PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

I'm seeing people saying last night (Rams-Chiefs) was an awesome game. It sucked


NFL teams are averaging 24.2 points a game this year. Scoring is up for sure, but let's compare by year:

2018: 24.2
2007: 21.7
2001: 20.2
1990: 20.1
1980: 20.5
1972: 20.3
1958: 22.6

So teams are averaging 3.7 points a game more than they did in 1980. 3.7. Just over a field goal more. And they're averaging 1.6 points more a game than they did in 1958. A half a field goal more.

It feels crazy. It feels out of whack. I'm not saying scoring is not up because it is. But it's mainly because we have a few unfreakingbelievably good offensive teams and the other night, two of them played each other.

I could pull up all kinds of numbers and post all kinds of charts in order to refute your post. Instead, I'll just note this:

The Patriots are currently averaging 28 ppg, after averaging 28.6 ppg last season and 27.6 ppg the season prior, and it's panic city about the offense, because the thinking is that they should be scoring much more.

And the reason for that is because everyone with a brain and a pair of eyes can see that teams aren't allowed to play defense anymore, and more teams are finding ways to exploit that with their offenses. Yeah, a team like he Bills is killing the league scoring average. Last year's low was 234 points scored by the Browns. The Bills are on pace to come up well short of that (219) during a season where the league average is up almost 4 ppg.

But your dismissal of a huge year-to-year jump in scoring, of this being one of only four seasons in league history where teams averaged more than 23 points, and of the league being on pace to have the highest scoring average in its history, is noted.
 
I can’t figure out if both of those defenses were that bad or they both bought into the hype of the offenses.
 
So what rule changes introduced in the past couple of years have been responsible for the increased scoring?
 
Roughing the passer and helmet to helmet are 2 recent rule changes that have significantly hurt defenses. Big Ben throws a pick at mid field but instead of a turnover they gain 15 yards and a first down. That tackle was not roughing until this year. The very next play there was a helmet hit on Connor that had not been called in prior years. Tack on another 15 yards. When the Pats beat the Rams in 2001 they punished receivers all game. While that style was de-emphasized starting in 2004 it has been taken to the next level the past couple years. No fear to go across the middle changes everything.
 
I could pull up all kinds of numbers and post all kinds of charts in order to refute your post. Instead, I'll just note this:

The Patriots are currently averaging 28 ppg, after averaging 28.6 ppg last season and 27.6 ppg the season prior, and it's panic city about the offense, because the thinking is that they should be scoring much more.

And the reason for that is because everyone with a brain and a pair of eyes can see that teams aren't allowed to play defense anymore, and more teams are finding ways to exploit that with their offenses. Yeah, a team like he Bills is killing the league scoring average. Last year's low was 234 points scored by the Browns. The Bills are on pace to come up well short of that (219) during a season where the league average is up almost 4 ppg.

But your dismissal of a huge year-to-year jump in scoring, of this being one of only four seasons in league history where teams averaged more than 23 points, and of the league being on pace to have the highest scoring average in its history, is noted.

I never said that scores weren't going up and I never said I liked how the rules make playing defense difficult, you idiot. I never dismissed the jump in scoring. I'm just pointing out that maybe, just maybe, it's not as high as everyone FEELS like it is. Teams are averaging just over a field goal more a game than they did in 1980. That's a fact.

And no, the scoring average per team isn't up almost four points a game. It's up 2.5 points a game. Let's throw out the Bills and then the Saints too if we're going to be fair about it.
 
I never said that scores weren't going up and I never said I liked how the rules make playing defense difficult, you idiot. I never dismissed the jump in scoring. I'm just pointing out that maybe, just maybe, it's not as high as everyone FEELS like it is. Teams are averaging just over a field goal more a game than they did in 1980. That's a fact.

And no, the scoring average per team isn't up almost four points a game. It's up 2.5 points a game. Let's throw out the Bills and then the Saints too if we're going to be fair about it.

Yes, the scoring average is up almost four points a game. I used YOUR data to note that (1972 to 2018, which were your dates after the one reference to the older game a/k/a 1958), for crying out loud.

And, yes, the jump this season is significant. And, no, you don't dismiss the Saints, which is just a team excelling under the rules. You do, however, note the outlier Bills, who had Nathan Peterman as a starting QB for a good portion of the season, precisely because of how extraordinarily bad they've been in a year of higher scoring.

And, again, even with the Bills outlier, this is currently the highest per game scoring year in NFL history.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. It was crazy town. Yet there were tons of huge defensive plays. Three defensive touchdowns. Lots of plays made. This game had everything.

Maybe we should long for the days of 1936.

1936 NFL Standings & Team Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Here are some teams' passing stats:

Boston Redskins: 77-214 (35.9%), 1102 yds, 5 td, 23 int
Philadelphia Eagles: 39-170 (22.9%), 603 yds, 3 td, 36 int

The best passing team in the league that year was Green Bay:

108-255 (42.4%), 1629 yds, 17 td, 19 int

Those were the days!


EDIT: This isn't a criticism of you, by the way. Just the general "this is an NFL abomination" sense I'm reading here...

Yes, because there's nothing between 1936 and 2018.

I'd settle for the first 5 years of this century.
 
Roughing the passer and helmet to helmet are 2 recent rule changes that have significantly hurt defenses. Big Ben throws a pick at mid field but instead of a turnover they gain 15 yards and a first down. That tackle was not roughing until this year. The very next play there was a helmet hit on Connor that had not been called in prior years. Tack on another 15 yards. When the Pats beat the Rams in 2001 they punished receivers all game. While that style was de-emphasized starting in 2004 it has been taken to the next level the past couple years. No fear to go across the middle changes everything.
Yeah, the change to roughing the passer has had an extreme effect. That one can get pulled out of the refs pocket almost literally at any time to extend a drive that would otherwise have stalled.
 
Yes, the scoring average is up almost four points a game. I used YOUR data to note that (1972 to 2018, which were your dates after the one reference to the older game a/k/a 1958), for crying out loud.

And, yes, the jump this season is significant. And, no, you don't dismiss the Saints, which is just a team excelling under the rules. You do, however, note the outlier Bills, who had Nathan Peterman as a starting QB for a good portion of the season, precisely because of how extraordinarily bad they've been in a year of higher scoring.

And, again, even with the Bills outlier, this is currently the highest per game scoring year in NFL history.

It's not a "jump" if you are looking at scoring changes over a 46 year period. You cited a "year to year jump" in scoring. And then you talked about nearly 4 points a game jump.

Your words: "The Bills are on pace to come up well short of that (219) during a season where the league average is up almost 4 ppg.

But your dismissal of a huge year-to-year jump in scoring
, of this being one of only four seasons in league history where teams averaged more than 23 points, and of the league being on pace to have the highest scoring average in its history, is noted."

The implication is that there is a "jump" of 4 ppg "year to year". Which is nonsense.

Look, scoring is up. Absolutely. Nobody is denying that because it's undeniable. The rules have changed to make it much easier to score and much harder to defend. But the fact of the matter is: teams are averaging a little over a field goal more per game than they were 38 years ago. That's a fact. Is a field goal per team really that much to get worked up over? Not in my book, but your mileage may vary.
 
I could pull up all kinds of numbers and post all kinds of charts in order to refute your post. Instead, I'll just note this:

The Patriots are currently averaging 28 ppg, after averaging 28.6 ppg last season and 27.6 ppg the season prior, and it's panic city about the offense, because the thinking is that they should be scoring much more.

And the reason for that is because everyone with a brain and a pair of eyes can see that teams aren't allowed to play defense anymore, and more teams are finding ways to exploit that with their offenses. Yeah, a team like he Bills is killing the league scoring average. Last year's low was 234 points scored by the Browns. The Bills are on pace to come up well short of that (219) during a season where the league average is up almost 4 ppg.

But your dismissal of a huge year-to-year jump in scoring, of this being one of only four seasons in league history where teams averaged more than 23 points, and of the league being on pace to have the highest scoring average in its history, is noted.

Statistically, it's too early to use season averages for comparisons between years - the six worst weeks of weather in the regular season are ahead of us. Shorter field goals, dome teams playing in the cold and snow, etc., and Week 17 is coming when the veterans don't play and players have their golf bags packed for the off-season.

But the handcuffs on defenders is getting ridiculous. I agree with the head injury prevention rules 100%, but pass defenders should be allowed more contact, and pass rushers should be allowed to finish without head-to-head or below the knees contact. The NFL needs to give the refs more discretion when it comes to incidental contact.
 
Statistically, it's too early to use season averages for comparisons between years - the six worst weeks of weather in the regular season are ahead of us. Shorter field goals, dome teams playing in the cold and snow, etc., and Week 17 is coming when the veterans don't play and players have their golf bags packed for the off-season.

But the handcuffs on defenders is getting ridiculous. I agree with the head injury prevention rules 100%, but pass defenders should be allowed more contact, and pass rushers should be allowed to finish without head-to-head or below the knees contact. The NFL needs to give the refs more discretion when it comes to incidental contact.

Unfortunately, the refs have been neutered to the point that they now have to have a group discussion before they make most calls. Often times we can see them looking at each other to find out what to call.
 
NFL teams are averaging 24.2 points a game this year. Scoring is up for sure, but let's compare by year:

2018: 24.2
2007: 21.7
2001: 20.2
1990: 20.1
1980: 20.5
1972: 20.3
1958: 22.6

So teams are averaging 3.7 points a game more than they did in 1980. 3.7. Just over a field goal more. And they're averaging 1.6 points more a game than they did in 1958. A half a field goal more.

It feels crazy. It feels out of whack. I'm not saying scoring is not up because it is. But it's mainly because we have a few unfreakingbelievably good offensive teams and the other night, two of them played each other.

That's a myopic way of looking at it, though. The game is very different in a short time. Before 2004, teams expected to be able to stop their opponents when they put them in unfavorable field position. Now, you need a mistake by many of these offenses if they get the ball back with 1.5 minutes left to play.

Your stats are also comparing apples to, well, crabapples. For example, the rule changes on clock stoppage for out-of-bounds has actually shortened the game quite a bit, which should, theoretically, lead to lower scores.

I equate it to the baseball steroid era. In baseball for most of my life, you'd see a guy having an unbelievable year (Yaz in '67) every few seasons. Then came steroids and a bunch of hackers were suddenly chasing Maris, and in very few years, chasing Hank Aaron. It became a joke.

I see the same thing now in football because of rule changes on one side of the ball.

I predict the same outcome: short term gain followed by shrugs.
 
Statistically, it's too early to use season averages for comparisons between years - the six worst weeks of weather in the regular season are ahead of us. Shorter field goals, dome teams playing in the cold and snow, etc., and Week 17 is coming when the veterans don't play and players have their golf bags packed for the off-season.

But the handcuffs on defenders is getting ridiculous. I agree with the head injury prevention rules 100%, but pass defenders should be allowed more contact, and pass rushers should be allowed to finish without head-to-head or below the knees contact. The NFL needs to give the refs more discretion when it comes to incidental contact.

I think within the first ten yards, *until the ball is thrown*, defenders should be able to have their hands all over the receivers. Not *holding*, but hitting them, pushing them, banging them around, yes. Of course they risk whiffing on a hit and having the receiver burn them. And they risk a PI penalty if they're hitting them and not realizing that the pass is in the air. But yeah, they should be able to beat up the receivers in the first ten yards.

For what it's worth, I think the archaic "ineligible receiver" rule should go too. Why should certain guys not be able to catch a pass? That rule came about in the days when the forward pass was a novelty and people thought football was about running. This wacky crazy forward pass thing? Well if we have to allow it, only certain guys should be able to catch it. I say, let EVERYONE be an eligible receiver. So if you rush hard, be careful because the lineman you just blew past could step forward and catch the pass right behind you. Now of course linemen don't tend to have great hands but still. That will slow the pass rush down some, but the defense gets the tradeoff of being able to beat up the receivers within 10 yards.
 
NFL teams are averaging 24.2 points a game this year. Scoring is up for sure, but let's compare by year:

2018: 24.2
2007: 21.7
2001: 20.2
1990: 20.1
1980: 20.5
1972: 20.3
1958: 22.6

So teams are averaging 3.7 points a game more than they did in 1980. 3.7. Just over a field goal more. And they're averaging 1.6 points more a game than they did in 1958. A half a field goal more.

It feels crazy. It feels out of whack. I'm not saying scoring is not up because it is. But it's mainly because we have a few unfreakingbelievably good offensive teams and the other night, two of them played each other.

Statistics like these so have a way of smoothing out things that are obviously apparent, so if this is what 3-4 more points a game is like, then yes, it’s a huge deal. I’ve seen baseball studies trying to downplay the steroid era by also using similar yearly scoring averages, but we all remember what it was really like, and yes, it made an enormous impact. You even have nerdy, overanalyzing fools today trying to argue that McGwire would have hit a similar amount of home runs without PEDs, which is insulting to our intelligence. In the case of the steroid era, it was the clusters of huge home run totals by individual players, not the necessarily the scoring itself (which also has historic parallels from other eras), that made the game so artificial and history destroying.

What makes the NFL feel like this same unsettling way is specifically the success of THE QUARTERBACK is at insane historical levels, which is by no accident the most profit generating scenario (more on that below). Scoring was at 20-21 points per game from 1980-2001 and is at 24.2 now. Just as a measure, though, of what’s changed significantly, let’s look at this one fact:

When Joe Montana retired in the mid-90s, he had the highest passer rating of all-time at 92.3. The following players have a higher passer rating this year:

Drew Brees
Patrick Mahomes
Jared Goff
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Russell Wilson
Cam Newton
Aaron Rodgers
Andrew Luck
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Carson Wentz
Kirk Cousins
Deshaun Watson
Mitchell Trubisky
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning
Tom Brady
Derek Carr
Matthew Stafford

So there is where the Chiefs/Rams and the idea that a few power teams are tipping the scales takes a huge hit. The game has been altered to feel like baseball in the mid-90s, and I suspect this era will eventually be viewed with similar disdain once the NFL restores balance and recreates a competitive, interesting game. In baseball, the fans lined up like goons marching in line to see the amazing historic seasons being put up, and NFL fans are following the same path. But like baseball, the sizzle will eventually become boring, and fans will ultimately abandon the sport in favor of something more interesting and consisting of less bright fluorescent lights.

This is a huge historical anomaly, and all of the major sports have gone through periods of manufactured imbalance and increased ratings/revenue, followed by major hangovers and ultimately the mandate to sober up. The NFL is just following its gluttonous downfall, and the arrogance and hubris of the Goodell era will eventually make its way into the history books as a cautionary tale of greed without regard to its long-term consequences.
 
Last edited:
IMO it is too early to predict that this is the game of the future, after Goff and Mahomes "get paid" and others on their rookie contracts, their O capabilities may reach a point where they may be reduced to above average, rather than what we are seeing now. KC and LA have built very good teams, but can they sustain excellence?? History the NFL tells us probably that will not happen, weird crap happens in the NFL..

Does everyone remember the "Greatest Show on Turf", some thought that was the future of the NFL as well, how did that work out??
 
It worked out well for us, jump-starting our prolific dynasty.
 
Im not sold on LAR anymore after this game. The Saints are clearly the best team in the NFC by a wide margin.

Prior to KC vs LAR, I figured that LAR had a very good defense. They suck and the only really good player is Donald just like Rainmaker stated.
 
Statistics like these so have a way of smoothing out things that are obviously apparent, so if this is what 3-4 more points a game is like, then yes, it’s a huge deal. I’ve seen baseball studies trying to downplay the steroid era by also using similar yearly scoring averages, but we all remember what it was really like, and yes, it made an enormous impact. You even have nerdy, overanalyzing fools today trying to argue that McGwire would have hit a similar amount of home runs without PEDs, which is insulting to our intelligence. In the case of the steroid era, it was the clusters of huge home run totals by individual players, not the necessarily the scoring itself (which also has historic parallels from other eras), that made the game so artificial and history destroying.

What makes the NFL feel like this same unsettling way is specifically the success of THE QUARTERBACK is at insane historical levels, which is by no accident the most profit generating scenario (more on that below). Scoring was at 20-21 points per game from 1980-2001 and is at 24.2 now. Just as a measure, though, of what’s changed significantly, let’s look at this one fact:

When Joe Montana retired in the mid-90s, he had the highest passer rating of all-time at 92.3. The following players have a higher passer rating this year:

Drew Brees
Patrick Mahomes
Jared Goff
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Russell Wilson
Cam Newton
Aaron Rodgers
Andrew Luck
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Carson Wentz
Kirk Cousins
Deshaun Watson
Mitchell Trubisky
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning
Tom Brady
Derek Carr
Matthew Stafford

So there is where the Chiefs/Rams and the idea that a few power teams are tipping the scales takes a huge hit. The game has been altered to feel like baseball in the mid-90s, and I suspect this era will eventually be viewed with similar disdain once the NFL restores balance and recreates a competitive, interesting game. In baseball, the fans lined up like goons marching in line to see the amazing historic seasons being put up, and NFL fans are following the same path. But like baseball, the sizzle will eventually become boring, and fans will ultimately abandon the sport in favor of something more interesting and consisting of less bright fluorescent lights.

This is a huge historical anomaly, and all of the major sports have gone through periods of manufactured imbalance and increased ratings/revenue, followed by major hangovers and ultimately the mandate to sober up. The NFL is just following its gluttonous downfall, and the arrogance and hubris of the Goodell era will eventually make its way into the history books as a cautionary tale of greed without regard to its long-term consequences.
QB rating increase is not just due to improved QB play, it is also due to the game changing to the type of game that enhances QB ratting even if it isn’t better QB play, such as short passes creating higher completion percentage for fewer yards, the reduction of int % by adding a couple hundred screen, short and dump off passes that have no chance of being picked, the phenomenon of throwing td passes from inside the 5.
The way the game is played today compared to 30 years ago isn’t better QB play, it’s a game that accentuates the factors that make up the random formula people use thinking it’s a good way to judge of QBs.
 
Statistics like these so have a way of smoothing out things that are obviously apparent, so if this is what 3-4 more points a game is like, then yes, it’s a huge deal. I’ve seen baseball studies trying to downplay the steroid era by also using similar yearly scoring averages, but we all remember what it was really like, and yes, it made an enormous impact. You even have nerdy, overanalyzing fools today trying to argue that McGwire would have hit a similar amount of home runs without PEDs, which is insulting to our intelligence. In the case of the steroid era, it was the clusters of huge home run totals by individual players, not the necessarily the scoring itself (which also has historic parallels from other eras), that made the game so artificial and history destroying.

What makes the NFL feel like this same unsettling way is specifically the success of THE QUARTERBACK is at insane historical levels, which is by no accident the most profit generating scenario (more on that below). Scoring was at 20-21 points per game from 1980-2001 and is at 24.2 now. Just as a measure, though, of what’s changed significantly, let’s look at this one fact:

When Joe Montana retired in the mid-90s, he had the highest passer rating of all-time at 92.3. The following players have a higher passer rating this year:

Drew Brees
Patrick Mahomes
Jared Goff
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Russell Wilson
Cam Newton
Aaron Rodgers
Andrew Luck
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Carson Wentz
Kirk Cousins
Deshaun Watson
Mitchell Trubisky
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning
Tom Brady
Derek Carr
Matthew Stafford

So there is where the Chiefs/Rams and the idea that a few power teams are tipping the scales takes a huge hit. The game has been altered to feel like baseball in the mid-90s, and I suspect this era will eventually be viewed with similar disdain once the NFL restores balance and recreates a competitive, interesting game. In baseball, the fans lined up like goons marching in line to see the amazing historic seasons being put up, and NFL fans are following the same path. But like baseball, the sizzle will eventually become boring, and fans will ultimately abandon the sport in favor of something more interesting and consisting of less bright fluorescent lights.

This is a huge historical anomaly, and all of the major sports have gone through periods of manufactured imbalance and increased ratings/revenue, followed by major hangovers and ultimately the mandate to sober up. The NFL is just following its gluttonous downfall, and the arrogance and hubris of the Goodell era will eventually make its way into the history books as a cautionary tale of greed without regard to its long-term consequences.

I totally totally totally hear you, and it's insane that Brees, for example, is completely nearly 80% of his passes. I get it.

And yet...

Each team is just scoring 2.5 more points per game than in 2007, and just 3.7 points more per game than 1980. That's just a fact.

I think what adds to the feeling is that teams are moving the ball better than they once did, as you pointed out. That means the offenses are more effective, but still. Less than a field goal more points per game than in 2007.
 


TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Not a First Round Pick? Hoge Doubles Down on Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/11: News and Notes
Back
Top