American Football (NFL, College, etc.)

hitomi #1 wrote:
Texans once again find a way to lose, never mind marching down the field in less than a minute but they also had no timeouts! :usuck:

Houston's defense is a joke.

hitomi #1 wrote: but 2 of those 7-3 teams won't make the playoffs. :puppydog:

The NFC West has to 'steal' a playoff spot. :beaten:

Jav_sol wrote:
The NFC West has to 'steal' a playoff spot. :beaten:

Shame out that works out, Pats were 11-5 two seasons ago and didn't make the playoffs, had a better record than 2 of the division winners. :shamefulcry: AFC West may not have a team above .500 either, can't see the Chiefs keeping it up, only have one more game left against the NFC West. :bleh:

Jav_sol wrote:The NFC West has to 'steal' a playoff spot. :beaten:

At this point, no one from the NFC West deserves to be in the playoffs. :bleh:

hitomi #1 wrote:
Take away that big game against the Skins and his stats are no better than quite a few other QBs right now, no great game last night, only had a hand in one TD, should have killed the Giants considering they had 4 TOs. Still a long way to go but to me Rodgers and Brady would be 1 and 2, very few teams have had as many injuries as the Packers, key ones too, yet Rodgers still keeps leading them to wins. :applaud:

The game against the Giants was Vick's worst game, but he still passed for 258 yards. Actually, looking at his stats, he's had a 100+ QB rating in every game he's played in except for the Giants game and the Indy game in which he came close. IMO, at the moment Vick is playing the best of any QB in the NFL in terms of both rushing and passing.

mrsmith10 wrote:at the moment Vick is playing the best of any QB in the NFL in terms of both rushing and passing.

Truth be told, he's the only QB who rushes AND passes, so he's the best by default. :beaten:

^^ QB rating has to be the worst, most useless stat in pro sports. :mrgreen: Crayton for SD last night threw one pass, 0-1 was his line for the night and got a 39.8% QB rating? :bleh: How can someone get any kind of plus rating for doing nothing, all time QBs such as Unitas, Namath, Fouts are not even in the top 25 of all time for QB ratings, :doh: don't know people pay attention to it, think it's just more of a media thing. :grumble:

^That's only when you've thrown a low number of passes. Over the course of a long season, I think QB rating reflects pretty well how a QB did, and is usually consistent with the rest of the QB stats. If anything that passer ratings falls short on, it doesn't reflect a QB's running ability. As far as Namath and Unitas, it's really hard to compare and contrast them to todays QB's. Back then, players at practically every position were a lot smaller, and there weren't as many offensive and defensive schemes as there are today.

hitomi #1 wrote:^^ QB rating has to be the worst, most useless stat in pro sports. :mrgreen:

Joe Buck and Troy Aikman had the same discussion during the Packers-Vikings game and Aikman thought it was a very useful stat when comparing QBs.

All time Aikman was the 37th best QB according to the QB ratings. Guess that is a important measure than, Kyle Orton is ranked higher than Starr, Elway, Unitas, Bledsoe, Fouts, Tarkenton :nut: ... and Delhomme is even higher than Orton. :rofl:

PS- Can't complain about 4 of the top 5 though, in order: Rivers, Young, Romo(?), Manning, Brady.

hitomi #1 wrote:All time Aikman was the 37th best QB according to the QB ratings. Guess that is a important measure than, Kyle Orton is ranked higher than Starr, Elway, Unitas, Bledsoe, Fouts, Tarkenton :nut: ... and Delhomme is even higher than Orton. :rofl:

That's 'cause the QB ratings are based on individual stats, not team successes/failures.

bmwracer wrote:
That's 'cause the QB ratings are based on individual stats, not team successes/failures.

Yeah, that's true, think if they added in things like sacks and fumbles it'd be a truer measure of a QB's worth, nice to have a hot topic to talk about, :nut: coming up next is why Kitna should be a first ballot HOF. :mrgreen:

mrsmith10 wrote:
As far as Namath and Unitas, it's really hard to compare and contrast them to todays QB's. Back then, players at practically every position were a lot smaller, and there weren't as many offensive and defensive schemes as there are today.

There are a number of reasons why QBs today are putting up bigger numbers than the QBs of yesteryear. Back then pass blocking rules were much more restrictive than they are now (no open hands, no extended arms); at the same time pass rushing rules were less restrictive then (head slaps). Also, back then there was no five-yard bump rule for receivers that is in place now, plus pass interference is interpreted differently nowadays (in favor of the receiver). And QBs weren't protected by the officials the way they are now.

I've always felt that you can't compare players from different eras in terms of just statistics. Too many factors (like the ones I just listed) come into play. To gauge a player's greatness, I think you need to compare him to his peers during the time he played. Hardly anybody these days mentions Sammy Baugh or Otto Graham, but in their day, they were as dominant and head and shoulders above anyone else as Unitas and Starr were during their heyday, as Montana and Elway were during theirs. Baugh was not only the best passer of his era, but he was also the best punter and one of the best defensive backs (one year he led the league in passing, punting, and interceptions). Graham played ten years, led his team to ten championship games, and won seven of them.

^^ Good points, :applaud: the way the rules are now it's geared up to give the QBs and WRs such an advantage over the defense, lot of the stars you mentioned would have such a field day if they were playing with the same rules. :victory:
Lot of interesting games this week, shame none of them are tomorrow. Time to see if the Bucs are for real as they face the Ravens, same goes for the Falcons as they host the Packers, plus 2 great defenses are going against each other as the Bears entertain the Eagles. :sweat: Actually can't wait for the Monday night game, 49ers vs. the Cards...who thought that one up? :doh:

I agree that many of the rule changes, especially the ones aimed at protecting QB's, have helped QB ratings and inflate offensive stats. And this whole crappy crack down on illegal hits is going to make it easier to pick apart defenses.

mrsmith10 wrote:I agree that many of the rule changes, especially the ones aimed at protecting QB's, have helped QB ratings and inflate offensive stats. And this whole crappy crack down on illegal hits is going to make it easier to pick apart defenses.

It's not a crappy crackdown if it's an illegal hit.

bmwracer wrote:
It's not a crappy crackdown if it's an illegal hit.

Yes, too many off those hard hits are illegal, :twisted: real tackling is getting to be a lost art, though now also a defensive player is going to be not as aggressive, not really knowing if a hit will be legit or not. :muack:

It's crappy because the NFL overreacted to a handful of hits. I can understand enforcing the rules, but this is football. The Meriweather hit I can understand, but threatening to suspend players, for some of the hits that weren't even illegal (like the Dunta Robinson hit on DeSaun Jackson), you might as well change it to flag football. Honestly, it makes the NFL look hypocritical since they show the big hits and even sell DVDs of the top big hits. Plus the whole selling the photos of these illegal hits was tasteless.

^ Threatening to suspend players is the only way to change the mentality of how a player tries to tackle another player... The whole point is that your supposed to tackle a guy, not put him in the hospital.

^ Yes but that waters down the sport. This is football, and is the most violent sport besides hockey. IMO, if the NFL is so concerned about player safety, they should upgrade the equipment the players wear. Like making the safest helmet mandatory instead of allowing players to just wear whatever helmet they want. Or heck, crack down on incompetent QB's who are leaving their receivers hanging to dry in the middle of a zone defense.

mrsmith10 wrote:^ Yes but that waters down the sport.

Injuring players waters down the sport?

That's ridiculous.

Like making the safest helmet mandatory instead of allowing players to just wear whatever helmet they want.

All helmets in the NFL have to meet specific guidelines, huh?

The team's organization buys the helmets, not the players.

Or heck, crack down on incompetent QB's who are leaving their receivers hanging to dry in the middle of a zone defense.

Even the best QBs throw into the middle, huh?

Maybe all defensive players should only have soft/leather or no helmets: that would make them think twice about leading with their helmets when tackling. :P