Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the NFL as fun to watch?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the NFL as fun to watch?

    For those of you old enough, do you think the NFL is as fun to watch today as it was in the 70's or 80's? I don't think it is, and I wonder why? Is it because I was a kid back then and it seemed larger than life, or has the game changed? If you were an adult in the 70's do you think the game has changed?
    If you love NFL stats and history
    pro-football-reference.com
    jt-sw.com/football

  • #2
    I agree, the sport has gone downhill in a big way. I blame the salaries for the most part. These guys decided they were no longer athletes but entertainers and needed huge salaries to match. Then the owners started making all these gay rules to protect their million dollar babies. If you watch a highlight film from the 80s or older you'll see HOFers doing a lot of things that today would be considered a personal foul.

    It's sad but what are you going to do? Watch soccer?

    Comment


    • #3
      I totally agree. I watch the Broncos only because they are my team and for me watching them is excitng. Besides the weekly bronco game the selection among the 15 games excluding bye weeks there is rarely an intriguing matchup.Most games seem to be either a low scoring borefest or one team just gets competely dominated. Then throw in ridiculous ticky tack penalties and the game play just gets unbearable at times.

      I think free agency has basically ruined pro sports. Most teams are just mercenary teams. You just hope your team for ONE season catches lightning in a bottle and wins.

      I have seen a trend recently in pro baseball and now maybe in pro football and that is teams now trying to keep their homegrown players and relying less on pricey free agent veterans.

      I hope the Broncos take this road and put all their eggs into the draft. Then they can fill in a position or two with a free agent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Do not blame the salaries, that was going to happen no matter what. I blame free agency; back in the day a player was drafted, farmed and raised with one organization unless he was traded. And now you can sign an entire team with F.A. and it has ruined the game IMHO. Trades are fun to watch, obviously and the draft was longer and more players were picked up, what is seven rounds was usually twelve. I would rather see a fifteen round draft then all this free agency BS. If they want to fix the game they should limit all teams to one or two free agent signings per year, of active NFL rostered players, no limit on UFA because they will need to be tried somewhere! But I would like to see longer-term contracts and tenures with a team, and longer drafts with the talent pool so deep the lack of it sometimes hurt good player's chances.

        Another issue is the pansy rules, such as no hitting the quarterback. Romonowski was right - it is now a ballerina league and not a man's league. I would love to see the game mentality as it was in the 80's: Remember the old Denver and Cleveland games? Or the old Oakland-Los Angeles and Denver games? That was football...

        Comment


        • #5
          I think the biggest change between today and the 70's and 80's is team turnover. I don't know the exact statistics but it seems like 25-30 % of the roster gets turned over every year. When Denver drafted Clinton Portis I thought that he would be our running back for 10 years or so. While I love Champ Bailey and what he has brought to the team, I would still like to see what 26 could do out there.

          In the 70's specifically we had the Doomsday Defense in Dallas, the Orange Crush in Denver, the Steel Curtain in Pittsburgh and the Purple People Eaters in Minnesota. Where are the great nicknames for the defenses these days? There arent any because players just dont play together for years and years anymore.
          A Mile High Salute to the greatest Broncos fan of them all.Tim"Barrelman"McKernan,you have given us so many wonderful memories seeing you in the stands of all the Denver Broncos games over the years supporting the team that we all love


          LETS WIN ONE SUNDAY FOR THE BARRELMAN! You will be missed

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree. The game has changed since they put QB's in skirts and bras. (LOL. thanks Terry )

            On the other hand, back in the good old days men didn't wear more jewelry and make-up than their wives did. (Ahem). Welcome to the Metrosexual Football League of America.

            We're having such a gay old time!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              I concur that the biggest difference between the NFL now and the NFL I watched as a kid is player turnover. Just 15-20 years ago, if you drafted a player in the first couple of rounds of a draft, barring that player being a complete bust, they would remain with the team that drafted them for 10 years minimum. That's unheard of in today's NFL. In many ways, it's a good thing, because it keeps the game compeitive and gives everyone a chance each and every season. But still, it's hard to get too attached to players these days when they're usually moved on 5 years down the line, if not sooner.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                I think the game has evolved, and as with everything, some changes are good and other bad.

                What I will say is that with age...one stops with the fandome and gets wrapped up in real life. No one here can say that they live the same life that they did 20 years ago.

                Speaking for myself, when I was younger, the Broncos had an aura around them, Elway, the 3 Amigos, Atwater, Mecklenburg.....the RARELY telivised game in Texas. When the Broncos were on the tube, that was a special occasion!

                I remember being 15 and watching the tickertape on ESPN, waitting to see the score scroll across the bottom of the screen. Watching Berman and waiting to see the 30 second highlight clip of the Broncos game, somedays I would fall asleep just waiting....

                Today we are satuerated with info about the team...NFL network, Sunday Ticket, Internet, Forums, 80 different papers...compile that with free agency, TV contracts, PR, sponsors, agents and other factors, and of course the game is going to change.

                With the good comes the bad.

                But I do love to watch our Broncos!
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Everything Changes

                  Through time, everything changes. And the changes have positive and negative aspects. I started watching NFL games in the early 1960's with my dad who was a huge Bears fan at that time. Pro football was very different then. It was the NFL that had all the good players so almost everyone followed that league. The AFL was still very young and didn't have very many star players. The pay was low no matter what league you played in. It wasn't about money, it was all about playing the game of pro football.

                  Then in the late 1960's and early 1970's, the media realized there was money to be made. A lot of money. The media started puting the players on pedestals and treating them as Gods. They began to put more focus on the player off the field than on the field. Anyone remember a player named Joe Namath? If you do then you know what I'm talking about.

                  Then came the 1980's. That's when the on field celebrating started. His name was Mark Gastineau, NY Jets defense end. He would sack the QB and then go into his taunting gyration leaping up and down like an animal around the QB. That's where todays no taunting rule was born.

                  From then on the "It's All About Me" generation started. Big egos and big money. I miss the days of Gale Sayers running into the end zone for a touchdown, handing the ball to the ref and with humbleness, trot back to the sideline and sit down on the bench. He did his job with no antics. Total class. I think one of the last great players to do that was Barry Sanders.

                  Football has changed and it is what it is. Like everything in life, it's all about $money$. But I still love watching pro football as much as I did 40+ plus years ago because it's a great game. :2cents:
                  Utah Bronco Freak

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mojo0730 View Post
                    I concur that the biggest difference between the NFL now and the NFL I watched as a kid is player turnover. Just 15-20 years ago, if you drafted a player in the first couple of rounds of a draft, barring that player being a complete bust, they would remain with the team that drafted them for 10 years minimum. That's unheard of in today's NFL. In many ways, it's a good thing, because it keeps the game compeitive and gives everyone a chance each and every season. But still, it's hard to get too attached to players these days when they're usually moved on 5 years down the line, if not sooner.
                    That's my biggest problem with the changes as well. There just aren't enough Elways, Nalens and Rod Smiths out there anymore. I loved having so many players stick with their teams for their entire careers.

                    Perhaps they could move to a semi-restricted free agency in that the player can sign a contract with any team but his current team has the right to match it, although there would be no compensation to the team should they choose not to retain the player.

                    That way the players would still get their big contracts but you'd have a lot more teams keeping their players longer. Eh, it'll never happen though.
                    "You can't take the sky from me..."
                    ------
                    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Javalon View Post
                      That's my biggest problem with the changes as well. There just aren't enough Elways, Nalens and Rod Smiths out there anymore. I loved having so many players stick with their teams for their entire careers.

                      Perhaps they could move to a semi-restricted free agency in that the player can sign a contract with any team but his current team has the right to match it, although there would be no compensation to the team should they choose not to retain the player.

                      That way the players would still get their big contracts but you'd have a lot more teams keeping their players longer. Eh, it'll never happen though.
                      Isnt that what "restricted free agency" is now? A player can get an offer from another team, and his current team has the right to match it, and stay with the team.

                      As for football...I love football. Yeah, its changed. The players have gotten faster, smarter, wealthier. I am envious that these men get paid millions of dollars to play this game.
                      I love the strategy, the drama, the dynamic plays.
                      The "old days" of football wouldnt be "the old days" if the same football was still being played. If the NFL never changed, it'd be ranked lower than baseball and basketball in this country.
                      Yes, its been marketed to within an inch of its life. The sheer amount of Peyton Manning commericals is enough to cause slight nausea. At least its not Brady, huh?

                      It is rare these days that players do stay with one team longer than a few years. So coaches have to be more adept to playing with the talent they have, rather than coaching the same talent year after year.
                      At some point in time, an infusion of youth is needed.

                      Thats why its so amazing what Shanny has done in this age of free agency and team turnover.

                      Even fans these days expect quick turnover, that one "instant impact" player that will make the entire team suddenly click. In this day and age of instant gratification, does anyone really think they would be happy with a league stuck in the 1980's?

                      Now I do agree the QB rule is a little iffy....but they are the core of any team, and we all know what happens to a team that doesnt have its QB. Many of the losing teams this year are there because of their QB woes. Plain and simple, protecting the QB is good competitive and economic sense.
                      sigpic
                      Adopted by: Peanut

                      "You find ways to win and certainly you can find ways to lose...it's not just dumb luck."
                      -Sean Payton

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BroncFanIN View Post
                        Isnt that what "restricted free agency" is now? A player can get an offer from another team, and his current team has the right to match it, and stay with the team.
                        Kind of. Except that the current team puts a tender on the player by offering a certain amount of money on a one year contract. They can dictate what kind of compensation they receive should they not match an offer by another team. That can be a deterrent to another team even making an offer to begin with.

                        My thought is that when a player would normally become an unrestricted free agent, he would instead become a semi-restricted free agent where the team could match any offer but would not get any compensation if they chose not to. That way, there would be no deterrent to another team offering the player more money than the original team might initially want to pay.
                        "You can't take the sky from me..."
                        ------
                        "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Javalon View Post
                          Kind of. Except that the current team puts a tender on the player by offering a certain amount of money on a one year contract. They can dictate what kind of compensation they receive should they not match an offer by another team. That can be a deterrent to another team even making an offer to begin with.

                          My thought is that when a player would normally become an unrestricted free agent, he would instead become a semi-restricted free agent where the team could match any offer but would not get any compensation if they chose not to. That way, there would be no deterrent to another team offering the player more money than the original team might initially want to pay.
                          Thanks for the clarification

                          Can't a team now, if a player goes as unrestricted, meet or exceed what the other team is offering? Or is that only under RFA?

                          I know with the prices going higher and higher that most teams dont match. But in some cases (Nalen comes to mind), they just sign new contracts and keep doing their jobs. Some never test the market. Its tough to find players like that.

                          It is sad to see players move on, but its also exciting to see what these players do with other teams. Clinton Portis comes to mind....so does TO and Randy Moss. Watching dynamic players make plays that change games is one of the best parts of the game.
                          sigpic
                          Adopted by: Peanut

                          "You find ways to win and certainly you can find ways to lose...it's not just dumb luck."
                          -Sean Payton

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BroncFanIN View Post
                            Thanks for the clarification

                            Can't a team now, if a player goes as unrestricted, meet or exceed what the other team is offering? Or is that only under RFA?
                            Only restricted. An unrestricted FA can sign with whomever he wants and the original team can't do a thing.

                            I know with the prices going higher and higher that most teams dont match. But in some cases (Nalen comes to mind), they just sign new contracts and keep doing their jobs. Some never test the market. Its tough to find players like that.

                            It is sad to see players move on, but its also exciting to see what these players do with other teams. Clinton Portis comes to mind....so does TO and Randy Moss. Watching dynamic players make plays that change games is one of the best parts of the game.
                            Trades become more important, and the Portis for Bailey thing would still have been huge. I think Moss has only been traded. But TO would still have been able to choose his team because he was cut from the Eagles.

                            There's also the possibilty of an NBA type rule where the original team can pay more money without increasing their salary cap figure. (I think I'm remembering that right.) That way the player gets even more money but the team can usually keep who they want by offering more money than another team can afford under the salary cap.
                            "You can't take the sky from me..."
                            ------
                            "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In short, IMHO, the game used to be about the name on the front of the shirt - Now it's about the name on the back.
                              "Oh I Have Slipped The Surly Bonds of Earth... Put Out My Hand And Touched the Face of God"

                              -Rest In Peace, Darrent & Damien

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X