Vikings Message Board.Com

I have to agree, that the "all about me" syndrome is very prevalent in the NFL and it is a detriment to the quality of play. I stopped following the NBA a few years back for this same reason. How many morons do I have to watch doing a sack dance when there team is behind by 30 points? NBA basketball became little more then street-ball performed by a bunch of narcisistic prima dona's. I hope the NFL does abetter job of preserving the beauty of a TEAM sport but also needs to protect patients from preventable severe head trauma. Its not an easy task.

fiestavike wrote: again, compared to the rules today, the rules may appear to "benefit the defense", but unless you can demonstrate that the rules were changed for the purpose of lowering scores at any point in league history, it is a false claim [and it is a false claim]. the rules at any given point were simply the rules at that point, until the rules were changed for the express purpose of benefiting the offense, beginning in the 70s and reaching a point of absurdity in recent years. In any objective sense the rules have never benefited the defense. Only in a comparative sense.

I would have to disagree with this. Just because the rules were once one way, that does not mean that they were not skewed towards the defensive side of the ball. Also, if the rules were skewed towards letting defensive players get away with too much, then rule changes were not favoring the offense, they were favoring fair competition.

Claiming that the rules only appear to benefit the defense in comparison to today's rules is unfair; otherwise Purpnation could say that today's rules only appear to benefit the offense in comparison to the old rules. They are different faces of the same argument.

It is true that for the last 100 years more rules have been implemented that favors the offense, but it is not true that the rules never favored the defense.

DKSweets wrote:I would have to disagree with this. Just because the rules were once one way, that does not mean that they were not skewed towards the defensive side of the ball. Also, if the rules were skewed towards letting defensive players get away with too much, then rule changes were not favoring the offense, they were favoring fair competition.

Claiming that the rules only appear to benefit the defense in comparison to today's rules is unfair; otherwise Purpnation could say that today's rules only appear to benefit the offense in comparison to the old rules. They are different faces of the same argument.

It is true that for the last 100 years more rules have been implemented that favors the offense, but it is not true that the rules never favored the defense.

When and how did the rules ever favor defense over offense? There's a difference between the rules once being more favorable to defenses then they are now and the rules actually favoring defense over offense. I can't think of a period in NFL history where the rules actually favored defense over offense.

DKSweets wrote: I would have to disagree with this. Just because the rules were once one way, that does not mean that they were not skewed towards the defensive side of the ball. Also, if the rules were skewed towards letting defensive players get away with too much, then rule changes were not favoring the offense, they were favoring fair competition.

That doesn't make any sense unless you can demonstrate that they were skewed to benefit the defense at some point.

Claiming that the rules only appear to benefit the defense in comparison to today's rules is unfair; otherwise Purpnation could say that today's rules only appear to benefit the offense in comparison to the old rules. They are different faces of the same argument.

Its not unfair, its a proof that his argument was totally subjective. You have gone ahead and illustrated the implication of the argument for me.

It is true that for the last 100 years more rules have been implemented that favors the offense, but it is not true that the rules never favored the defense.

In an objective sense, I think its fair to say that they rules never favored the defense. In a subjective sense you can say whatever you want about anything in the world, but it doesn't mean it has any merit.

i dont think it was ever a league that favored the defense heavily but it is CERTAINLY a league that heavily favors a passing offense now. It is far from close to being neutral and will create exactly what the NFL brain trust wants...absurdly high scoring and a tidal wave of penalties against defensive.

How can one think that a league where O lineman cant use their hands, while D lineman can smack them in the head, and DBS are holding WRs 30 yards downfield, isn't favoring Defense is beyond me.

Purpnation wrote:How can one think that a league where O lineman cant use their hands, while D lineman can smack them in the head, and DBS are holding WRs 30 yards downfield, isn't favoring Defense is beyond me.

Just how far back are you looking? Unless you're looking further back than most of us were around to see, o-lineman could use their hands. They just couldn't extend their hands when blocking. Holding a receiver 30 yards downfield was still a penalty. The head slap was outlawed in '77. Heck, the rule that defenders were only permitted to make contact with eligible receivers once was also implemented in '77.

The rules have gradually changed to reduce injuries, encourage passing and increase scoring. It's obvious that the latter two changes favor offense and that can be seen in the results. They were once more favorable to defenders than they are now but overall they didn't favor the defense over the offense.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... s-to-watch

Good piece by Judy Batista
Aerial obsession: Why the passing game is king

worth reading the whole thing.

When Andrew Luck and the Indianapolis Colts face the New England Patriots on Sunday night, the quarterback will need 342 yards passing to remain on pace to break the single-season record for passing yards (5,477) -- which was set last season by Peyton Manning.


When the Green Bay Packers host the Philadelphia Eagles earlier on Sunday, Aaron Rodgers will try to notch another six-touchdown game. There have already been three this season, as many as there were in the entire decade of the 1990s.

Entering Week 11, 6,862 points have been scored, the most through the first 10 weeks in NFL history. The previous high? Set last season (6,836). Passers have thrown 499 touchdown passes this season, the most ever at this point in the season. The old record was set last season, too -- and has been shattered by 37 touchdown passes.

The nfl definitely needs to do something about these blowouts. Halfway through the 3rd quarter, fox's so called "game of the week," switched over to the lions/cardinals, and thank god. I was actually watching the season finale of nascar before they did this. High scoring is fine on a few occasions, but what the patriots, packers, Broncos, and a few others are doing on a weekly basis requires an asterisk in the record books. This is like the dead ball era in baseball, except the blowouts are unwatchable.

Change the ball, allow more contact by the defenders, or start allowing and applaud head coaches that decide to throw in the towel when games get out of hand, like in boxing.

It's getting to the point where comparing stats, even as recent as the 90's, is worthless. It's not the same game.

Seems like it started with the Patriots/Colts superbowl when they "mugged" the Colts receivers (Evil Empire didn't let Peyton get his ring) and then again with Seahawks being physical last year and not letting Peyton put up 50.

NFL: "The better defense won? Rules changes!"

Demi wrote: the Patriots/Colts superbowl

O rly?

broheim wrote: O rly?

You know what I meant!

This is not the Same NFL I grew up watching. It's getting harder and harder for me to stay interested in the NFL. The league is full gangsters, thugs and criminals. Most NFL players are not the kind of people you want your children to admire and Emulate anymore . The majority of them did not graduate the college they attended or even try to succeed in School. Most of them Took PE, Basket weaving, archery and home economics to keep their grades high enough to play. Many of them can barely Speak English at a 9th Grade Level. That's really Sad. It's all about $ now. I can't stand how all the players act like jack assess every time the make a play " Look at ME" with their childish celebrations. Not sure how many more seasons I can endure waiting for the Vikes to be winners. We have a decent Head coach and a small handful of good players 3-4 on defense and 2-3 on offense. The rest are BELOW average. We are lucky to have won the few games we have.