannenhill, Kaep, RGIII, etc... were drafted way too high and thrust as starters. Reading defenses and not getting hit is more important. I think the running QB is pretty much dead.

Click to expand...

It might go out of fashion for a season or two but for some reason the meme of "the running QB is the wave of the future" just keeps coming back.

I didn't quite understand if you were talking about this year specifically or more general, I think a bit of both, anyway, this year the level of suckage is through the roof (especially the AFC) to the point I see almost an obligation for the Pats to make to the SB.

SalemPats said:

What killed teams was the fact that they jumped on the bandwagon of the running QB and players like Geno Smith, EJ Manuel, Ryan Tannenhill, Kaep, RGIII, etc... were drafted way too high and thrust as starters. Reading defenses and not getting hit is more important. I think the running QB is pretty much dead.

Click to expand...

Geno and Manuel have never really been regarded as running QBs. They were pass-first QBs who maybe had a passable baseline of mobility that the majority of QBs have coming out these days. Luck is a better runner than either of them. OTOH, there are examples of successful QBs for whom mobility is a core part of their game (Wilson, Newton), and plenty of examples of bust pocket passers.

It's tempting and easy to boil it down to running QB = bad, pocket passer = good, but it's a lot more complex than that. Run-first QBs don't go far in the NFL, but QBs who can run have a significant leg up on the competition. They can succeed without necessarily having to be adept at pre-snap reads and rapid progressions. They can also buy time for subpar receivers to get open in a way that pocket passers generally can't.

I do agree that avoiding huge hits is one of the most valuable skills for QBs, and is constantly underrated in young prospects. This rule applies to pocket passers and mobile QBs equally, albeit in different ways. Different types of QBs have to exhibit different kinds of skills to avoid those hits. For pocket passers, that means calling the right protection, making the right pre-snap reads, progressing quickly through your reads, moving well in the pocket, and having a quick release. That's the stuff that separates someone like Tom Brady from the many non-mobile QBs out there who take a beating and miss games year after year. For mobile QBs, it's about a lot of that same stuff, but also about maintaining discipline on the move and getting out of bounds or sliding before you're exposed to a big hit. Wilson, in particular, is really good at that. I think it's the most underrated part of his game, and for all the plays where he buys 7 seconds for his receivers or rushes for a first down, he rarely takes big hits.

Colleges aren't really developing as many NFL type players as they used to. That's a big part of the problem. It's glaringly obvious at QB, but we see it at other positions, too.

Deus Irae said:

Colleges aren't really developing as many NFL type players as they used to. That's a big part of the problem. It's glaringly obvious at QB, but we see it at other positions, too.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on what you mean? Are you talking about the proliferation of college spread offenses, as opposed to pro style offenses?

SalemPats said:

What killed teams was the fact that they jumped on the bandwagon of the running QB and players like Geno Smith, EJ Manuel, Ryan Tannenhill, Kaep, RGIII, etc... were drafted way too high and thrust as starters. Reading defenses and not getting hit is more important. I think the running QB is pretty much dead.

Click to expand...

I guess the 10 year Michael Vick experiment results were lost on them.

zydecochris said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean? Are you talking about the proliferation of college spread offenses, as opposed to pro style offenses?

Click to expand...

Well, spread offenses and other things. Here's a short article on the spread causing issues:

Mike Mayock: Spread QBs a huge gamble for NFL teams - NFL.com

Here's an article on it, tailored for Arizona readers, but covering some of the issues with spread QBs:

"So many times, you're evaluating a quarterback who has never called a play in the huddle, never used a snap count," Cardinals coach Bruce Arians said during the NFL combine. "They hold up a card on the sideline, he kicks his foot and throws the ball.

"That ain't playing quarterback. There's no leadership involved there. There might be leadership on the bench, but when you get them and they have to use verbiage, and they have to spit the verbiage out and change the snap count, they are light years behind."

Click to expand...

Bickley: Blame college football for NFL's quarterback shortage

zydecochris said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean? Are you talking about the proliferation of college spread offenses, as opposed to pro style offenses?

Click to expand...

Correct.

The greatest falloff are good quarterbacks and good coaching, many times I turn on a TV and start yelling about clock management, play calling, defensive schemes.. there are very few games I can watch on TV other than the Pats..

Instead of expansion, perhaps they should spend some time discussing contraction.. a lot of teams really suck, and have owners who are content with the cash flow and not the product on the field.

DarrylS said:

The greatest falloff are good quarterbacks and good coaching, many times I turn on a TV and start yelling about clock management, play calling, defensive schemes.. there are very few games I can watch on TV other than the Pats..

Instead of expansion, perhaps they should spend some time discussing contraction.. a lot of teams really suck, and have owners who are content with the cash flow and not the product on the field.

Click to expand...

Mr. Integrity as well wants to expand a product that is showing up not to be a good one lately

Just did a quick survey; six weeks into the season there are only 10 teams over .500 - 5 in each conference. Of those 10, 5 are undefeated. Is this what Goodell's parity has wrought? If the season ended today we'd have two .500 afc teams in the playoffs and one .500 nfc in the tournament. i am convinced Goodell and the owners want every division winner at 10-6 and wildcards at 9-7.

Take a look around the league. For the sake of avoiding the argument, let's assume that Luck retires after this year. With that happening, find the current NFL QBs who are younger than Rodgers (32) and Roethlisberger (33) who show real and significant potential to be historically elite NFL quarterbacks.

I wouldn't call it bad .... I call it sloppy .... too much sloppy play.
A direct correlation to changes in practices via the CBA.
Look for it to continue but I think a small fix would be a return to the 60 man roster.

Up the game day roster to the present total roster size of 53.
Higher number 60 would water the talent down a bit but teams could better deal with injuries/concussions.
coaches could be more inventive with the increased number of players.

mosslost said:

In summary of my point..
32 teams.
-Without question 33% of the league completely sucks.. at least ten teams absolutely have no shot whatsoever and are in fact terrible.. one third!

The middle third, the mediocre, well if you are honest with yourself they suck too. Two thirds basically suck.

So basically, on a good year you might have ten good teams.. One third. Now you only have to beat one team from the other conference ultimately in terms of winning the Super Bowl. So you widdle it down to like 6 teams. Ultimately the Patriots, on a very up year for the NFL, are competing with like maybe 4 serious AFC teams and whoever shakes out on the NFC. So when you hold the trophy up at the end you are champs basically of like 5 teams, with maybe 2 on your level. (Yippee)

Click to expand...

I remember reading something similar in either Education of a Coach or War Room (the Holley book). Basically that there are only 10 teams every year that are actually in contention, because all the other teams have major flaws in one of the key positions - Coaching, GM or Ownership. And that without all 3 areas pulling together, you'll never be good enough to win championships.

Deus Irae said:

Take a look around the league. For the sake of avoiding the argument, let's assume that Luck retires after this year. With that happening, find the current NFL QB's who are younger than Rodgers (32) and Roethlisberger (33) who show real and significant potential to be historically elite NFL quarterbacks.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Garoppolo, baby!*









*kidding