Bradshaw knocks NFL: "not a good product"

[primetime]

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

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.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

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.

 

[loosebearing]

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

 

[cavtroop]

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.

 

[newton_tom_cat]

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:

 

[godef]

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.

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?

 

[antimennai]

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.

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.

 

[Mike the Brit]

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.

 

[wcda]

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

 

[PantsB]

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.

So there's some magical cap on the number of talented athletes that does not grow as the population grows?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Football is the most popular sport. There are more than twice as many high school football players than any other sport.

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP) -- More high school students are playing sports in the United States than ever before, and girls are closing the participation gap in a hurry.

Boys still outnumber girls in sports by more than a million, according to the latest survey by the National Federation of State High School Associations. But the bulk of the difference comes from football, and there is no girls sport with comparable numbers.

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.

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.

 

[ClevTrev]

The thing that Bradshaw is missing is one to do with Rozelle's dream and Tagliabue's reality called parity. While the league seemed to reach parity a few years after instituting the salary cap, it appears that certain teams have learned very well how to work the cap and free agency in their favor. These teams have created a different level of play where they now consistently field teams to compete, while the rest of the league appears to play at a lower quality level.

Those teams include Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis, and Dallas. Denver, Seattle, and a few others appear to operate at a level slightly below the four that are consistently competitive and sometimes dominant.

With this type of disparity in play and the ability of the dominant four to separate themselves from the others, it gives the appearance of poor play by the rest of the league. That is true in some cases, but watching the Steelers play the Bengals yesterday was a good example of a team recently considered an emerging power (Bengals) now struggling and fading against the overall balance and quality of play by Pittsburgh. Dallas and Green Bay was another great example of this. Both having 11-1 records coming into the game, it appeared to be a stage for a competitive game. Yet, Green Bay's single-dimensional play couldn't stand up to superior balance exhibited by the Cowboys.

It's obvious that what distinguishes the dominant four from the others is that they are built with balance at most positions and are able to coach value players considered marginal pro candidates into effective professional contributors. It boils down to superior talent evaluation and economic planning. The ability to field rosters with balance at most positions in order to compensate for the inevitable injury is paramount. In addition, the ability to identify those players and positions which they favor with higher contracts at longer terms has much to do with their consistency of high quality play over time.

After watching many games this season, it appears that the parity recognized five years ago is no longer the case. So, as Bradshaw has noticed, many games appear one-sided or become a comedy of errors whenever a disparity in talent or devastation by injury become factors in a match up.

 

[FrontSeven]

Fly by the seat of your pants (not high tech instruments) and ask yourself how many franchise QBs should be found in each division. AFCE? One. AFCW? Maybe one, maybe two. Maybe. AFCS? One. AFCN? One.

If three out of every four teams have rotating QBs that cannot be a good thing.

Who are we kidding - expansion has hurt the concentration of talent on any one team or division of teams.

The population boom? If population growth is a factor it's in increasing the interest in soccer, not American football.

 

[pheenix11]

Bradshaw doesn't have a friggin clue. Back during Bradshaw's supposed "Golden Age" Archie Manning was considered a good QB! Are you kidding me?

And he is complaining about the talent today?

 

[PonyExpress]

Bradshaw doesn't have a friggin clue. Back during Bradshaw's supposed "Golden Age" Archie Manning was considered a good QB! Are you kidding me?

And he is complaining about the talent today?

You should have compassion for Bradshaw. He works at FOX and is forced to watch the NFC QBs Grossman, E. Manning, Campbell, Feeley, Tarvaris Jackson, Kitna, Testaverde, Harrington, Frerotte, A. Smith, Dilfer, and Warner battle it out every week. It's totally understandable why he's nauseous. In contrast in the AFC we have Brady, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Anderson, Manning, Garrard, Schaub, VY (he's exciting), Cutler and Rivers. That's much more palatable.

 

[National Sports Advisors]

You should have compassion for Bradshaw. He works at FOX and is forced to watch the NFC QBs Grossman, E. Manning, Campbell, Feeley, Tarvaris Jackson, Kitna, Testaverde, Harrington, Frerotte, A. Smith, Dilfer, and Warner battle it out every week. It's totally understandable why he's nauseous. In contrast in the AFC we have Brady, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Anderson, Manning, Garrard, Schaub, VY (he's exciting), Cutler and Rivers. That's much more palatable.

Vince Young is garbage and so is Rivers.

 

[PonyExpress]

Vince Young is garbage and so is Rivers.

VY is exciting. Rivers is bad, but better than the drek in the NFC.

 

[denverpatsfan]

That's funny. Nobody thought there was a problem when the Niners, Giants, Bills & Cowboys were winning. That's when the Pats were terrible if you don't recall.

Now all of a sudden there is a league wide crisis.

What a bunch of horse doo doo!

 

[SteelerSteve]

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.

So every team had an awesome qb and supporting cast of players 20 years ago? There will be good teams and bad teams each year, thats just how it is, maybe some of the bad teams have been worse than usual, but I still dont buy that. There are plenty of good teams this season including the Pats,Colts,Cowgirls,Packers,Steelers,Jags,Seahawks,Giants. If anything the talent is just as good or better than before. It goes with the evolution of any sport, teams from the 50's couldn't compete with the teams of today. I dont even think that the teams of the 80's and early 90's could really compete with the teams of today. There are exceptions of course, I think the 49ers of the 80's would easily handle the dolphins or jets, but could they actually compete with the Pats on a head to head level? something tells me they probably couldn't.

 

[PantsB]

Fly by the seat of your pants (not high tech instruments) and ask yourself how many franchise QBs should be found in each division. AFCE? One. AFCW? Maybe one, maybe two. Maybe. AFCS? One. AFCN? One.

If three out of every four teams have rotating QBs that cannot be a good thing.

Who are we kidding - expansion has hurt the concentration of talent on any one team or division of teams.

The population boom? If population growth is a factor it's in increasing the interest in soccer, not American football.

Three out of 4 teams have rotating QBs? News to me.

The 1983 draft is the famous year for quarterbacks. Let's look at that season and compare.

'fins- Marino / Beck (adv then)
Pats - Eason / Brady (adv now)
Bills - Ferguson / Edwards (push)
Colts - Pagel / Manning (adv now)
Jets - Todd / Clemens (push)
Steelers - Stoudt / Roethlisberger (adv now)
Browns - Sipe / Anderson (adv now)
Bengals - Anderson / Palmer (push)
Oilers/Titans - Luck[platoon]/ Young (adv now)
Raiders - Plunkett/platoon (adv then)
Seahawks - Zorn/Hasselbeck (adv now)
Broncos - Elway/Cutler (adv then)
Chargers - Fouts/Rivers (adv then)
Chiefs - Kenney/Croyle (push)
Wash - Theismann / Campbell (push)
Dallas - White / Romo (adv now)
Cards - Lomas/Leinhart (adv now)
Eagles - Jaws/McNabb (adv now)
NYG - Brunner/Eli (adv now believe it or not)
Lions - Hipple/Kitna (adv now)
Vikings - Dils/Jackson (push)
Pack ****ey/Favre (adv now)
Bears - McMahon/Grossman (adv then)
Bucs - Thomson /Garcia (adv now)
49ers - Montana / Smith (adv then)
Saints - Stabler/Brees (push because Stabler was old and ineffective)
Rams - Ferragamo / Bulger (adv now)
Falcons - Bartkowski / harrington (adv then)

 

[PonyExpress]

Three out of 4 teams have rotating QBs? News to me.

The 1983 draft is the famous year for quarterbacks. Let's look at that season and compare.

'fins- Marino / Beck (adv then)
Pats - Eason / Brady (adv now)
Bills - Ferguson / Edwards (push)
Colts - Pagel / Manning (adv now)
Jets - Todd / Clemens (push)
Steelers - Stoudt / Roethlisberger (adv now)
Browns - Sipe / Anderson (adv now) adv Sipe
Bengals - Anderson / Palmer (push) adv Anderson (should be HOF)
Oilers/Titans - Luck[platoon]/ Young (adv now)
Raiders - Plunkett/platoon (adv then)
Seahawks - Zorn/Hasselbeck (adv now) the QB was Krieg. adv then.
Broncos - Elway/Cutler (adv then)
Chargers - Fouts/Rivers (adv then)
Chiefs - Kenney/Croyle (push) adv Kenney. obvious.
Wash - Theismann / Campbell (push) adv Theismann. this is obvious
Dallas - White / Romo (adv now) adv White. He led the Cowboys to 3 NFCCGs
Cards - Lomas/Leinhart (adv now) adv Lomax. This is obvious
Eagles - Jaws/McNabb (adv now) Jaws won an MVP. push.
NYG - Brunner/Eli (adv now believe it or not)
Lions - Hipple/Kitna (adv now)
Vikings - Dils/Jackson (push) The starter was Kramer, who got injured. adv then
Pack ****ey/Favre (adv now)
Bears - McMahon/Grossman (adv then)
Bucs - Thomson /Garcia (adv now)
49ers - Montana / Smith (adv then)
Saints - Stabler/Brees (push because Stabler was old and ineffective)
Rams - Ferragamo / Bulger (adv now)
Falcons - Bartkowski / harrington (adv then)

Not nitpicking, but you are way off on some of these judgments. I have it 16-9, adv then. Look at 1988/1998. More quality Qbs in the league.