Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

NFL 2009

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Up by popular demand and all that. Actually any more news, but one, will mostly ahve an effect this year, and so....

Let's begin by a little mythbusting, or at least by poking holes in some cliches:

1) The goal this year is to unseat the Steelers from their place as NFL Champions.

Humbug! Most teams won't even play the Steelers, and only three will certainly depend on how Pittsburgh does (the teams in the AFC North). So it's not like 30 teams are united in a crusade against the Steelers (I say thrity because naturally Pittsburgh ins't against itself, and Detroit has no chanc eof doing anything at all).

No, the goal for every team remains what it always is: win the Superbowl. This goal has a set of sub-goals like win the division, get home-field advantage, rebuild the lines, get a good QB, fix the running game, get into the playoffs, etc etc.

2) When two teams with top QBs play each other we often see the phrase "the top two QBs in the league pitted against each other." This very dramatic headline-style catch-phrase overlooks the fact that the quarterbacks faces the other team's defense, not the other team's offense. So the top-talented QBs don't face each other at al during the game.

their actions influence the result, yes, and they play against each other insofar as their teams play each other, but there's no pitting, no duel, no face-off between the richest (usually) guys on the teams. This is understood when two top runningbacks play on opposite teams; in fact it's understood for every position. You never heard of Franco Harris going up against Tony Dorset, after all. So there :P

3) Every game counts. Well, duh. Of course they all count. It's a season and the record is won vs lost games. So naturally they all count. We may as well emphasize that water is wet and soapy water is wetter. Still, not all games count the same. Intradivisional games count almost double, since it's a win for you and a loss for a team that wants to take the top of your division. And various games weigh differently as tie-breakers. But that's another matter.

4) It's not over til it's over (I think a baseball player came up with that one). Again it's belaboring the obvious, in a way, but it's also what announcers say to keep you from changing the channel. Lots of games end long before the fourth quarter is half over, they're just not official unitl they are over.

5) Try and lay off the officials. Sure it's fun to depict them as blind, deaf and especially dumb specimens of some sort of quasi-human genus, but, really, they do good work 90% of the time. In a complex game with a rulebook that rivals the U.S. Tax Code that's no small feat.

Last year Referee Ed Hochuli(SP?) made a hell of a blunder in Denver vs San Diego, yes, but he was man enough to admit it and to place the blame squarely on himself. Move on.

Try this: count the times the anouncers complain about a bad call by the zebras, only to admit the officials were right after replaying the call a few times. So there you see an experienced NFL official often makes the right call live, on the move, under pressure, even if it takes less well-trained eyes mutltiple slo-mo replays to see it.

Finally we may be on the verge of some real history, as the Steelers pursue their 7th Superbowl title. More on that later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, the draft has come and gone (live on NFL Network, which I didn't watch). I've not followed it much, and know little about the people drafted. In the end what the players do once they play is what really matters.

Concerning this, NFL Net. did have a few interesting shows in their Top Ten series. Specifically top ten draft busts, and top ten draft classes. A draft bust is a player chosen in the first round who performs well below expectations. The top spot went to Ryan Leaf (who?) A draft class means a bunch of players drafted the same year by the same team. The top spot? the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1974 (I think), when they drafted Mike Webster, Lynn Swan, John Stallworth and Jack Lambert (and Donnie Shell post-draft as a free agent). They were all part of the Steeler dynasty that won 4 Superbowls, and four of them are in the Hall of Fame.

There was a lot of talk about the Jets' first pick. We'll see. I remember a lot of talk about Vinnie Testaverde, too, and we all know how that turned out. We also heard a lot about Brett Favre's triumphal post-retirement return. Talk is cheap (free, really).

But if anyone can comment intelligntly on the draft, pleas go right ahead.

Meantime, there are still four months and some days to go before September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How 'bout dem Cowboys? :lol:

They're scheduled to play officially in their new stadium against the Giants in, if memory serves, week 2. they really should have opened the season in that magnificent new building, but what can you do? We'll just have to wait for week 2 to see the Cowboys loose for the first time in their new stadium. I can wait that long :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Eagles came away from the draft pretty well on paper. They got the #2 WR in Maclin (thanks to Al Davis being a moron- more on that in a moment), which adds another speedy playmaker/kick returner to complement Jackson. LeSean McCoy was also a steal of a pick in the 2nd round, a quality RB to share the load with Westbrook. They also got a TE in Ingram, who fell far further than anyone expected. My favorite moment was when they picked up Hobbs from NE for 2 5th round picks (the Eagles had 6 of them at the time...), which gives them an extra potential starting CB if Brown gets his way, whining himself out of town.

Thinking of Sheldon, I find it funny how players sign long-term contracts and then want them reworked for more money if they perform. If they perform under expectations, they never offer to give any money back or have a lower salary. I'm glad the Eagles' stance is "You signed the contract, trading potential money for long-term security. Deal with it."

As for the Broncos, I have no idea what the hell their thinking is. They don't use their 2 #1s to trade up for Sanchez; instead they take a RB which gives them 7 at the moment (and no good quarterback!). McDaniels then seems to think he can copy Belichick and get a stud QB in the 6th round (yeah, right). They get a quality DE in Ayers from the Cutler trade, and then throw the other first to Seattle to draft Alphonso Smith. It works out to Cutler for Orton, Ayers, and Smith. That looks like a huge win for Chicago.

The Raiders have to get some kind of an award for the worst draft possible. They pick the #3 WR in the draft at #7 overall when they easily could've traded down 15 spots and still gotten him. They then pick a guy in the 2nd round who was projected to go undrafted or in the 7th round. Then again, after Al Davis decided to waive his only Pro Bowl defensive player in the middle of the season, I expect nothing less from them.

I do find it funny that the Lions threw $42 million guaranteed at Matthew Stafford. For every Eli Manning, there are plenty of Ryan Leafs, Akili Smiths, Tim Couchs, David Carrs, and even their own Joey Harrington. Young QBs tend to fail when they have weak o-lines to protect them, bad coaches to learn from, and no players to throw to. That doesn't stop history from repeating itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Raiders have to get some kind of an award for the worst draft possible.

Didn't Mike Ditka at New Orleans once trade all his picks for an earlier first round pick?

The Raiders' problem lies in not being able to draft a new owner. Al Davis had his day, but he's been in decline for years.

I do find it funny that the Lions threw $42 million guaranteed at Matthew Stafford. For every Eli Manning, there are plenty of Ryan Leafs, Akili Smiths, Tim Couchs, David Carrs, and even their own Joey Harrington. Young QBs tend to fail when they have weak o-lines to protect them, bad coaches to learn from, and no players to throw to. That doesn't stop history from repeating itself.

If he does well the Lions will look like a visionary team with clever management and coaching staff. On the other hand, the Lions have been a consistently bad team for years for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also really liked the Eagles draft. Maybe they should have taken one of the more less-risky TE's as Ingram has had some issues, but all in all i cant remember getting this many guys with that much potential. The funniest thing about the people who complain about the Maclin pick, is that he is too similar to Desean Jackson, as if that was a bad thing. I mean, defenses would be scared shitless if two quick small receivers who can run miles after the catch line up against them, and considering that McNabb always gets his yardage by these short dink und dunk passes it doesnt really sound too bad to have Maclin run miles after the catch just like Westbrook and Jackson. Also, Maclin just like Jackson doesnt seem to have that annoying wide receiver disorder, where they think they are the greatest before they have ever accomplished anything.

I've never discussed sports with Objectivists before, so im interested in what you think about this question: Who is the best NFC East quarterback?

I personally would choose McNabb as no.1, and not just because im an Eagles fan. The reason being, despite him never winning the "big one", McNabb is the only one who doesnt consistantly lose games for his team. McNabb may not be clutch, but if my teams QB was Tony Romo i would go crazy. It is actually impossible to win with Romo, no matter how good he may look from time to time. Obviously you could make a case for Eli Manning, as he has a superbowl, but last year wasnt good for him, and he really benefits from having a great o-line.

This being said, i think 2009 is the year to put up or shut up for McNabb. He now has his o-line, with the Peters and Stacey Andrews acquisitions, and he has new weapons in Maclin, McCoy and even possibly Ingram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raiders are getting a lot of heat on this draft, the 2nd round choice is a stopwatch pick but I like Heyward-Bey....

He was the only one who played in a pro-style offence, so he has less of a learning curve and this is probably why his numbers weren't as high. He was also the fastest and one of the quickest. Cable guy said he runs the best routes of any receiver in that top 4. I guess we'll see...

Edited by Seanjos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never discussed sports with Objectivists before, so im interested in what you think about this question: Who is the best NFC East quarterback?

Does it matter? The NFC East teams suffer, as you noted, from other problems.

I thin overall a little too much weight is given to quarterbacks. Surely it's better to have a good QB, but it's best to have a good team. I keep coming back to the Steelers, who've won two Superbowls with a merely adequate QB, a merely adequate offense, a ferocius defense and a good palce kicker.

Obviously you could make a case for Eli Manning, as he has a superbowl, but last year wasnt good for him, and he really benefits from having a great o-line.

I'd amke the case for Eli Manning solely on the magnificent play near the end of Superbowl LXI. That has to be one of the greatest plays ever by a QB in any game. He shook off at least two sacks and connected reasonably well with his receiver, and kept the drive alive.

This being said, i think 2009 is the year to put up or shut up for McNabb. He now has his o-line, with the Peters and Stacey Andrews acquisitions, and he has new weapons in Maclin, McCoy and even possibly Ingram.

That's one problem about putting too many eggs in the QB's basket: fans expect him to carry the team regardless of other factors. I won't tell you I hope McNabb wins the Big One this year, because I hope the Steelers will. But I wouldn't mind seeing Philly carry the division and then loosing to Pittsburgh in the Superbowl. No, I wouldn't mind it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thin overall a little too much weight is given to quarterbacks. Surely it's better to have a good QB, but it's best to have a good team. I keep coming back to the Steelers, who've won two Superbowls with a merely adequate QB, a merely adequate offense, a ferocius defense and a good palce kicker.

Well, it is true that QB's are sometimes given too much importance, but there's no dispute over the fact that it is clearly the most important position in football. Obviously you can win with a mediocre offense and a monster defense(the 2000 Ravens), but you cant really have a good offense without a good QB. I mean, QB is the only position where you can with almost full certainty before the season say which QB will not ever win a single super bowl(as a starter). There has been pretty much 1 such QB to win the SB, and that was Trent Dilfer with the 2000 Ravens, who probably had the best defense in NFL history. That cant be said about any other position.

Id actually argue that running back is the most overhyped position. I dont mean the running game, consisting of good run blocking and good runners, but instead the importance that teams (used to) put on having that marquee back. The Vikings are a good example. No quarterback, no success. If they had a Tom Brady, or even an Eli Manning, they would be a real superbowl contender every year. With no such QB, they barely make .500, even with an Adrian Peterson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is true that QB's are sometimes given too much importance, but there's no dispute over the fact that it is clearly the most important position in football.

How do you measure a QB? As a leader, as a reader of defenses, as a tactician, or by his throwing, running and sack stats?

Mostly I think people use the latter (it's what the QB rating measures, after all). That's important, sure, as the QB is half of the passing game, but it's not all there is. Plenty of QBs with impressive stats simply dind't win enough games, or didn't win enough important (ie playoff) games.

Consider Dan Marino. As far as accuracy, distance, consistency and avoiding sacks, he's inarguably among the top five quarterbacks to ever play. But he made it to just one Superbowl and won none. Why? Did he lack something a QB should have, or did he lack a better team to take full advantage of his talents.

On the other hand consider Ben Roethlisberger. No mystery there: Pittsburgh won Superbowl XL in spite of Big Ben's rotten play (probably the worst sowing ever by a winning QB in the Superbowl). They won because of the defense, the running game and a measure of bad play by the Seahwaks. But Ben goes farther than that. He won 14 straight games in his rookie year, without racking up impressive numbers. he made it all the way to the AFC Championship, too (which the Steelers lost). Again because he had a good team around him.

Id actually argue that running back is the most overhyped position.

Oh, no. The most overhyped position is officially named Terrel Owens :)

Seriously, a good runingback can overcome a mediocre offensive line, and a good RB can extract many more rushing yards from any kind of line than an average back. All the greats ahd good lines (Simpson, Sayers, Payton, Harris, Dickerson, Campbell, etc), but they all also ahd other backs on their team, ones who didn't amount to much (except Harris who had Bleier).

But if a great QB, like Marino, is no guarantee for wins, a great RB is even less so. Simpson had his best years in one of the worst teams of his time. Peyton managed to hang on long enough to get on a winning Bears team.

The Vikings are a good example. No quarterback, no success. If they had a Tom Brady, or even an Eli Manning, they would be a real superbowl contender every year. With no such QB, they barely make .500, even with an Adrian Peterson.

You know, I wouldn't mind trying ut that experiment. Alas, it ain't gonna happen. Maybe if they ahd snapped up Matt Cassel....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Vikings are a good example. No quarterback, no success. If they had a Tom Brady, or even an Eli Manning, they would be a real superbowl contender every year. With no such QB, they barely make .500, even with an Adrian Peterson.

Speaking of that, what do you make of the Second Un-Retirement of Brett Favre? The Vikings are mentioned as the likely recipient.

Personally I think it's a lot of noise and some fantasy, mostly by Vikings fans. Favre showed last season he really is through. He was still good, he'd still be good, but his days of greatness are all in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest news about the Second Un-Retirement of Brett Favre is he's not coming back, either with the Vikings or anyone else.

good. Let's hear if for the Non-Un-Retirement of Brett Favre. He deserves to be remembered as one of the game's greats, not as the over-the-hill star who hung on well past time to go. If he misses the game he should try coaching or getting a job as a comentator. He's popular enough still to have all networks fight over him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest news about the Second Un-Retirement of Brett Favre is he's not coming back, either with the Vikings or anyone else.

good. Let's hear if for the Non-Un-Retirement of Brett Favre. He deserves to be remembered as one of the game's greats, not as the over-the-hill star who hung on well past time to go. If he misses the game he should try coaching or getting a job as a comentator. He's popular enough still to have all networks fight over him.

I can respect Favre's accomplishments (especially his interception record :)) but I've never been a fan. It could have gotten real entertaining for the NFC North had he returned, and I think I would have rooted for him. I almost wonder if this was some sort of stunt planned by both Favre and Minnesota, for mutually held reasons of inciting the fan base. Minnesota has a terrible time of selling out its stadium, and their games are always threatened with a local blackout; and Favre hurt his fan base somewhat when he returned to the game last year, especially with rumors that he really wanted to go to Minnesota. In this latest Favre saga, Minnesota definitely increased their fan interest in the team, and Favre can show his fans that he's still loyal to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I while I'm fairly certain it isn't going to happen, I think it would be awesome to see Favre go to the Vikings. I say this sincerely, not as one of those bitter Packer fans who wants Favre to fail in purple. He can produce more than their current quarterbacks for at least half a season, and he doesn't need to worry about his old man circulation problems in cold weather under a dome... He could help the Vikings hold out until Vick is available! :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minnesota has a terrible time of selling out its stadium, and their games are always threatened with a local blackout;

If they didn't regret the domed stadium five milliseconds after it opened, they sure regret it now. I mean, what's the use of having inclement weather at home if you can't use it late in the season and in the playoffs? That has hurt the Vikes worse than the absence of Favre.

In this latest Favre saga, Minnesota definitely increased their fan interest in the team, and Favre can show his fans that he's still loyal to them.

Unfortunately it peaked a few weeks too soon, like half the off-season too soon still. That's bad publicity (yes, there is such a thing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they didn't regret the domed stadium five milliseconds after it opened, they sure regret it now. I mean, what's the use of having inclement weather at home if you can't use it late in the season and in the playoffs? That has hurt the Vikes worse than the absence of Favre.

Unfortunately it peaked a few weeks too soon, like half the off-season too soon still. That's bad publicity (yes, there is such a thing).

They would have a worse time selling out the stadium if it wasn't a dome. This is actually talked about often between Green Bay and Minnesota fans, Green Bay fans always willing to hate anything domed, as if it's necessarily good or something. Most of the Viking fans I've heard engage in conversation on this topic will openly say that they're glad there's a dome, and they would probably not even consider going to a winter game if there wasn't a dome--they'll openly admit that it's too cold. You have to realize that it gets -10 degrees, with windchill -20 degrees, frequently in Minnesota during the winter time; a Viking stadium without a dome would make the 'Frozen Tundra' look like a joke. Actually, the Minnesota Twins just built a new baseball stadium to replace the dome stadium they previously used, and during Baseball opener season, Twins fans were concerned that it's going to be too cold for next season's opener. One of the operators of the Twins even threw the idea to the public that they would talk to the Baseball commissioner, and try to play their opener games at the away stadium because of the cold.

Another thing about the publicity, if it indeed was an act of publicity, is that Minnesota's QB is probably feeling less confidant than ever before :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would have a worse time selling out the stadium if it wasn't a dome.

Having the dome spoiled the fans. How many years did they fill the old stadium in winter?

a Viking stadium without a dome would make the 'Frozen Tundra' look like a joke.

That's the whole point. Lots of mild and warm weather teams ahve a hell of a time in postseason at cold stadiums. Miami, for example. I wonder if they'd have beaten New England more often if the Pats had a domed place. Of course the Pats aren't idiots.

Actually, the Minnesota Twins just built a new baseball stadium to replace the dome stadium they previously used, and during Baseball opener season, Twins fans were concerned that it's going to be too cold for next season's opener.

Baseball ins't a sport, anyway, just a way for fans to get drunk in more or less safe and pleasant surroundings. I know the MLB declares a national emergency if a raindrop dares fall within a mile of one of their "games," but if they're going to complain about mere cold, without precipitation), they should pack it in and spare us their spectacle alltogether.

Another thing about the publicity, if it indeed was an act of publicity, is that Minnesota's QB is probably feeling less confidant than ever before :dough:

It was publicity, but maybe it wasn't deliberate. I mean, no one alive in the post-New Coke era could possibly make such a blunder of a marketing move (except Barack Obama's White House Military Office). more ikely some Viking coaching staff or executives were day-dreaming out loud and were heard by a reporter or a "source."

Minnesota's QB has little to be confident about anyway, Favre or no Favre.

And I still say a good team is worth more than two great quarterbacks. If the Steelers win another Superbowl they'll prove it beyond any doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having the dome spoiled the fans. How many years did they fill the old stadium in winter?

The Vikings played at Metropolitan Stadium, their old stadium, from 1961 to 1981. I'm not sure how well the stadium sold in the winter but it was a very small stadium, which was another reason why they built the Metrodome. The Metropolitan Stadium started as a minor league baseball stadium, which only held 18,000, and for the first year of the Vikings in 1961, held around 30,000. As time went on, they added capacity to around 48,000. Given the small size of the stadium and their constant work to increase capacity, they probably didn't have much problem filling it.

I did some searching on the new Viking Stadium, an idea they're throwing around, and came across this.

The initial proposal does not have the final architectural design renderings, but did include key features that are to be included in any final plan --including the plans for neighboring urban development. These include demands for a retractable-roof, an open view of the surroundings (particularly the downtown skyline), a glass-enclosed Winter Garden alongside the already-existing adjacent Metrodome light-rail stop, leafy urban square with outdoor cafes and dense housing around its edges, aesthetic improvements to roads connecting the stadium to nearby cultural institutions, and adaptive reuse of neighboring historic buildings.

So, it looks like they're going to keep their sanity and have some sort of climate control with the roof. This will also allow them to keep hosting other events: Super Bowl, NCAA Basketball Tournament, etc...

That's the whole point. Lots of mild and warm weather teams ahve a hell of a time in postseason at cold stadiums. Miami, for example. I wonder if they'd have beaten New England more often if the Pats had a domed place. Of course the Pats aren't idiots.

I know that there is some effect that the cold has on the players, but I don't put much weight behind any such advantage. Look at Minnesota and Green Bay: Although Minnesota did better in the Metropolitan Stadium than the Metrodome, I wouldn't say they did so much better for overall results--MN did have a long streak of winning their division in their old stadium; Green Bay, however, has always had long streaks of unfruitful seasons, and they've always played in an open stadium. In fact, after the AFL-NFL merger, when football began to matter, Green Bay didn't do much of anything; from 1970 until 1993 (the year they started getting good again) they only went to the playoffs twice, and won one game in the post-season.

Baseball ins't a sport, anyway, just a way for fans to get drunk in more or less safe and pleasant surroundings. I know the MLB declares a national emergency if a raindrop dares fall within a mile of one of their "games," but if they're going to complain about mere cold, without precipitation), they should pack it in and spare us their spectacle alltogether.

I've only been to one baseball game, and that was a minor league game in Miami, just before the Florida Marlins expanded into the MLB. The way you describe it though makes me want to attend a game :P

It was publicity, but maybe it wasn't deliberate. I mean, no one alive in the post-New Coke era could possibly make such a blunder of a marketing move (except Barack Obama's White House Military Office). more ikely some Viking coaching staff or executives were day-dreaming out loud and were heard by a reporter or a "source."

Minnesota's QB has little to be confident about anyway, Favre or no Favre.

And I still say a good team is worth more than two great quarterbacks. If the Steelers win another Superbowl they'll prove it beyond any doubt.

It looks like the saga continues:

ESPN, again citing unnamed sources, reported X-rays of Favre’s injured right shoulder have been sent to the Vikings for evaluation. The network said Favre will play for Minnesota if it’s determined he doesn’t need major surgery. If he does, according to the source, he’ll stay retired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that there is some effect that the cold has on the players, but I don't put much weight behind any such advantage.

The Vikings reached, and lost, four Superbowls while playing at the old, open stadium. None with the domed stadium. Part of that is they were a better team in the 70s, but part must also be they gave away the bigger part of their home field advantage.

I've only been to one baseball game, and that was a minor league game in Miami, just before the Florida Marlins expanded into the MLB. The way you describe it though makes me want to attend a game :P

Why not try something more exciting? Definitely something more interesting. Buy some wooden boards, a can of paint (any color) and enough of your favorite alcoholic drink. Paint the boards, then sit down and drink while you watch the paint dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Vikings reached, and lost, four Superbowls while playing at the old, open stadium. None with the domed stadium. Part of that is they were a better team in the 70s, but part must also be they gave away the bigger part of their home field advantage.

Why not try something more exciting? Definitely something more interesting. Buy some wooden boards, a can of paint (any color) and enough of your favorite alcoholic drink. Paint the boards, then sit down and drink while you watch the paint dry.

I forgot about those super bowls because they lost those games. Definitely a good team in that decade though. Off topic, but all of those super bowl losses remind me of the Buffalo Bills, who have had so much hate thrown on them--at least by NFL fans I know (except one Bills fan)--for losing their super bowls; however, there's no doubt that if a team wins four conference championships in a row, they should be considered pretty damn good.

I would try that, but I'm sure that paint fumes and alcohol wouldn't mix very well. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot about those super bowls because they lost those games. Definitely a good team in that decade though. Off topic, but all of those super bowl losses remind me of the Buffalo Bills,

The Bills were the best AFC team for half the decade. They just weren't the best NFL team in any year. Much the same can be said for the Vikings. Curious, they were both cold weather teams with open stadiums.

I would try that, but I'm sure that paint fumes and alcohol wouldn't mix very well. :)

Fine. Take a stretch of lawn and mow it, then sit and drink while you watch it grow back. That provides more action than a baseball game, too, and is be less boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

We interrupt the ongoing Wacko Jacko flamewar to.... well, for no good reason, really. There isn't much going on at this point int he NFL.

Anyway, we're only a little over a month away from the start of the pre-season (snore!) Actually pre-season games are better than no football, but it's hard to spot the difference. They are better than the Pro-Bowl, but almost anything short of baseball or soccer is.

There's talk of lenghtening the seson by one or two games next year, eliminating one or two pre-season games to accomodate the longer schedule. A panel fo former players and one ex-coach on NFL Network did raise an interesting point: the purpose of lenghtening the season would be to increase revenue, would then players be paid more and would the salary cap be increased?

The Brett Favre situation is still unresolved. I stopped caring a while back. I will, however, make on prediction: with or without Favre, the Vikings will remain the Vikings and won't reach the Superbowl. That team needs a lot more than just a good QB.

Happily there's no talk of enlarging the playoffs again :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've been traveling for work, and the NFL network has been even more erratic than usual scheduling NFL access so getting any NFL news has been hard, but tentatively it seems Brett Favre declined to join the Minnesota Vikings and will stay retired (for the time being, anyway).

I hope this is the last we hear of it. I like Favre and admire him. He was one of the great ones of the game and should be remembered like that. But he's reached the end of his run. One rather unremarkable season with the Jets does not dimminsih his life's accomplishments, but one more such season with a mediocre team would begin to. Maybe he can make it as a QB coach, though I doubt it: how many of the great QBs excelled at coaching? There was Norm van Brocklin, but I can't hitnk of no one else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been traveling for work, and the NFL network has been even more erratic than usual scheduling NFL access so getting any NFL news has been hard, but tentatively it seems Brett Favre declined to join the Minnesota Vikings and will stay retired (for the time being, anyway).

I hope this is the last we hear of it. I like Favre and admire him. He was one of the great ones of the game and should be remembered like that. But he's reached the end of his run. One rather unremarkable season with the Jets does not dimminsih his life's accomplishments, but one more such season with a mediocre team would begin to. Maybe he can make it as a QB coach, though I doubt it: how many of the great QBs excelled at coaching? There was Norm van Brocklin, but I can't hitnk of no one else.

Yeah, Favre said he was going to stay retired. I must admit that I've only recently--past year or so--started to respect Favre's quarterback achievements; however, that respect was diminished after this Minnesota debacle. Whoever Farvre's manager is needs to be fired, because he is obviously making big mistakes or not giving Favre good advice, or Favre is just a moron prima donna. Some will say that it's the journalists or Minnesota's fault for this whole story, but that is crap. The decision should have been made long ago by Favre over whether to play or not. The last straw was when the self imposed deadline came and went last friday, and Favre said that he couldn't make up his mind. The media was then told that it would be another week before Favre would make his decision. A couple of days later he finally went public with the decision to stay retired. As if a couple of days before he didn't know if he was or wasn't going to play. I will probably ignore whatever Favre has to say from here on out for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...