Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bradshaw knocks NFL: "not a good product"

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by PonyExpress, Dec 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PonyExpress

    PonyExpress In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,660
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +25 / 3 / -0

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7519516

    I appreciate Bradshaw's honesty. I have to agree with him. There is some awful football out there. The college game has been much better this year, other than the Pats.
     
  2. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I have always felt the NFL, and all pro league's for that matter, have over expanded and there are too many teams. One thing a team needs to be good is a good QB for instance. How many of those are around? I don't think there's enough talent for 32 teams. In any league.
     
  3. Pats Fan in Indy

    Pats Fan in Indy Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If that's true, then there has never been enough talent considering the fact that this country's population increases in size more than the NFL does, meaning that the pool of talent that the NFL has to choose from increases with every passing year.
     
  4. Disco Volante

    Disco Volante Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,232
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Only one team I care about, I'm all set.
     
  5. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    That doesn't mean the extra people make good football players. And it doesn't mean when there were fewer people there weren't more good football players. I'd like to see the NFL get rid of 4 teams in each conference.
     
  6. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +238 / 22 / -10

    Its a result of the pass interference and chucking rules making it difficult for Defense and Defense oriented teams to compete.

    To win today you have to have an elite Pass oriented Offense with a Probowl QB throwing to a a quintet of very good recievers. Only New England, Indianapolis, Green Bay and Dallas fit that description.

    It is a tribute to Bill Belichick,that when he understood what the new rules were forcing, he went out and rebuilt his team to fit the winning formula once again. He could have railed against the perversion of football and losegames. The rules as, engineered by Bill Polian, are turning the NFL into the AFL of the high scoring 1960-1963 seasons.

    The NFL seems to be offering an outdoor version of Arena League football. I think it is imperative that the NFL take measures to rebalancethe passing game. I suggest two kinds of PI analogous to flagrant and incidental face masking. I would also like the chuck area expanded to 8-10 yards, or a tightening of the defintion of illegal chuckingtoeliminate someofthe chintzy calls.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
  7. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Oh I definetely agree that they've gone too far helping the O. This year they are also calling holding on the OL less. That isn't to help the D either. The only way I'm for changing rules with regards to PI is if the make it easier for refs to call. Giving them more to have to decide will, IMO, make for more bad calls.
     
  8. FirstAndGoal

    FirstAndGoal Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +101 / 2 / -0

    I've been saying this for years. There isn't enough talent and with the cap, there isn't the ability to keep more players on the roster to develop talent. You either have it out of college or you're gone. That makes it more difficult for players who have talent but lacked coaching.

    Since the cap isn't going away, I'd like to see the NFL drop back to 28 teams.
     
  9. sieglo

    sieglo In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,244
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    Insightful post.
     
  10. Ishdul

    Ishdul On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think people are making way too much of this. Do people really think that there are less good QB's now than there were last year? Or the year before? Or 5 years ago? That the level of talent has actually dropped?

    I mean, would you ever say that the players who have retired and the regressions of the player were greater than the players who have entered the league and the improvements made by players? That's obviously a very hard question to answer, but it seems like a really odd statement to make. There's certainly a lot of turnover, but it works both ways with guys like Adrian Peterson and Joe Thomas entering the league and looking dominant...
     
  11. BoTown

    BoTown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,588
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    No Jersey Selected

    I don't know. I like that there are an even number of teams and divisions in each conference. Wouldn't mind if they got rid of the Falcons, though. Atlanta has to be the worst sports city in America. It's not just that their teams aren't good; it's that when their teams are good, the fans aren't even there to support them.
     
  12. PantsB

    PantsB On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    In other words, you're just going to ignore the facts that don't back your position?

    The talent pool is bigger now than it ever has been. The population is bigger, and the ratio of number of Americans to teams has never been higher. Football is the most popular sport now. Until the 80s, the best athletes weren't steered strongly towards football. Medical advances extend careers so talent that might have been lost freshman year of college to a previously unrepairable injury might only cost someone a year now. Training begins earlier and is more advanced than ever before - especially compared to the 60s and 70s when off-season jobs were common.

    Nostalgia makes people think things were better in the old days. But the players now tend to be more naturally talents (better ratio, bigger % of the best athletes, injury repair), and the talent is better utilized (injury repair, training).
     
  13. SteelerSteve

    SteelerSteve On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree with you, I am just not buying the less talent argument. I didn't know that in the past every team had a pro bowl caliber qb. Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Anderson, Favre, Palmer, Romo, Hasselbeck, Cutler, Bulger, Brees...... I could probably think of more, but there is plenty of good quarterbacks out there
     
  14. FirstAndGoal

    FirstAndGoal Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +101 / 2 / -0


    Sorry guy but a larger population doesn't mean more talent. It just means a larger population. You've stated no fact about the number of people in that larger population that go out for football. Is the same percentage of the population going out for football? I'd like to see the statistics on that one.

    I assume that the number of americans to teams means fans. America also has the largest number of homeowners to football teams. What does either one have to do with talent. You need to draw the relationship with a supporting argument and not make a sweeping generalization.

    For instance, it's a fact that schools have less money for sports programs. That's a fact too. It could mean less people or it could mean nothing.

    Where do you see a shift in "steering athletes"? I've been involved in football as either a player or a coach since 1974 from everything from pop warner to division 1A football and I don't know what you're talking about on that one.

    I'm not trying to argue with you but you're throwing up a lot of opinion and calling it fact. The only fact you've stated is that the population is greater. That one is common knowledge but your conclusion can't be drawn from that simple fact. I'd like to see some supporting edvidence of some of the other stuff you said.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
  15. tuckeverlasting

    tuckeverlasting 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    No Jersey Selected

    i just think the pats are so good, when you compare other teams, they make everyone else look bad.
     
  16. alamo

    alamo praedica numerum! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    My opinion is that pro football has become extremely complex, and the mind is more important than it has ever been. Pure physical talent will rarely get it done anymore at the highest levels. And very few coaching staffs have fully adjusted, so when the Belichicks of the world play mind games with the opposing QB or the opposing defense the deck is stacked. And bad football is the result.

    This is all made possible in part due to football becoming a full-time 11-months-a-year profession, with DVDs to take home at night to study film. 50 years ago it was just a job and many players worked second jobs or offseason jobs to make ends meet.
     
  17. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The rules changes, the CBA changes, and the roster size have all forced what the league thought it wanted. Parity. Well, now we have it. Lots of mediocre teams playing mediocre football. I hope they are happy.
     
  18. Ishdul

    Ishdul On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Again, this would be the worst year to say that. You have a team w, a very obvious group of the top 5 best teams in the NFL. Parity suggests that there is mediocrity throughout the league; that the gap between the best team in the league through to the worst team is considerably smaller than what would be considered normal. 2002 would've been a good year to prove this, with 12 wins being the best in the league and an 11 win team being the tops in a conference. This year (and the year before it) in the MLB would be a good choice for parity, with no team either winning or losing 100 games and the gap between playoff team and non-playoff team being quite well pronounced especially in the NL. It would be a good year for parity in college football where a 1 win team and a 2 win team will face off in the National Championship. Instead, this season in the NFL has a gigantic gap between the Patriots, the bulk of the league and the Dolphins. A team might set the mark for best in league history while another might set the mark for worst in league history.
     
  19. naclone

    naclone Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I think a rookie salary cap would help a lot. bad teams are literally betting their whole franchise on the top 10 picks because such a huge percentage of their cap is locked up in a kid who's never played a down. how many "sure things" have we seen turn into total busts? that can set a franchise back for years.

    also, owners have to be smarter about who they hire as a HC and how long they stick with that guy. It seems like a handful of teams every year just completely roll the dice on either an unproven coaching candidate or some has been retread thinking if it doesn't work out, they can bring somebody else in in a year or two. you have to have some level of consistency in the upper echelons of the organization or your just going to keep churning your roster hoping a successful program emerges. Hiring the wrong guy can also set a franchise back for years. Miami is exhibit A.

    I really don't think it's an issue of available talent so much as it is a lack of competent ownership/management.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
  20. NEGoldenAge

    NEGoldenAge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I've go a few things to add. The idea that a larger population means a larger talent pool to is true to some extent, but is dependent on many social factors. If you assume those factors haven't changed more than our population has grown, then this idea certainly holds true. Although far from having thought of all of the social factors, the two that I think would be the biggest factors are how much social push there is for young folks to get into football, have the demographics of people that play football the groups that are growing and also whether the number of good football programs is growing or dimishing at the entry level. All of the factors, IMO, actually favor more talent in football; football has gained poplularity and the push to be in the NFL has grown, espceially since the decline of basketball, football caters to almost all demographics so this is a moot point, and the era of disappearing athletics in some high schools has only just begun and is not hitting the NFL yet.

    There are also other factors that I believe have raised the talent pool; Pro and college football have gotten so big and so technical, that the shear number of trainers, scouts and coaches has gotten huge. I think this large pool of good scouts, coaches and trainers have become more sophisticated and have developed such strong, repeatable teaching methods that have trickled down to the high school. The age where people learn most and develop the limits of their potential is during adolesence, and with the fundamentals covered and some advanced concepts being introduced at this level, we are developing athletes with huge potential with the mental aspects of the game. I see no reason this trend shouldn't continue. (sorry, I can't resist any opportunity to use a double negative correctly in grammar ;)

    I think that the greater talent pool and the development of "smarter" players is contributing to the perception of the "not a good product" idea. I think it becomes harder for the freaks to dominate when the opponents are so talented and play such good technique. This disparity between the players make the game a bit more exciting for the masses. On the other hand, too much disparity would kill it. It's likely that the new PO rules are designed to counter this issue exactly and probably is making the game more exciting to the average NFL fan. This may even explain the seemingly disparity in officiating calls as well.
    Injuries are probably the biggest factor in the "not a good product" idea. There are sooo many good skill and trench players hurt right now so that teams are really suffering right now. Goddell's stricter policies and longer suspension also contribure to this. I think it would be worth comparing # of injuries this year to the last 5, 10 and then 20. I'm pretty sure you'd find the number to be really high.

    The high number of new coaches is also a factor. Changing coaches is sometimes necessary, but it happens far too frequently in the knee-jerk NFL. A 14-2 coach was fired last year. This kills consistencey and is a huge contributor to the mediocrity of today.

    Although this trend might might lead one to believe there will be lower NFL ratings, it won't be much. The NFL has sooo many hard core fans, the media will contue to confuse the dummies with spins, smoke and mirrors, and the gradual sophistication of the football fanbase will insure ratings for a long time to come. Next year, if the Pats run the board (I'm still stunned that I can even say this), people will look back on this season and not think they had a "bad product", they will think about a team inducted as one of the best of all time... and they were lucky enough to see it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>