PDA

View Full Version : Why the NFL sucks



23dpg
12-30-2007, 08:29 PM
I'm not a Cleveland fan, but I was rooting for them to get into the playoffs due to their underdog persona. That said, it is a travesty that the Indy Colts played backups for almost the entire game. Then, they didn't even try to get the ball back at the end. I hope it comes back and bites them in the playoffs.

Could you imagine in that happening in college football? USC wraps up the Pac 10 with a game to go, so they play all back-ups vs. UCLA. Just terrible.

BroncoZAG615
12-30-2007, 10:15 PM
The Colts had nothing to gain from winning the game. There was no real reason to jeopardize players for a virtually meaningless game. They got their snaps in and left on a good note and thats that. I get your point but understand why the Colts did that. The Browns had a chance to lock up the playoffs last week and their QB came out and laid an egg.

I could imagine USC playing backups against UCLA if they had the Pac-10 locked up because USC's second string would probably beat UCLA's starters. =)

kitzbuel
12-31-2007, 05:10 AM
While I agree that it sucks that teams don't always give 100% on this final weekend, I also think that if a team is in the position where they have to rely on other teams to win or lose to get into the playoffs, then they really shouldn't complain. If they take care of business and win, then they don't have to rely on other teams to win for them.

23dpg
12-31-2007, 09:04 AM
I'm not lamenting about the Browns. I agree that they could have taken control of their own destiny against the Bengals. I just think its pathetic that about half of the games were meaningless with starters not playing very much or at all. And to have any playoff position determined by this is just wrong.

I don't like either the Pats or the Giants. But I respect the hell out of how they approached the final game. I think Belicheck (sp?) would have played it the same if they had a loss.

kitzbuel
12-31-2007, 11:59 AM
That, without a doubt, was the most entertaining game of the weekend and one of the better games this season. As you said, the remarkable thing is neither team needed this game, it was pure pride.

Zagme-totheleft!
12-31-2007, 04:42 PM
and it was a DAMN good game to watch. Eli certainly came out throwing.

but back to the initial thread posting. I just don't think that its worth risking injury to some of your best players especially on the last game of the reg season.

HillBillyZag
01-01-2008, 02:01 AM
You all see my Brown's hat. Since 1957. As much as I hate to say it, most of you are right, all they had to do was win last week, but they did not. But I will say this, watch out for next season, the Brownies will be very tough.

Zagme-totheleft!
01-01-2008, 12:39 PM
You all see my Brown's hat. Since 1957. As much as I hate to say it, most of you are right, all they had to do was win last week, but they did not. But I will say this, watch out for next season, the Brownies will be very tough.

I think most real fanatics of one team would say the same thing though. :)

Heck, Ima 9ers fan, and thats all that left any other 9er fan at the end of last season. Needless to say we ended on a solid 5-11.

However, I'd love to see the Browns do well...I think I've only been alive to see 2 winning seasons or so.

brasszag
01-02-2008, 04:46 AM
The Colts had nothing to gain from winning the game. There was no real reason to jeopardize players for a virtually meaningless game.

They're professionals. I'd expect professionals to actually earn their paychecks.

A team should be fined and lose a draft pick or two if they mail it in at the end of a season. It's a disservice to the fans, to the opposing teams and to the league.

It's unsportsmanlike in the extreme.

kitzbuel
01-02-2008, 08:04 AM
It's unsportsmanlike in the extreme.

It's good business, though.

TennesseeFan07
01-02-2008, 06:01 PM
Being a big Titans fan, I'll say I'm glad with Dungy's decision. The one thing that disturbed me the most was when he didn't use his TO in the final seconds. As a football fan, that made me very angry. Also, I must say that Cleveland had there oppurtunity, but crumbled against Cincy. It doesn't bother me that Dungy did what he had to do to rest his team, but for him to blatently quit with time on the clock like that, upsests me as a football fan.

brasszag
01-03-2008, 07:12 AM
It's good business, though.

It compromises the integrity of the product though.

If I'm watching a game I want to see the best 60 minutes of ball possible. Not a great 30 minutes and 30 so-so minutes.

I want both teams to always play full out - that's why I've been enjoying watching the Pats this year.

I know they're going to play for 60 minutes with intensity and purpose.

TennesseeFan07
01-03-2008, 10:36 AM
It compromises the integrity of the product though.

If I'm watching a game I want to see the best 60 minutes of ball possible. Not a great 30 minutes and 30 so-so minutes.

I want both teams to always play full out - that's why I've been enjoying watching the Pats this year.

I know they're going to play for 60 minutes with intensity and purpose.

I bet if they were 14-1 they would have rested a majority of their starters in the 2nd half. Bill has done that in the past

BroncoZAG615
01-04-2008, 09:37 AM
Brass, what would you say about teams that are up 30+ points at the third quarter. Keep starters in? Otherwise you wouldn't be seeing the best 60 minutes of each team.

I don't mind sitting players when all is secured because their are 53 men on a football team and all make monetary amounts dwarfing the average American. Let them get in there and bang around a little bit.

Pallet
01-04-2008, 11:01 AM
How is playing the backups for 60 minutes better than baseball expanding the rosters for september? Suddenly, during the most important stretch of the season the teams get to call up 15 players from the minors to rest their regular guys. That's more than just 1 game being played by backups.

TennesseeFan07
01-05-2008, 09:03 AM
I read a link earlier of an article saying that the Colt had communication with the Titans and they told them they would not use their TO to force a change of possession giving them yet another oppurtunity to have won the game.

brasszag
01-05-2008, 08:25 PM
Brass, what would you say about teams that are up 30+ points at the third quarter. Keep starters in? Otherwise you wouldn't be seeing the best 60 minutes of each team.

That's a good time to rotate in reserves so that they can get some game-speed reps with some of the starters. There's purpose there.

But, as I mentioned above, I expect 60 minutes of "intensity and purpose", and I would expect the subs to play to increase the lead.

I cannot stand coaches benching players for the sole purpose of preventing injuries in already healthy players. Resting hurting players - fine. Getting subs reps - fine.

zag944
01-07-2008, 07:32 AM
I find it hard to think the NFL sucks in this regard, at least when compared to college football.

It's only the 12th or 13th best team getting "screwed" in the NFL, meaning that they lost 6 or 7 games. They shouldn't be crying about what the Colts and Pats do at the end of the season.
In college, you'll see the 2nd or 3rd best teams (like Auburn a few years back) or a team close to that (Missouri this year) getting screwed.

Rubbadub
01-07-2008, 08:02 AM
1. You don't belong in the playoffs if you can't get the bottom wild card.

2. If you've won enough games that you can rest your starters at the end of the regular season, you have every right to do so.

kitzbuel
01-07-2008, 12:15 PM
It's kind of the same thing in European soccer where they use goal differentials to determine teams advancing. A team with a several goal lead in the overall series will essentially toss the last game as long as they hold onto their lead in overall goals.

sonuvazag
01-07-2008, 12:25 PM
The NFL does not suck because of this ... once a team locks in to a seed, the game has no value. The whole point of the season is to achieve a seed and the nearly universal empashis by fans about post season success reinfoces such approach.

Zag79
01-07-2008, 03:11 PM
In college, you'll see the 2nd or 3rd best teams (like Auburn a few years back) or a team close to that (Missouri this year) getting screwed. like USC this year, which i might add is the best team in college football right now. wheres my playoff? but back to the point, in ANY sport if the best teams rest their players at the end of the regular season and a middle of the pack club misses the playoffs from ithat you cant be mad. win enough games that you make it no matter what other teams do, or who they sub.

23dpg
01-07-2008, 03:18 PM
All games should count. When I play flag football, I want to win, so should professionals.

Also, college does need a playoff. But Auburn helped "screw" themselves with a ridiculously easy OOC. Now Oregon in 2001, they got shafted. (Nebraska got in after being destroyed by Colorado in their last game. Miami killed Nebraska, Oregon punished Colorado.)

TennesseeFan07
01-07-2008, 03:19 PM
Oklahoma and Nebraska both got an extremely lucky benefit from the BCS after getting blown out in their Conference Championship game and still able to make it to the BCS Title game

zag944
01-07-2008, 03:47 PM
Also, college does need a playoff. But Auburn helped "screw" themselves with a ridiculously easy OOC.

Maybe Oklahoma and USC were more qualified ,but it was sad to see Auburn get left out. When a team is that good there is a big "what if" factor, be it Auburn, Oregon, even Bosie St.....

That "what if" factor isn't there (at least not near as much) with Syracuse getting left out of last year's NCAA bb or with Cleveland getting knocked out because they didn't win as much as they needed to in previous weeks.

Make a tourney in college football so people cry about the 9th or 17th best team being left out. Not the 3rd best.

23dpg
01-13-2008, 09:43 PM
it is a travesty that the Indy Colts played backups for almost the entire game. Then, they didn't even try to get the ball back at the end. I hope it comes back and bites them in the playoffs.
.

I think it did. The starters didn't play much for 3 weeks and it showed.
Instant karma? As far as karma goes, a couple of weeks seems pretty fast.

23dpg
01-14-2008, 07:05 AM
Still think it's a good idea to rest your players for the playoffs in Weeks 16 and 17? The Bucs and Colts went to a spa the last half of December and lost to underdogs at home in their first playoff games. That's the second time in three years it's happened to Indy. The Packers barely rested their guys and looked like the '58 Colts in whipping the Seahawks. New England, Green Bay and New York rested no one; they're 4-0 combined. The Giants, in fact, were badly slumping entering Week 17 with nothing to play for. Since then, they nearly knocked off the best team in the league and have won two road playoff games.