current state of the nfl

[The Breeze]

And yet, it is more popular then ever, from the NFLs point of view, things have never been better.

Maybe its cause I'm young, but I don't understand what the big deal is with the offense taking center stage in todays NFL, Defense ruled the league for many a year, didn't you guys get your fill of 10-7 games in the 70s?

It's popular like a prom queen is popular.

I don't mind the scoring....and the teams that won big in the 70's and 80's had incredible offenses....but they also had great defenses and just better players all around who could do many different things other than run fast and jump high.

Maybe there is an element of myopic nostalgia in my perspective...but I just find the popularity of todays game less about substance and more about style which isn't mutually exclusive to the NFL or sports in general.

I think the league was actually at it's best before the more recent rule changes favoring the passing game. It favors teams with players(qb) that not every team has a fair advantage to attain. Like big men in the NBA. Also the way those QBs are not treated the same as other offensive players or other QBs for that matter when it comes to taking hits....another facet like the NBA model that I abhor.

The league is so much more about money now than it was in the 70's, for example. That's the publicly accepted reality and what is driving all the changes and basically what I dislike about how it's changed.

[The Breeze]

I think there is a certain concern for the NFL, which is that they are losing some interest from the hardcore fans of the game who have been following it for decades and can hardly recognize what game they are playing out there, but their incredible exposure is building their viewership among casual fans who don't pay close attention or care much, and just enjoy seeing explosive plays and lots of scoring. Currently, we old school football fans have no real alternative, but should a real alternative emerge it could pose a real threat to the NFL among its REAL BASE. I would love to see an 8 team league that plays with a vintage rule book, and I would probably stop watching the NFL all together if such an alternative emerged.

I would like to see another league also. As long as it was good football.

[Purpnation]

It's popular like a prom queen is popular.

I don't mind the scoring....and the teams that won big in the 70's and 80's had incredible offenses....but they also had great defenses and just better players all around who could do many different things other than run fast and jump high.

Maybe there is an element of myopic nostalgia in my perspective...but I just find the popularity of todays game less about substance and more about style which isn't mutually exclusive to the NFL or sports in general.

I think the league was actually at it's best before the more recent rule changes favoring the passing game. It favors teams with players(qb) that not every team has a fair advantage to attain. Like big men in the NBA. Also the way those QBs are not treated the same as other offensive players or other QBs for that matter when it comes to taking hits....another facet like the NBA model that I abhor.

The league is so much more about money now than it was in the 70's, for example. That's the publicly accepted reality and what is driving all the changes and basically what I dislike about how it's changed.

What do you mean by "It favors teams with players (QB) that not every team has a fair advantage to obtain."? I don't understand that comment, the salary cap has ensured a certain amount of parityin todays NFL.


Also why do you claim that there were better players back in the day? Things are more specialized now days, that is for sure, but I hardly think the players were better back then, then they are now.


Not sure what you mean by "prom queen popular". The NFL is as popular as it has ever been in history right now, that is a fact.

[fiestavike]

I just don't see what the big deal is with the offense having a turn at being dominate. Defense ruled the league FOREVER, there was once a time where offensive lineman couldn't use their hands! It just comes off as ignorant and stubborn that people just can't handle offense being at an advantage for the first time in the history of the game.

I also find the perceived advantage to be vastly over blown, I can appreciate a good ole fashioned Defensive struggle, and I have seen plenty of them over the last 5 years, not as much as the old days of course, but still plenty. The Seahawks, while the exception to the rule, proved that Defense can still win Championships.


My point? This is the NFL that I grew up watching, and that I love, just as you old timers no doubt loved the old defensive era days, defense reigned supreme for almost the entire history of the league, why cant offense get a turn? Just because thats not how it was for the old timers? The NFL you guys grew up and admired is in no way superior to the one I grew up loving.

Throughout its history the game has faced changes. I think the question is, with the recent changes, do they improve the game? Were they made to improve the game? I don't think they do and I don't think they were. they were made to draw in more casual observers, not to improve the quality of the game. The result is really quite boring. It diminishes strategy, toughness, courage, will, endurance...and replaces it with penalties, penalties, points, specialization, penalties, and points. we'd have to agree to disagree on the notion that the NFL today is even close to what the NFL used to be.

As far as someone else's comment about great QBs in this era, it is rubbish. first and most obviously, the rules benefit the passing game and there are many NFL QBs of old who would look MUCH better in todays game. Second, the rules allow QBs who thrive in the mental or athletic part of the game to succeed, though many of them would have lacked the toughness and durability to succeed in previous eras. If you imagine that, say, 1/1000 guys has the acumen to play QB, and 1/1000 had the toughness to play qb, you can see what a small pool was available. But we have increased the odds of finding people capable of excelling at QB in this day and age by close to 1000 times by simply eliminating a major element of what it took to excel as a QB.

As far as the head trauma, there is truth but there is also hype. LOTS OF HYPE. Just like everything driven by trial lawyers. Concussions are obviously not good for you, but the perception has outpaced the reality and its reaching a point of hysteria.

[Purpnation]

Throughout its history the game has faced changes. I think the question is, with the recent changes, do they improve the game? Were they made to improve the game? I don't think they do and I don't think they were. they were made to draw in more casual observers, not to improve the quality of the game. The result is really quite boring. It diminishes strategy, toughness, courage, will, endurance...and replaces it with penalties, penalties, points, specialization, penalties, and points. we'd have to agree to disagree on the notion that the NFL today is even close to what the NFL used to be.

As far as someone else's comment about great QBs in this era, it is rubbish. first and most obviously, the rules benefit the passing game and there are many NFL QBs of old who would look MUCH better in todays game. Second, the rules allow QBs who thrive in the mental or athletic part of the game to succeed, though many of them would have lacked the toughness and durability to succeed in previous eras. If you imagine that, say, 1/1000 guys has the acumen to play QB, and 1/1000 had the toughness to play qb, you can see what a small pool was available. But we have increased the odds of finding people capable of excelling at QB in this day and age by close to 1000 times by simply eliminating a major element of what it took to excel as a QB.

As far as the head trauma, there is truth but there is also hype. LOTS OF HYPE. Just like everything driven by trial lawyers. Concussions are obviously not good for you, but the perception has outpaced the reality and its reaching a point of hysteria.

First of all, the idea that, strategy, toughness, courage, and will have been diminished because of the offensive emphasis in the rule book is laughable, offense is enjoying many advantages in todays game just as the defense did for the majority of the history of the league.

YOU may find todays game boring, but many, many do not. Again, the argument is pretty much which side of the field you prefer to have the advantage , and that is very subjective territory. Some people find sacks and stops exciting, some find points and yards exciting, either way, the rule book favored one side for a very long time, and now, because the tables have FINALLY have been turned, that means the NFL is on the downfall? Ludicrous.

Your right, the NFL isn't what is used to be, in reality, it is far more popular, and there is FAR more parity, oh the humanity! Lets all go back to the days of 13-10 games! God forbid the offense be at an unfair advantage like the defense was for 80 years!

[Purpnation]

Really all the griping about the offense having to much of an advantage is a bunch of selfish crap from people who cant bear to see the defense not at an overwhelming advantage, simply because it wasn't that way when they started following the NFL. Honestly? Get over it, in 20 years the offense still won't have held the advantage for as long as the defense had.

[fiestavike]

First of all, the idea that, strategy, toughness, courage, and will have been diminished because of the offensive emphasis in the rule book is laughable

Its also not what I said. You added the "because of the offensive emphasis in the rule book". That's only one factor, the particulars of which do diminish strategy, toughness and courage. The protection of players from taking big hits obviously diminishes toughness and courage in the game. toughness to stand in the pocket and take the big hit, and then get up. Courage to go across the middle of the field, where you KNEW you were going to get walloped before rule changes prohibited it. I don't see how its arguable.

offense is enjoying many advantages in todays game just as the defense did for the majority of the history of the league.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm not sure defenses ever enjoyed "advantages" because I'm not sure the game was ever manipulated with the goal of producing low scoring, as it is now manipulated for the goal of producing high scoring. The game was more fair than it is now, and the breeds better competition, a higher level of strategy, and a better game.

YOU may find todays game boring, but many, many do not. Again, the argument is pretty much which side of the field you prefer to have the advantage , and that is very subjective territory.

No, that's not the question. The question is do you prefer a fair and competitive game or a game engineered to produce a certain outcome which is attractive to casual fans (more scoring), will increase viewership and produce greater ad revenue.

Some people find sacks and stops exciting, some find points and yards exciting

I find both exciting, but I found yards a whole lot more exciting when they were harder to come by.

either way, the rule book favored one side for a very long time

false

and now, because the tables have FINALLY have been turned, that means the NFL is on the downfall? Ludicrous.

they haven't been turned from one to the other. they have simply been manipulated to the disadvantage of defensive players to make the game less fair in order to produce more big plays. I'm not saying the NFL is on the downfall financially or in terms of viewership (afterall, that's why they made the rule changes!) , but in terms of quality football it is SEVERALLY on the downfall.

Your right, the NFL isn't what is used to be, in reality, it is far more popular, and there is FAR more parity, oh the humanity!

none of which means it is better.

Lets all go back to the days of 13-10 games! God forbid the offense be at an unfair advantage like the defense was for 80 years!

False.

Can you give some specific reason/examples of why you keep saying the rules benefitted the defense in the past?

[Purpnation]

I'm assuming you are an old timer? If so, you should be able to recall the days where offensive lineman couldn't use their hands, dbs could manhandle WRs all the way down the field, and late hits and unnecessary roughness weren't only common place, they were expected. Contrary to popular belief, rules were in place to protect against such things, they were simply enforced very rarely.

You think parity is negatively affecting the on field product? Interesting, truly. The game is more competitive now then ever before.

[fiestavike]

I'm assuming you are an old timer? If so, you should be able to recall the days where offensive lineman couldn't use their hands, dbs could manhandle WRs all the way down the field, and late hits and unnecessary roughness weren't only common place, they were expected. Contrary to popular belief, rules were in place to protect against such things, they were simply enforced very rarely.

Nope, no knowledge or recollection of that. I had heard that holding used to be allowed around the time that the head-slap was allowed by defenders, but both of these were before my time.

I'm not sure why you take the rules of a given era as benefitting one side of the other. they were the rules until the rules were changes for the express purpose of benefitting one particular side!

compared to today the rules were more beneficial to defense, but that's only because the rules today discourage defensive football. Your contention just doesn't make rational sense.

You think parity is negatively affecting the on field product? Interesting, truly.

Once again, didn't say that. Not sure why you think I did. Personally I find parity irrelevant. I find good football relevant.

[Purpnation]

Nope, no knowledge or recollection of that. I had heard that holding used to be allowed around the time that the head-slap was allowed by defenders, but both of these were before my time.

I'm not sure why you take the rules of a given era as benefitting one side of the other. they were the rules until the rules were changes for the express purpose of benefitting one particular side!

compared to today the rules were more beneficial to defense, but that's only because the rules today discourage defensive football. Your contention just doesn't make rational sense.

Once again, didn't say that. Not sure why you think I did. Personally I find parity irrelevant. I find good football relevant.

Homie, rules have been being changed since the first football game was ever played, there wasn't one specific set of rules that was in place all the way up until the big mean NFL started to shift towards the offensive side of the ball, like you seem to think.

And yup, late hits, unnecessary roughness, the Deacon Jones headslap, dbs manhandling WRs downfield, and offensive lineman being taught how to block without their hands because otherwise it would have a holding penalty, this is the game of yesteryear, this is the game that you claim didn't favor one side of the ball. The NFL used to favor Defense, just as the AFL used to favor offense, just how it was.

So, parity doesn't matter when it comes to good football? I'm pretty sure competition = good football, and the fact is the NFL is far more competitive than it used to be. Again, you are projecting your own opinions as fact. What do you classify as good football, if competition and parity don't matter?

[Mothman]

YOU may find todays game boring, but many, many do not. Again, the argument is pretty much which side of the field you prefer to have the advantage , and that is very subjective territory.

I'd prefer that neither side have a significant advantage. To me, that's the sweet spot and that's pretty much where the game was for a long time. You keep saying the rules favored the defense but the truth is they favored team balance. Now, the rules have been skewed so heavily in favor of the offense that it even led to a change in the overtime rules. I think the mere fact that they felt a need to make that change illustrates the degree to which the game is now out of balance.

[Purpnation]

I'd prefer that neither side have a significant advantage. To me, that's the sweet spot and that's pretty much where the game was for a long time. You keep saying the rules favored the defense but the truth is they favored team balance. Now, the rules have been skewed so heavily in favor of the offense that it even led to a change in the overtime rules. I think the mere fact that they felt a need to make that change illustrates the degree to which the game is now out of balance.

Late hits, unnecessary roughness, the Deacon Jones headslap, dbs manhandling WRs downfield, and offensive lineman being unable to use their hands screams everything but balance.

As to the OT rules, comon man! You don't think the old OT rules sucked? I hated them, and I never want to see a coin flip have such an impact on the outcome of a football game again.

[fiestavike]

Homie, rules have been being changed since the first football game was ever played, there wasn't one specific set of rules that was in place all the way up until the big mean NFL started to shift towards the offensive side of the ball, like you seem to think.

lets take a look at this quote from me upthread "Throughout its history the game has faced changes." Okay, so we can discard whatever point you are trying to make.

And yup, late hits, unnecessary roughness, the Deacon Jones headslap, dbs manhandling WRs downfield, and offensive lineman being taught how to block without their hands because otherwise it would have a holding penalty, this is the game of yesteryear, this is the game that you claim didn't favor one side of the ball. The NFL used to favor Defense, just as the AFL used to favor offense, just how it was.

again, compared to the rules today, the rules may appear to "benefit the defense", but unless you can demonstrate that the rules were changed for the purpose of lowering scores at any point in league history, it is a false claim [and it is a false claim]. the rules at any given point were simply the rules at that point, until the rules were changed for the express purpose of benefiting the offense, beginning in the 70s and reaching a point of absurdity in recent years. In any objective sense the rules have never benefited the defense. Only in a comparative sense.

So, parity doesn't matter when it comes to good football? I'm pretty sure competition = good football, and the fact is the NFL is far more competitive than it used to be.

In the broad scope of how competitive teams are with one another there may be more parity. this is irrelevant to me and to what makes "good football". In terms of how much competition there is within any given game and parity between players, there is almost none. the game is absurdly lopsided. In this sense, there is far less parity. This makes worse football.

Again, you are projecting your own opinions as fact.

wrong again. It might be beneficial for you to try to understand what I am saying instead of simply making an argument and constantly oversimplifying and mischaracterizing what I have said in your mind.

What do you classify as good football, if competition and parity don't matter?

Competition is exactly what does matter. The game has indisputably been changed to create less competition by creating incredible advantages for the purpose of producing a desired outcome. That outcome is points, not parity, which has nothing to do with this conversation except that you keep touting the non sequitur.

There may be more parity between teams, but this is of no value to me, I want parity within the game, not within the league. I don't care if the league has parity or not, but that has nothing to do with rule changes to benefit the offense or the qualities of good football.

[fiestavike]

I'd prefer that neither side have a significant advantage. To me, that's the sweet spot and that's pretty much where the game was for a long time.

exactly.

[The Breeze]

What do you mean by "It favors teams with players (QB) that not every team has a fair advantage to obtain."? I don't understand that comment, the salary cap has ensured a certain amount of parityin todays NFL.

The rule changes to protect QBs are not equally enforced, in my and many others opinions, where guys like Brady, Brees and Rodgers etc. get the benefit of calls based on some oblique criteria ala Michael Jordan getting phantom foul calls. Add to that, QBs of that caliber are not as frequent as say a running back or wideout or any other skill position player. So the rule changes give a defacto advantage to those franchises who have a guy. It's always been like that to one degree or another since the passing era began but these recent rule changes have exacerbated it.
It used to be a fairly common event where a team with a good pass rush could put enough hits on a QB and alter his game a great deal. Brady has shown a great susceptibility to that end on the rare occasion it happens. But for the most part you can't lay a hand on these guys without it being a roughing call...like in our game versus the Saints this year. Also changes in the way DBs can handle receivers making it even harder to play CB than it was in the past and it's always been, arguably, the most physically difficult position to play.
Now, on the other hand, since guys like Manning and Brady et al, are looking to be effective until they're 40 it may increase other teams chances at getting a franchise guy since there will be fewer teams looking.

I dunno and I'm basing a lot of this opinion from the perspective of the decade of suck at the QB position for the Vikings.

Also why do you claim that there were better players back in the day? Things are more specialized now days, that is for sure, but I hardly think the players were better back then, then they are now.

I think todays athletes are superior on average but they aren't better football players because of that specialization. I find a severe lack of fundamental skill and knowledge across the board in todays game. Not sure how popular that opinion is. It might be fairer to suggest that todays players aren't given the same opportunities to show all their skills due to the highly specialized focus of the game. In which case it's relatively unknown, like trying to say if the 85 Bears would beat Bradshaw's Steelers.

Not sure what you mean by "prom queen popular". The NFL is as popular as it has ever been in history right now, that is a fact.

"Prom queens" are popular for their appearance....the package. I just see a lot of nonsense and thuggery in todays NFL that I see in all of the pop-culture culture. There seems to be less and less player pride in the product and more focus on "look at Me" and getting paid.

The NFL used to be like alternative rock....now it may as well be disco. It's still the highest quality of the game available...so it is what it is.

Thanks for making me think about my comments