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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,655
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -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 Rookie

    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 Rookie

    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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,209
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

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

    PatsSteve1 Rookie

    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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,751
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +15 / 1 / -0

    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 Rookie

    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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,241
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Insightful post.
  10. Ishdul

    Ishdul Rookie

    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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,586
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    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 Rookie

    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 Rookie

    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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,983
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 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 Rookie

    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 Rookie

    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 Rookie

    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
  21. primetime

    primetime Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,853
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 2 / -3

    The fact that we're considering Jay Cutler, David Anderson, and Matt Hasselbeck (this year) to be Pro Bowl-caliber QBs should say enough about that. There aren't plenty of good QBs out there. There's a sharp drop off after the top 5 (Brady, Manning, Romo, Favre, Palmer... maybe Roethlisnuts).

    Like any sport, expansion has diluted the talent pool way too much. Hockey was the most noticeable (especially because most of hockey's expansion made no sense, why is there a team in Nashville?), but football's starting to feel it too. The growing population size makes no difference. Hockey technically has the population of Canada, the United States (at least the northeast and midwest), and most of Central, Northern, and Eastern Europe to work with, but the talent pool is still diluted. It's not like amazing athletes are born every second; the majority of the "growing population" of the United States does not come from a football culture. No political statement there, just a fact.
  22. Brady'sButtBoy

    Brady'sButtBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Though it has been creeping into the league for years now, the "me first" attitude among players seems to be at an all time high. Think about it - teams like the Pats and the Colts are considered exceptions, exceptions mind you, in the NFL because they have a very team oriented player base. Pretty shocking since football is a team game. College kids, even the super talented ones, can be forced to toe the line, obey the rules and play a team-first game. But turn them loose in the NFl with lot's of rookie cash and many appear to start playing for free agnecy from day one.

    Too many players putting themselves before the success of their teams, in my opinion, has been far more damaging to the league than a loss of talent. The NFL game often hinges on the tiniest of plays - like Williams' pathetic roughing penalty for Jax - and when the player's concentration isn't solely on making the team succeed those tiny mistakes add up to losses, poor play, bad attitudes, coaches who supposedly can't control their players, run-ins with the cops, jail time, etc.

    It's sad that the NFL has come to the point where teams that play as teams have become the exception to rule.
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
  23. loosebearing

    loosebearing Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    All of these comments in all of these posts could have been made about the NBA 15 years ago.
  24. cavtroop

    cavtroop Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    i think those that said the rules emphasis on O are causing this are dead on. Talent pool? Maybe at the QB position, but thats it.

    I think to be successful, there is only one formula that works in todays NFL - the Pats, DAL, GB and IND have that figured out, noone else does yet. The 'emphasis' on PI, no holding on the OL, etc are causing this formula to shine. Used to be that you could have a great defensive team and win games - not so much anymore.

    THe constant, year in-year out tweaking of the rules isn't healthy for the game.
  25. newton_tom_cat

    newton_tom_cat Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    862
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    maybe all this hi-tech offense stuff w/ plays being beamed into the QBs helment is actually hurting things by taking away players feel for the game, and limiting onfield feedback. im not sure theres ever been a wealth of good QBs in the league, but it does seem like most teams used to have better WRs and TEs.

    except of course the Pats
    :rocker:
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
  26. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Could it be the NFL is becoming the NBA? So many players with the "me first" attitude that they don't do what it takes to develop themselves?
  27. antimennai

    antimennai Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I have to strongly disagree based upon the definition of "win." I am not sure why you have only listed the elite teams in the NFL as winners. There are other teams doing very well who could end up at 12-4 or 11-5 and that would be an excellent record. Anyone with that record could march to the playoffs and go all the way.

    1. Pittsburgh is a very good team at 9-3. Rothleswhatever is not a PB QB. He may be considered second tier, but not PB. Pitt could easily go 12-4 and they do not have the formula that you listed.

    2. The Jags are a dangerous, young team that can win on any Sunday (7-5). The game I watched yesterday was taken away by the refs and given to the Colts. They should be 8-4 with Indi.

    3. The Chargers are finding a groove (7-5). A different team shows up each week, but they have come a long way.

    4.The Bucs have been playing good football. Their opponents have been weaker, but they are still 8-4. They have a shot at 12-4 which would be a huge accomplishment.

    5. The Seahawks are 8-4 and seem to be getting healthy. That offense can be dangerous if it gels.

    6. The Bengals have a PB QB, great WR, and they are 4-8. That blows your theory.

    7. The Lions have a solid QB, great WR, but are 6-6.


    The whole point is that is still is a team game. You cant just say PB QB + Top WR=Win. That is bogus.

    The teams you just so happened to list have solid defense as well, in fact none of your 4 teams have suspect defense. They are all quite good, which debunks your point.

    The X factor is that nobody knows how the rest of the teams at 7-5 or better will perform the rest of the year. It is possible that some could come together and do very well.

    I happen to remember a certain team that had a poor start to a season, lost its PB QB, had 1 known WR, and had its 4th stringer QB come in to lead the team in a victory over the Greatest Show on Turf in a SB.

    Anything can happen on any given day in the NFL. That is why they play the game.
  28. Mike the Brit

    Mike the Brit Minuteman Target PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +18 / 1 / -0

    I think that Bradshaw has a great point. I don't have a good answer, but I certainly don't buy the "there's no talent there" argument. On the contrary, what's astonishing to me is how much athletic talent there is on the football field at the college level. And it isn't the fact that the players are too slow or weak that makes NFL games poor.

    I think that the hypothesis that much more depends on the quarterback is a very interesting one. It also means, correspondingly, that it is much harder to have a good defense -- one that can stop the pass. That may explain how the Steelers are so good with a less than stellar quarterback -- their defense with its blitzing and so on is effective against the passing game. Likewise the Bears (at least until this season).

    My two cents is that the coaching is poor. When I watch the games (fortunately, not the Patriots -- nor, I should say, the Colts) is how badly played they are. It looks to me that a lot of them are won simply by the team that makes the fewest mistakes (turnovers, penalties, blown coverages, busted plays).

    I don't know if this is because owners are too impatient with coaches, too patient with them (that would be my guess) or very bad at selecting them (my guess as well). It's striking how much the selection process seems to be: look around the league for a successful team and hire its co-ordinators (helps if he has been an unsuccessful head coach already). I know that this is the formula that gave us Bill Belichick but using it dogmatically makes as much sense as waiting to draft quarterbacks in the sixth round. Also (my hobby-horse) having a General Manager who plays a very substantial role in determining the team's success (personnel selection) also play a role in selecting the coach is simply crazy.
  29. wcda

    wcda Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think football went downhill when it became a business and not a sport.
  30. PantsB

    PantsB Rookie

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

    So there's some magical cap on the number of talented athletes that does not grow as the population grows?
    The population of the United States has grown at a greater rate than the number of NFL teams. With 32 teams, each team has the equivalent of 9.4 million Americans from which they could divide their players. In say 1970, it would be 6.8. In 1980 and 1960 it was 7.2.

    Barring some other factors that would indicate a lower prevalence of talent in the population - something you haven't shown any evidence of whatsoever other than your gut - this indicates a greater pool of talent.

    Less money compared to when? This is the opposite of the truth if you're talking about the collegiate level. Do you have some kind of source to indicate that football funding is down compared to some time in the good-old past?

    Football is the most popular sport. There are more than twice as many high school football players than any other sport.
    Greater population from which to draw talent + greater participation in football + less careers cut short unnecessarily + better training = more talent better utilized. None of those are "opinion", they're verifiable.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page