National Football League Thread

[starcrunch061]

10 minutes ago, majob said:

Looks like yesterday was the lowest rated super bowl in ten years

 

The NFL has an issue. Bill Belichick is too good of a coach. 

 

I am glad for the low ratings for one reason, though; the NFL shoved teams in LA precisely so that they could brag about these large markets for TV purposes. While they'll still collect their money for having the LA market, it's good to see that the simple presence of an LA team has no effect on ratings.

[Baranov_925]

Hi I am football casual, but I heard about some players? Can somebody tell me how good Roger Staubach was?

[majob]

25 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

The NFL has an issue. Bill Belichick is too good of a coach. 

 

I am glad for the low ratings for one reason, though; the NFL shoved teams in LA precisely so that they could brag about these large markets for TV purposes. While they'll still collect their money for having the LA market, it's good to see that the simple presence of an LA team has no effect on ratings.

It didn't help that unless you lived in Michigan or the New England area you likely weren't keen on the Patriots and the Rams have almost no fanbase in LA  in spite of their great season. You could hear the crowd chanting Brady's name for crying out loud

[starcrunch061]

53 minutes ago, Baranov_925 said:

Hi I am football casual, but I heard about some players? Can somebody tell me how good Roger Staubach was?

 

He was good. Got a ton of press because he played for the Cowboys, but it wasn't undeserved. Led the 'Boys to lots of Super Bowls, and won a couple, too, if memory serves. Unfortunately for him, the quarterback position has changed greatly since his time, so it's hard to compare him to the greats of his position today. 

[skidmarkgn]

2 hours ago, majob said:

 Rams have almost no fanbase in LA  in spite of their great season. You could hear the crowd chanting Brady's name for crying out loud

 

I heard on the radio that more people in the LA area watched the Chiefs / Patriots game than the Rams / Saints.  No idea if it's true but... damn.

[djb5f]

7 minutes ago, skidmarkgn said:

 

I heard on the radio that more people in the LA area watched the Chiefs / Patriots game than the Rams / Saints.  No idea if it's true but... damn.

 

I sort of believe it given the better timeslot of the game and the high drama in the Chiefs/Pats.  No that Rams/Saints was not close, but the Chiefs/Pats back and forth was insane.

 

LA will never be the most passionate fanbase but it will grow.  C'mon, none of us if we lived in LA would drop our longstanding favorite teams and be a Rams fan first.  Maybe a few who were diehard Rams fans before they moved to STL.  But most have other allegiances at this point and to expect that shifts overnight is silly. 

 

The Rams have first movers-advantage over the Chargers and more history in LA, so if you want to talk about a team really hurting for fan support, it is going to be the Chargers.

[PerryToxteth]

5 hours ago, djb5f said:

An interception is an interception.  If It was picked off before hitting the ground, then, the ruling is correct.   It is definitely not a fumble as the receiver never had control of the ball and the ball would not be "live" if it hit the ground.

 

Yes, sometimes, the ball gets deflected or receiver runs the wrong route, so be it.  On the other side, sometimes the defender drops what would be a sure INT so QBs get a break that way.  Or your receiver makes an amazing catch for a TD on a poor pass.  You still get credit for that TD pass, same with a shovel pass that is less than a yard where the RB does the rest. 

 

The current way of defining interceptions is the only viable way IMO.

 

You certainly never had to watch Warren Moon on a game-by-game basis.  He was the king of the "tip-INT." I've been clamoring for a tip-INT for decades but yes, then you would open the door for "near INT", "dropped INT" and "inexcusable INT." 

 

Rest assured, with the way analytics is entering into sports, it's an inevitability that someone will start keeping statistics like this. 

[Conker]

13 hours ago, majob said:

Looks like yesterday was the lowest rated super bowl in ten years

one thing that helped with that, was the city of New Orleans.  

 

"Viewership was especially low in New Orleans, where only 26.1 percent of the market tuned into the game, according to Nielsen's overnight numbers "

 

as quoted from here http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25926181/super-bowl-liii-viewership-lowest-2007-season

[MidnightDragon]

44 minutes ago, Conker said:

one thing that helped with that, was the city of New Orleans.  

 

"Viewership was especially low in New Orleans, where only 26.1 percent of the market tuned into the game, according to Nielsen's overnight numbers "

 

as quoted from here http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25926181/super-bowl-liii-viewership-lowest-2007-season

Can you blame them?

[acasser]

New Orleans doesn't have enough population to move the needle very much.  It doesn't matter that only 26% of the market tuned in, it wouldn't really matter if 76% of the market tuned in; there simply aren't very many people down there anymore.

 

The NFL's television ratings have been dropping for years, partially due to the plethora of entertainment options available to the average person, partially due to the encroachment of all things political upon the game, and partially due to "Patriots fatigue" I'm sure.  The low ratings shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody with a working brain.

[majob]

54 minutes ago, acasser said:

New Orleans doesn't have enough population to move the needle very much.  It doesn't matter that only 26% of the market tuned in, it wouldn't really matter if 76% of the market tuned in; there simply aren't very many people down there anymore.

 

The NFL's television ratings have been dropping for years, partially due to the plethora of entertainment options available to the average person, partially due to the encroachment of all things political upon the game, and partially due to "Patriots fatigue" I'm sure.  The low ratings shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody with a working brain.

Not to mention the rule changes watering down defense

[djb5f]

NFL ratings were actually back up this year.

[PerryToxteth]

Two days later, here's a few thoughts about the game:

 

- I'd love to see a stat showing the Rams passing yards before the Patrick Chung injury and after.  It seemed things started opening up for the Rams after that tragic injury.  That was the reason Cooks was so open on that endzone play.  And props to Chung, who broke his arm, yet stayed on the sidelines with an air cast to see his team win the championship.

- The 47 first-half passing yards for Goff was the lowest he's had since his rookie year when he was held to 24 yards...by New England.  Belichick might have proven Goff is a fantasy QB star, but doesn't have the grit to tough out a championship.

- The moaning of a "possession receiver" winning the MVP is ridiculous. Edelman caught that many balls because he DESTROYED Roby-Coleman on coverage.  The Rams were double-teaming the outs and sending an extra rusher leaving Edelman one-on-one. Of course Brady is going to exploit that. Take what the defense is giving you. And how many yards-after-catch did Edelman get? Tons.  If you bitch about Edelman's MVP, then bitch about Jerry Rice's MVP because all he did was be a posession receiver who ran a slant route. 

- Championship drought in Boston was 98 days.?

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

When you realize you could be in Copley Square watching the Parade but you got shit to do lmfao. (I'm only a half hour away)

[SelectiveGamer]

I don't tend to post in stuff like this but this just has to be posted.

 

Trey Wingo is the hero we don't deserve

 

 

He's 100% right.

 

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the game. In fact... it was the MOST DEFENSE I'VE SEEN ALL SEASON.

 

Which is the highest kind of irony considering everything the NFL has done to try to make it a strictly offensive game now.

 

Once again everyone... Trey Wingo. The Hero We Don't Deserve.

 

?

[Conker]

6 hours ago, SelectiveGamer said:

I don't tend to post in stuff like this but this just has to be posted.

 

Trey Wingo is the hero we don't deserve

 

 

He's 100% right.

 

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the game. In fact... it was the MOST DEFENSE I'VE SEEN ALL SEASON.

 

Which is the highest kind of irony considering everything the NFL has done to try to make it a strictly offensive game now.

 

Once again everyone... Trey Wingo. The Hero We Don't Deserve.

 

He said it perfectly

[majob]

On 2/5/2019 at 10:58 AM, djb5f said:

NFL ratings were actually back up this year.

Mostly because they started to also count streaming numbers instead of just Nielson ratings

[skidmarkgn]

On 2/5/2019 at 1:45 PM, SelectiveGamer said:

I don't tend to post in stuff like this but this just has to be posted.

 

Trey Wingo is the hero we don't deserve

 

 

He's 100% right.

 

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the game. In fact... it was the MOST DEFENSE I'VE SEEN ALL SEASON.

 

Which is the highest kind of irony considering everything the NFL has done to try to make it a strictly offensive game now.

 

Once again everyone... Trey Wingo. The Hero We Don't Deserve.

 

 

So, speaking as someone who, as he kept yelling, "didn't watch", most of the descriptions sounded the same.  the Rams played great defense but the offense was a different story.  They didn't give the ball to Gurley like they had all season (a lot of people are still waiting to hear what was wrong with him because when he did get the ball he looked THAT out of sorts), which did have a lot to do with Belichik playing smart and stacking the box to take away the run and the moment was too big for Goff.  Hence, it was half of a great defensive performance and half an inept offense that shrunk in the moment.  If that's the case then yeah, saying the game is kind of boring is a legit gripe, especially knowing that the Saints offense probably wouldn't have been as shell shocked and would have put on a better performance.  If not, then okay, light the fans up.

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

10 hours ago, skidmarkgn said:

So, speaking as someone who, as he kept yelling, "didn't watch", most of the descriptions sounded the same.  the Rams played great defense but the offense was a different story.  They didn't give the ball to Gurley like they had all season (a lot of people are still waiting to hear what was wrong with him because when he did get the ball he looked THAT out of sorts), which did have a lot to do with Belichik playing smart and stacking the box to take away the run and the moment was too big for Goff.  Hence, it was half of a great defensive performance and half an inept offense that shrunk in the moment.  If that's the case then yeah, saying the game is kind of boring is a legit gripe, especially knowing that the Saints offense probably wouldn't have been as shell shocked and would have put on a better performance.  If not, then okay, light the fans up.

 

The bold is where I take issue with people. (this is not aimed at you but that bold text is something I've seen a lot online) Defense doing their jobs means the offense is going to look amateurish. If you guard everyone, block passes, keep the QB from even considering someone an option then defense did their job at making the offense look inept. Both sides' defense did enough so that offense didn't have many options and that's where LUCK plays a role. Throwing to players that aren't great options but they're still able to come down with the ball. Suh said the defense completely shut Edelman down yet all I read is how Edelman's catches came in where they counted despite being "completely shut down".

 

If the offense is catching everything and the score is high, then defense isn't doing enough and then they will look inept. Even though the rule makers have castrated them each year.

^this is what people want though because apparently it's the only way a game can be "exciting". Pffftttttttttt.

 

I'm also willing to bet my ass cheeks that if the score were reversed and the Rams won 13-3 this game would be hailed as a great defensive game where the Patriots offense was once and for all proven to be finished and in need of new people. ?

[starcrunch061]

People keep conflating great defense with low score and great offense with high score. A game can have great defense, and still have scoring. And just because a game ends with a low score doesn't mean that defense was doing its job. I don't think anyone is considering this turd as a great defensive performance, e.g.

 

A game with both great offenses and defense will have ebbs and flows, where offenses crack defenses, and defenses adjust. This game had none of that. Yes, Belichick stacked the box. And the Rams vaunted offensive geniuses didn't adjust to the simplest trick in the book. That's not "great defense". That's pathetic adjustment by a supposedly genius coach (and most offensive ineptitude originates from the coaching position, not the individual player, at least at that level). 

 

And I don't think telling fans who were expecting to watch the best teams in the world to "shut up" is all that good of a look. A lot of these posts smack of, "You aren't really a fan if you didn't like this game!" I would put my football fandom against anyone here, and that game stunk to high heaven to me.

Edited February 7, 2019 by starcrunch061

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

11 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

People keep conflating great defense with low score and great offense with high score. A game can have great defense, and still have scoring. And just because a game ends with a low score doesn't mean that defense was doing its job. I don't think anyone is considering this turd as a great defensive performance, e.g.

 

A game with both great offenses and defense will have ebbs and flows, where offenses crack defenses, and defenses adjust. This game had none of that. Yes, Belichick stacked the box. And the Rams vaunted offensive geniuses didn't adjust to the simplest trick in the book. That's not "great defense". That's pathetic adjustment by a supposedly genius coach (and most offensive ineptitude originates from the coaching position, not the individual player, at least at that level). 

 

And I don't think telling fans who were expecting to watch the best teams in the world to "shut up" is all that good of a look. A lot of these posts smack of, "You aren't really a fan if you didn't like this game!" I would put my football fandom against anyone here, and that game stunk to high heaven to me.

 

None of my posts are really targeting anyone here just to clarify. I'm the least educated person on this thread when it comes to the game and there's no denying that as I've stated it numerous times here. I'm talking mainly what I see elsewhere and they all use the extreme ends of the spectrum for decision making. I get what you're saying, but overall the general opinion is that because the game wasn't scoring high it was horrible, and that any game that isn't 50 points on each side just isn't fun to watch and is an automatically bad game.

 

The amount of people I saw gushing over the Chiefs/Rams 50+ point game was absurd and that's what people seem to expect from each game now.

[Cassylvania]

I thought it was a bad game. Not because of the score, but because the Rams were clearly outmatched the whole time. It might as well have been 53-3, with the way the Patriots controlled the clock and the ball.

 

The halftime show sucked too.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Cassylvania

[PerryToxteth]

13 hours ago, skidmarkgn said:

 

So, speaking as someone who, as he kept yelling, "didn't watch", most of the descriptions sounded the same.  the Rams played great defense but the offense was a different story.  They didn't give the ball to Gurley like they had all season (a lot of people are still waiting to hear what was wrong with him because when he did get the ball he looked THAT out of sorts), which did have a lot to do with Belichik playing smart and stacking the box to take away the run and the moment was too big for Goff.  Hence, it was half of a great defensive performance and half an inept offense that shrunk in the moment.  If that's the case then yeah, saying the game is kind of boring is a legit gripe, especially knowing that the Saints offense probably wouldn't have been as shell shocked and would have put on a better performance.  If not, then okay, light the fans up.

 

  Shame you didn't watch the game because you constantly clamor for watching quality defensive football.  BOTH teams had a great plan for stopping the opposing offense. Wade Phillips had his team mentally ready, there were just a few key cogs that were physically outmatched. And, the NE offensive line did an outstanding job against the Rams defensive front. This was my biggest concern heading into the game.

  On the Patriots side, they confused Goff by throwing a variety of things at him. It kept him off-balance all game. Belichick "stacked the box" but that was more to confuse Goff with who was rushing and hide coverages. Belichick saved blitzing the house on a keyplay and it caused an interception. Watch the play. Gilmore is looking in the backfield the entire time because he knows Goff will throw early with the all-out blitz. That's coaching and also a player making a smart play.

  Gurley was a non-factor because he has something ailing him. Who know what it is but he looked like crap in the playoffs. Rams are keeping mum but clearly they know something with CJ getting the bulk of the reps. 

  There are people who will hate on everything New England. But facts are facts. The Patriot defense took on in back-to-back games, two of the greatest offenses in football. And they won both games. In the year's biggest game, they held a high-flying offense to EIGHT consecutive punts ( with I think only four first downs in those eight drives). 

  As I said earlier, it felt like an NFL game from yesteryear. Moving the chain for first downs meant a lot, and were hard fought for.  No touch foul penalties, NO instant replay (!).  It was great situational football, with both teams trying to hit singles and doubles instead of home runs. Again, because BOTH defenses played so solid, there weren't opportunities to hit a home run. 

  If you watched play-by-play, then yes, it was entertaining.  If you watched a drive or two, then hit on the chick next to the nacho dip for a few minutes, than scrambled around looking for you an opener to consume your corn syrup-free Bud Light, and walked back in 10 minutes later, then yes, you'd probably think it was boring.  

 

[skidmarkgn]

1 hour ago, PerryToxteth said:

 

  Shame you didn't watch the game because you constantly clamor for watching quality defensive football.

 

 

I do and don't regret not watching.  When the season started, I kind of saw it coming and thought to myself "ugh, Pats / LA is the worst Superbowl possible, now watch it happen", then it did. 

I do regret not watching because of the obvious reason you mentioned.

I don't because when it comes to the Pats,  I've had enough.  And it's not hate, it's fatigue (actually, being a baseball fan as well it's just Boston fatigue now).  I'm so freaking sick of watching everything go their way year after year.  Hell, Brady's entire legacy basically started with a bunk call going his way then it just snowballed (see what I did there).  Over the past 5 years If you look at how many times the Patriots have benefited big from the opposing team either making unbelievably stupid decisions (hello Seattle and Atlanta) or being ref-raped in high-profile, important games... the list is staggering.

With the Rams however, it's hate.  Plain and simple.  They're division rivals who have always been a thorn in the Seahawks' side, at least during this Carroll/Wilson era where things have actually been good.  Not too mention I can't stand when teams try to buy championships (which admittedly is more of a baseball thing) and it seemed like every time there was a high profile free agent out there before the year started, the Rams went out and bought 'em.  On the plus side though, this was kind of their "do or die" season and there's no way they're (man this rant is a good test of correct there, their, and they're usage) keeping a roster that's that stacked in the future, especially with a Goff contract in the near future.

 

 

[kidson2004]

3 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

The halftime show sucked too.

This and the commercials were straight garbage. The only one I legit remember is the NFL 100 commercial. That was amazing.