Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

18788909293156

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭MrKingsley


    Obviously for the league its a money spinner and we shouldnt really expect anything more from them.

    But I don't see it as a massive problem regarding the quality in the playoffs.

    This is the first year I can remember, in quite a few, where one of the wildcard teams wasnt a complete dud. Even the Eagles who were butchered by injuries made a decent stab at it against the seahawks. At the end of the day it will be two more games that people dont need to watch if they dont want.

    Ive heard people saying that it will render more of the latter regular season games pointless meaning more starters will be benched for them. Then some people saying that the extra game will increase the risk of injuries and weaken the latter stages of the playoffs. Well i'm not sure it can go both ways in that regard.

    Surely if players are getting another rest week then they are giving their bodies a chance to heal. If they don't then we will be seeing starters throughout the entirety of the season.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,202 ✭✭✭Guffy


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    Just had a retrospective look. The extra wildcard games this year would have been:
    Steelers @ Chiefs
    Rams @ Packers

    Was expecting worse

    Steelers were pants this year


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Guffy wrote: »
    Steelers were pants this year

    In fairness they led the league in a lot of the defensive categories including sacks and turnovers and were brilliant to watch on that side of the ball. The fact that absolutely everyone got injured on offence was their issue, they were taking guys off other teams practice squads mid week and starting them on the Sunday at one stage. Even at that were they any worse than the eagles or rams? They beat the rams during the season.

    They’d have had no chance against the chiefs and I’d agree they would have added little to the post season but I’d still bet that game would have had one of the highest viewerships of the opening weekend. That’s what it comes down to for the league, more games, more tv money for everyone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Guffy wrote: »
    Steelers were pants this year

    Indeed though the Rams probably should have been in as inconsistent as they were. They were better than the battered Eagles who were largely in by default due to the state of the NFC east.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,091 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Guffy wrote:
    Steelers were pants this year

    And the Rams too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Extra teams in the playoffs is a joke imo.
    All you do is potentially move the bye week to weeks 16 and 17 of the regular season.
    If you are not going to get the first seed then what's the point in playing anybody the last week of the regular season. This could potentially have knock on consequences with so many teams making the playoffs. If you have two teams close together fighting for the second seed, and they are not interested as they end up meeting each other regardless if they win on wildcard weekend, and they are both playing wildcard contenders whilst another wildcard contenders is facing a full team it's quite unfair.

    Again, your logic here has been proved to be wrong based on how teams approach the current playoffs format.

    If your logic held we'd have all teams currently not caring and resting their players as soon as they fell out of contention of being 1st or 2nd seed.

    Home field advantage matters and teams do and will fight for it. In the new format by getting 2nd seed you are guaranteed every playoff game would be at home, aside from if you have to face the 1st seed. However, by coming 3rd seed it could mean you only get 1 game at home for the whole playoffs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    OAOB wrote: »
    Crazy to think that with the expanded playoffs every team from a division could make the post season, unlikely but possible

    With how the league is set up, there will always be potential for some very strange circumstances to happen

    As it stands right now a team with a losing record could make the playoffs, while a team with 4 or 5 more wins than them could miss out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Yeah whatever about diluting the quality, the argument that teams will down tools the moment the top seed is out of reach has no credible basis at all. It doesn’t happen now and won’t happen in the future.

    Some years a seventh seed will bring nothing to the party, some years they could make a run. Titans got in by the skin of their teeth this year and were able to make an impact for example. You just never know, any given Sunday and all that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Some years a seventh seed will bring nothing to the party, some years they could make a run. Titans got in by the skin of their teeth this year and were able to make an impact for example. You just never know, any given Sunday and all that.
    From a quick google search: Since the Wild Card System began in 1970, only ten wild card teams have advanced all the way to the Super Bowl. Of those, six won the Super Bowl.

    It’s a low percentage return which will be even less for the 7th seed when you add those weaker teams.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    From a quick google search: Since the Wild Card System began in 1970, only ten wild card teams have advanced all the way to the Super Bowl. Of those, six won the Super Bowl.

    It’s a low percentage return which will be even less for the 7th seed when you add those weaker teams.
    I doubt the statistics would be vastly better for the fourth and fifth seeds. Most seasons there is a handful of genuine contenders and the rest are hoping to pull off a surprise run like the Titans did this year. I don’t think a couple of extra games is going to ruin the sport or the post season, especially if the teams and players are supportive of it. Just a personal view.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    From a quick google search: Since the Wild Card System began in 1970, only ten wild card teams have advanced all the way to the Super Bowl. Of those, six won the Super Bowl.

    It’s a low percentage return which will be even less for the 7th seed when you add those weaker teams.

    How much of those low returns is because the wild card teams regularly must face 2 teams that are more rested than they are in order to get to the Super Bowl?

    In the new scenario, the number of teams with greater rest in each conference is halved, which should make a potential wild card run a lot more likely.

    Given the vast difference in strength of schedule between teams, the less teams with huge rest advantage on top of home field advantage the better.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    http://www.nfl.com/superbowlchamps/seeding

    Here is the breakdown of seeds (regardless of conference) of the champions: 1990-2012

    1 (9),
    2 (6),
    3 (1),
    4 (4),
    5 (1),
    6 (2).

    Adding 2013 to 2020
    1 (14),
    2 (8),
    3 (1),
    4 (4),
    5 (1),
    6 (2).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    I doubt the statistics would be vastly better for the fourth and fifth seeds. Most seasons there is a handful of genuine contenders and the rest are hoping to pull off a surprise run like the Titans did this year. I don’t think a couple of extra games is going to ruin the sport or the post season, especially if the teams and players are supportive of it. Just a personal view.
    I agree, which is why I don't want those extra teams in. It would hurt the regular season and post season IMO.
    Teams and players will see it as extra money, so they will want it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    The ESPN Daily podcast was great today and well worth a listen. It was about the stupidity that is the weight teams put into the size of a quarterback's hands.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,441 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Tony romo is staying with CBS and will be paid $17 million a year. I mean I think that's mad money for any commentator but also if it was offered to any of us we'd take it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,411 ✭✭✭✭Oat23


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Tony romo is staying with CBS and will be paid $17 million a year. I mean I think that's mad money for any commentator but also if it was offered to any of us we'd take it.

    ER59J9KX0AAlF7x?format=jpg&name=small


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,929 ✭✭✭raven136


    The ESPN Daily podcast was great today and well worth a listen. It was about the stupidity that is the weight teams put into the size of a quarterback's hands.


    Mina Kimes is a fantastic contributor on espn and well worth listening to


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Tony romo is staying with CBS and will be paid $17 million a year. I mean I think that's mad money for any commentator but also if it was offered to any of us we'd take it.

    What was his largest contract with Dallas?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭wawaman


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Tony romo is staying with CBS and will be paid $17 million a year. I mean I think that's mad money for any commentator but also if it was offered to any of us we'd take it.

    Romo and Nantz are the best duo by a mile


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,091 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    wawaman wrote:
    Romo and Nantz are the best duo by a mile
    They are very good but I prefer Michaels and Collinsworth. I like Tirico and Dungy too. Catalon and Lofton is a good pairing as well.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,441 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    wawaman wrote: »
    Romo and Nantz are the best duo by a mile

    I agree that cbs hit the jackpot with romo and Jim Nantz is well Jim nantz.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,456 ✭✭✭Shedite27


    Think I prefer Michaels/Collinsworth too, just a pity I never get to see the game they do at 1am


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭el Fenomeno


    Michaels and Collingwood have that "big game" feeling that the others don't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Michaels and Collingwood have that "big game" feeling that the others don't.

    The level of production/gimmickry from NBC helps too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭rebelyell99


    I find burkhardt and Charles Davies pretty good for fox ,would prefer them as the number 1 team for fox instead of buck and aikman.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    I find burkhardt and Charles Davies pretty good for fox ,would prefer them as the number 1 team for fox instead of buck and aikman.

    I've always been a fan of Kevin Burkhardt, going back to his Mets days.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,973 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    Where did Gus Johnson go? Is it basketball?

    I miss him :(



  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭rebelyell99


    he does college football for fox anyway .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1235334915924905985

    Seems daft. Easy win for the Chargers if it goes through.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,411 ✭✭✭✭Oat23




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,941 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,778 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    I'd safe it's safe to assume the draft will be delayed anyway.


  • Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You’d think they could still pick without the show just to keep things on track in case this is all over by September.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    You’d think they could still pick without the show just to keep things on track in case this is all over by September.

    Roger likes his hugs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,778 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    Roger likes his hugs.

    Along with his massive bags of dollars.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    CBA approved. 1019-959 so close enough in the end. Football until 2030!


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Given the pandemic this will likely turn out to be a good deal for players. Given the short/medium term uncertainty I doubt the owners would have improved it prior to 2020.

    Good news for a lot of teams with tight cap space. Expect a huge amount of movement in the next 2 days, as teams and players were holding off decisions based on whether this passes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Given the pandemic this will likely turn out to be a good deal for players. Given the short/medium term uncertainty I doubt the owners would have improved it prior to 2020.

    Good news for a lot of teams with tight cap space. Expect a huge amount of movement in the next 2 days, as teams and players were holding off decisions based on whether this passes
    What is the cap likely to be now Foxtrol? My Steelers are in dire cap straits


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    What is the cap likely to be now Foxtrol? My Steelers are in dire cap straits

    Up to $198.2m from $188.2m last season.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,770 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_


    Is there a list of what changes are in the cba?? Wasn't there a thing where the former patriots rb need disability to survive and the league are trying to change how/what the entitlements are


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    Is there a list of what changes are in the cba?? Wasn't there a thing where the former patriots rb need disability to survive and the league are trying to change how/what the entitlements are

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfls-new-cba-explained-a-look-at-all-the-roster-salary-and-season-changes/


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    What is the cap likely to be now Foxtrol? My Steelers are in dire cap straits

    As pointed out the change for next year is around what has been baked into most cap space estimates but the big help from the cba is for teams knowing there is a huge increase coming in the cap 2021. Teams can get through 2020 and just push salary to 2021 with the agreement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Calais Campbell to the Ravens for only a 5th. Jags blowing things up (again) but surprised they couldn't get more than that for him. Ravens will likely get at least that pick back for him if they don't extend him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,456 ✭✭✭Shedite27


    Extra wildcard team from next year
    17th regular season game from 2022 (or possibly 2021 or 23 but 22 makes most sense for broadcasting deals)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,770 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    As pointed out the change for next year is around what has been baked into most cap space estimates but the big help from the cba is for teams knowing there is a huge increase coming in the cap 2021. Teams can get through 2020 and just push salary to 2021 with the agreement.

    I saw the 198m figure before but there were vague reports that it would increase substantially this year once the deal was passed, I saw one report that stated it may go up as far as 230m, guess that’s for 2021 then?

    Being able to restructure high earners does help of course.


  • Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That Tannehill deal is mental.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    That Tannehill deal is mental.

    If anybody had told me this time last year that he’d be getting close to $30m per year I’d have laughed at them. Presumably the Titans will have an out at some stage, haven’t seen details on guarantees yet so it may not be as crazy as it seems.

    Great pickup by Baltimore with Campbell, they are tagging Judon as well so that is the pass rush sorted for 2020. That top Jags defence from 2016-18 is pretty much gone now, Ngakoue will probably be tagged and traded as well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    I saw the 198m figure before but there were vague reports that it would increase substantially this year once the deal was passed, I saw one report that stated it may go up as far as 230m, guess that’s for 2021 then?

    Being able to restructure high earners does help of course.

    Yes. 2021 is when it will move to 48% share, 48.5% if they go to 17 games. Saw estimates of up to 240m.

    It helps not only with restructuring, teams can just back load contracts for new players to sign. Would have been hard to risk either not knowing what the CBA was going to end up as.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,778 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    With the way the US is currently preparing for the Coronavirus I can see next season being postponed or even cancelled. Looking like the US is going to be hit very, very hard.


Advertisement