NFL 2019 Thread

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

NBA teams have 8 backups for 5 starters. MLB teams start 10 players and roster 25. NHL teams dress 22 players and start 6. NFL teams get 21 backups for their 22 non-specialist starters on gameday. I understand injuries can throw off all of those situations (especially for basketball teams), but the NFL's situation is imo the toughest to deal with for a gruelling game.

They run hard for 5 secs, then stop for 20, then walk and set up for 10. Then sit for the other half of the game. I'm not dismissing how strenuous it can be. Far be it for me to tell an NFL athlete he isn't working hard. But that brings your workouts & training into the picture. Again, factors that are already in the game. And once more, I have to emphasize this again, adding time is already a possibility in the current method. All I'm proposing is playing post regulation the same way as they play during regulation.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You can't because football is unique in that each team has two teams playing two different games. It's not a back and forth between the same players. So in OT you can't satisfy everyone and still maintain the integrity of the game. You'd have to resort to a gimmick like they do in college.

Since the rule change for OT in the NFL, is there a stat somewhere that shows how many times the winner of the coin toss won in OT?

I know what your saying but tell me if I'm wrong, if the Vikings had not scored a TD and kicked a FG the Saints would have had a possession so why can't a team have a possession of the ball even if the opponent's have scored a TD?

[monkeyman576]

[QUOTE=Ragnar;4575248]Who in your opinion would have been a hire with the intentions of winning a Super Bowl?

Urban Meyer.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

I know what your saying but tell me if I'm wrong, if the Vikings had not scored a TD and kicked a FG the Saints would have had a possession so why can't a team have a possession of the ball even if the opponent's have scored a TD?

Because then the game is greatly imbalanced towards starting on defense first.

It isn't going to be perfect but right now we have a pretty close to even proposition that still feels like real football (unlike the college system).

Again, no one was complaining about how unfair it is when the Saints won the toss last year and Brees threw a pick.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

I know what your saying but tell me if I'm wrong, if the Vikings had not scored a TD and kicked a FG the Saints would have had a possession so why can't a team have a possession of the ball even if the opponent's have scored a TD?

There is no reason not too. People confuse often necessity w/preference. We aren't going to get perfection in a game played by imperfect people. People resist change because they fear change. So people bring up objections because of what they want, not because there is anything wrong w/what is suggested.

What you see in this topic is the same we saw when replay was introduced, the discussion about "robo umps", college football playoffs. All this fear coming out because things will be different. And warning the sky is going to fall because of a suggestion that actually makes the game fairer.

I can't argue with someone who prefers the current OT, no replay, the bowl system, or human umps. Nothing wrong with a preference. But if someone wants to give me arguments that somehow maintaining the current status quo is the correct way to ensure fair competition, I gotta reject it.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

But if someone wants to give me arguments that somehow maintaining the current status quo is the correct way to ensure fair competition, I gotta reject it.

So, you're going to reject any argument, no matter how sound it is, that states the current way the NFL does OT is the best way to do it because you prefer something different?

[Cobra Mgr]

Booger is trying to tell us something.........Not quite sure what...............It will come to me though............

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

Personally, I expected Jerruh to put the full court press on Sean Peyton, especially with the Saints already being out and him not having to wait

How? He just signed a 5 year 40 million dollar deal.

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

I know what your saying but tell me if I'm wrong, if the Vikings had not scored a TD and kicked a FG the Saints would have had a possession so why can't a team have a possession of the ball even if the opponent's have scored a TD?

I'm not arguing your point. I'm just saying that it is more difficult to even things out in the NFL than it is in other sports while still maintaining the integrity of the game.

[QUOTE=monkeyman576;4575287]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Who in your opinion would have been a hire with the intentions of winning a Super Bowl?

Urban Meyer.

Took the bait.

He's a pipe dream at best. Not everyone is Jimmy Johnson. He's more likely to turn out like Chip Kelly than anyone else.

You think by picking a coach with 0 NFL experience is better than a Super Bowl winning coach? Most college coaches that became successful coaches in the NFL had prior NFL experience in some regard.

All Urban Meyer is going to do is bring in his crap spread offense into the NFL and use the Cowboys as a testing ground for it. It reminds me of the run and shoot with a different read.

[ukhotstove]

Why not FGs, both kickers kick from the same side of the field, no advantage there. You start at EP distance and move it back X yards every time both kickers make the kick, you'd have special teams going against special teams. See my point isn't the coin toss it's the fact one team gets a chance to score but the other doesn't, I'd be fine if team A scored a TD as long as team B got the chance of scoring a TD. It wouldn't last long 2 maybe 3 drives each team before one wouldn't score or one would get a FG the other would go all in for a TD and get it or not.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I'm not arguing your point. I'm just saying that it is more difficult to even things out in the NFL than it is in other sports while still maintaining the integrity of the game.

I know that, I stated the other sports as they have an equal chance, think it was you who mentioned basketball saying end the game after the first points are scored, the tip off is a skill I agree with you there. I just feel both offensives should have a chance to score.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by dkgo

Again, no one was complaining about how unfair it is when the Saints won the toss last year and Brees threw a pick.

Surprisingly as a Packers fan I wanted Minnesota to win, the Saints to me are on a par with New England on teams I dislike, so I'm kind of wanting the Saints to lose but on there side that imo the rule as it stands isn't fair.

[ezpkns34]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

How? He just signed a 5 year 40 million dollar deal.

Fully expected him to be willing to trade for him, just would still need to convince Payton to be open to moving, hence the full court press assumption


But, underachieving retread head coach is almost as interesting for the opposite reasons, so congrats to him for that, I suppose

[ukhotstove]

Somethings been on my mind for a bit but thought of it again this morning watching Moneyball, why does someone choose the NFL over MLB. Theres been a few but Murray is the latest, I dont watch college baseball so no idea how good he was. Now I like football and baseball equally, I've played football but never baseball well not organised and if skill was equal I'd rather play baseball for a career than get beat up in football for a career.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Somethings been on my mind for a bit but thought of it again this morning watching Moneyball, why does someone choose the NFL over MLB. Theres been a few but Murray is the latest, I dont watch college baseball so no idea how good he was. Now I like football and baseball equally, I've played football but never baseball well not organised and if skill was equal I'd rather play baseball for a career than get beat up in football for a career.

Murray will make more money in the NFL then he ever could in MLB. If he’s good enough to get a contract after his rookie deal it’ll equal anything he could ever make in the MLB.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Somethings been on my mind for a bit but thought of it again this morning watching Moneyball, why does someone choose the NFL over MLB. Theres been a few but Murray is the latest, I dont watch college baseball so no idea how good he was. Now I like football and baseball equally, I've played football but never baseball well not organised and if skill was equal I'd rather play baseball for a career than get beat up in football for a career.

Watch ESPN's 30 or 30 on Deion Sanders.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Murray will make more money in the NFL then he ever could in MLB. If he’s good enough to get a contract after his rookie deal it’ll equal anything he could ever make in the MLB.

Granted but having a guess I'd say quality of life is better after baseball than football.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

I know that, I stated the other sports as they have an equal chance, think it was you who mentioned basketball saying end the game after the first points are scored, the tip off is a skill I agree with you there. I just feel both offensives should have a chance to score.

Both offenses do have a chance to score though.

• Before the coin flip, both teams have a 50/50 chance of getting the ball.
• The typical team over the course of a season scores on 50% or less of its drives. Usually less than 50%.
• In NFL OT, the team that wins the coin flip (and receives) wins 52.7% of the time.
• In college football, per the article just linked, the team that gets the ball second wins 54.9% of the time.

So, when both teams are given a chance to score with their offense, the second team to receive the ball has a better chance of winning than the first team. Logically, the fairest way to handle the situation is to keep the chance of winning as close to 50/50 as possible. The best way, imo, to do that is the way the NFL handles OT and not the way college handles OT.

EDIT: Sorry I changed thought processes mid-post.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Granted but having a guess I'd say quality of life is better after baseball than football.

Oh definitely but quality of life is also better with hundreds of millions as well.
Think of it as sacrificing your quality of life to make enough to set up your great grand children for life.
That is if he doesn’t blow it all.

[Cobra Mgr]

Money means nothing if you don't have your health. Even though football is my favorite of the 4 major american team sports, I'd rank it 3rd behind basketball baseball if I had my choice of career playing. If skill is equal in all 3, you are going to make more money in the other sports, less wear and tear on your body, and you have better control of where you play. By the time you can pick where you want to go in the NFL, you probably have fewer than 5 yrs left in prime shape. WHile your career can go 10-15 years in the other 2.

But things aren't always even. Like I said about Deion in that 30 for 30. He was Deion in baseball. He was capable of decent living and maybe a few possible all-star games as a full time major leaguer. But in football, he was Prime Time. Mega superstar and personality who was one of the 100 best all time regardless of position. There is no doubt the NFL was the best decision.

[dkgo]

The NFL is king. Kids in the US grow up dreaming of being football players, mostly quarterbacks. From day one he is a star.

Being the #1 pick in the NFL compared to toiling away in minor league farm towns for a couple years then making the minimum for three seasons is an easy decision.

How can you say you have more control over where you play in baseball? They can stick you in the minors for three seasons then keep you for 6 years before you reach free agency.