The NFL Should Revert to 1990s rules and expand by 32 teams

[dave]

That's right... double the size of the league and go back to the rules that existed in the '80s and '90s for the passing game.

Yes, talent would be a bit diluted, but wouldn't you love to see an NFL team win the Superbowl with the option?

NFL Football would still be vastly faster and a better brand of football than college, but it would create greater disparity in talent, allowing for more diversity in the game. Not quite to the degree of College Football, but at least something more akin to the '80s, when we had the West Coast, the K-Gun, the Gibbs singleback, and many more divergent systems. In Today's NFL, one team's 5 WR set looks much like the next team's 5 WR set, and quite honestly, it's becoming dull.

Roll back the offensive orientated rule changes of the 2000s and double the number of teams, and the league will become infinitely more interesting.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Not a fan of expansion. Unnecessary.
A fan of playcalling diversity.

I think it'd be cool to play two seasons with the rules of the 70s (save for the 2-pt conversion and the coach's challenges).

It would be fun to watch WRs try to play all over the field getting their heads bashed in ... and QBs with virtually no protection.

Imagine Tom Brady saying to a ref in the 70s: "Ref, that defensive lineman touched me!!!"

I am not knocking Brady, I think he's an outstanding HOF QB, but the league has been pussified.

Only thing I don't bring back from the 70s are the head shots. Even the guys from that era would agree.




I would also remove TV blackouts and give away Sunday Ticket for free!

[Esjay]

Do something about coaching contracts that prevents NFL teams from terminating a coach early. It'd be a bad idea though cause teams would get stuck with lame coaches longer.

There's not going to be a lot of creativity when there's the realistic threat of being fired after one season. You can't get players that fit into what you want to accomplish in that time anyway. There's too much demand to turn things around quickly so the safest thing to do is model your team after something you've already seen is successful.

Like imagine if someone decided to hire Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson and wanted him to install his offense. I was watching a Georgia Tech game earlier this season and he said he still didn't have the lineman that fit his system after 2 years of coaching there. Not a lot of NFL teams are gonna give him that kind of time to find the players he wants unless he has success immediately.

Exactly what I was thinking. Who has the balls to try something as unheard of in the NFL as the triple option, knowing you will almost definitely get fired after 1 season if it doesn't work? I don't see it happening. The NFL in my opinion will always be a copycat league.

Warner2BruceTD hit the nail on the head also. The NFL needs someone to get a coaching job that doesn't give a shit what the media or anyone else thinks about the way he runs his team and the style of play he prefers. And he needs to be VERY successful, imo, before anyone will give it a serious chance.

Great thread btw adem. Got me thinking in a way I haven't before, which I appreciate.

[adembroski]

Great thread btw adem. Got me thinking in a way I haven't before, which I appreciate.

Thank you. I was kinda disappointed when I got a groan right out of the gate and I'm like, "Cmon, the point is to talk about things... lateral thinking sorta deal- I give you a ridiculous premise and we figure something out from there" and nobody ran with it at first. Thankfully people got into the discussion, it's a good one.

A 64 team league would fail right now, I know that, but if it were feasible from a financial perspective, I honestly believe it would result in a more interesting league.

Another consideration: How about NFL2... complete with relegation and promotion!

[Archer]

Completely agree with everything W2B and Adem have said in regards to playcalling diversity . I'm actually somewhat shocked that nobody has give the spread a chance . With the way the rules are and such you would think that sort of offense could put up some gaudy numbers . Of course they would need a decent QB in place too . The league as a whole is just too scared to try anything, the Dolphins got the balls to give it a shot and had great success first season then did well again this year before Brown went down .

It provides so many mismatches if you have the personel in place to run it also . I remember when they killed the Colts with it, some reporter asked Bullitt why we couldn't stop it and he simply replied with "we have no way of practicing against the wildcat . We have a convential offense and can't replicate the wildcat at all in practice". Of course if it was successful [whatever type of offense it may be] it would get copied to a degree but you can always tweak it and add plays onto it .

Basically what I'm trying to say is, I'm A-Dissapointed that coaches are so scared of losing their job that they won't think outside the box . B-Half shocked that nobody has had the balls to try it or no owner has brung in a guy who is an expert in that feild [think Mike Leach]

[dave]

Another consideration: How about NFL2... complete with relegation and promotion!

Krulmichael and BDawg would commit suicide.

I like those guys.

Don't do it.

[Realist]

Teams can't sell out games because their games are goddamn it expensive as shit. Nosebleeds for the Jaguars WITH season ticket discount is $37.00 a game. That's the cheapest season ticket they've got. Lower their ticket price, they'll sell out the stadium.

And I'm pretty sure it would only be worse for other small market teams that have to pay salaries and other bills which is why I think expanding to 32 more teams is a bad idea.

[red33]

so u want to get rid of parity and create a league where people are forced to try different things cout of necessity?

why not get rid of the cap and other salary restrictions. this will have some powerhouse teams tht can run what they want and then u can have lesser teams trying to win by all means like going spread or triple option or having 2 black kickers and putting them both on the field to fool the dfense into thinking its a fake punt run.

[FirstTimer]

Teams can't sell out games because their games are goddamn it expensive as shit. Nosebleeds for the Jaguars WITH season ticket discount is $37.00 a game. That's the cheapest season ticket they've got. Lower their ticket price, they'll sell out the stadium.

I see where you are going but I think expanding the NFL is a horrible idea and while it would create diversity to a certain level the talent pool would be spread so thin that the diversity created would lead to awful awful football being played. There are enough shitty players and shitty coaches in a 32 team league, let alone if you doubled that.

so u want to get rid of parity and create a league where people are forced to try different things cout of necessity?

why not get rid of the cap and other salary restrictions. this will have some powerhouse teams tht can run what they want and then u can have lesser teams trying to win by all means like going spread or triple option or having 2 black kickers and putting them both on the field to fool the dfense into thinking its a fake punt run.

Yeah because Reggie Roby was a threat to run at anytime.

[adembroski]

I see where you are going but I think expanding the NFL is a horrible idea and while it would create diversity to a certain level the talent pool would be spread so thin that the diversity created would lead to awful awful football being played. There are enough shitty players and shitty coaches in a 32 team league, let alone if you doubled that.

Define shitty football... personally, I watched the Cardinals vs. Packers last week and that was about as shitty as it gets. By diluting the strength of the league, you create opportunities for talented players who don't fit in the scheme right now.

Nobody's answering me on this point, nobody has backed it up or attempted to refute it: Your assumption here is that the 32nd best backup QB in the NFL right now would become a starter on a team in a 64 team league. I beg to differ... I think by expanding the league, forcing teams to be more creative to find talent, you open things up for those very talented guys who don't fit the NFL scheme.

In this NFL, Tim Tebow is going to be a 2nd round pick, and only that because someone's gonna have a hard on for the guy. In a 64 team NFL, he could be a first rounder... not because he's less talented... he's proven he's not... but because there would be room for that style of player in the NFL.

I'm talking about making room for a whole lot of players who don't fit the NFL now because the NFL is stuck in it's rut. If you open things up, there wont be enough of those types of players for every team to run that style of game.

[Senser81]

Nobody's answering me on this point, nobody has backed it up or attempted to refute it: Your assumption here is that the 32nd best backup QB in the NFL right now would become a starter on a team in a 64 team league. I beg to differ... I think by expanding the league, forcing teams to be more creative to find talent, you open things up for those very talented guys who don't fit the NFL scheme.

I don't think adding teams would open things up in either a strategy or a 'talented player' sense.

You are always going to be able to find good defensive players, even if you expand to 64 teams. A vast majority of the college schemes require the QB to run with the football, and this strategy does not work in NFL because the defenses kill the QB...and if a team's starting QB gets injured, you can basically write the season off. There is only so much you can do with 'scheming' at the NFL level. Look at the Wildcat...its really just a single wing offense used in the 20's and 30's, and they have to put a RB at the QB spot because the QBs would get maimed.

I think a "real life" example of expansion not really changing scheme is the SEC. They are college level, but they still have really good defenses. Gimmicky offenses don't really work in the SEC, IMO. Most teams have pro-style offenses.

As for the talented player issue, lets look at Tebow. If you have 64 teams in the NFL, you aren't going to have many DBs who can cover guys man-to-man. I think an elite QB like Peyton Manning would destroy some of those lower-tier defenses. A guy like Tebow could be a "competent" passer if the NFL had 64 teams...but a guys like Jon Kitna would be a pro bowl caliber passer against defenses #33 - #64. I think the NFL would always gravitate to a passing QB instead of a dual threat QB like Tebow.

Just my $0.02

[FirstTimer]

Define shitty football... personally, I watched the Cardinals vs. Packers last week and that was about as shitty as it gets.

Disagree.

That was an entertaining game.

Want a shitty game....go look at San Fran vs Chicago from earlier this season..

or go watch a lower level Sun Belt game.

By diluting the strength of the league, you create opportunities for talented players who don't fit in the scheme right now.

But that doesn't make the football any better. It just means marginal players look better because they are playing against shittier players.

Nobody's answering me on this point, nobody has backed it up or attempted to refute it: Your assumption here is that the 32nd best backup QB in the NFL right now would become a starter on a team in a 64 team league. I beg to differ... I think by expanding the league, forcing teams to be more creative to find talent, you open things up for those very talented guys who don't fit the NFL scheme.

No, that's not what I'm assuming. What I'm saying is that there are enough shitty teams and players in the NFL now without expanding the talent pool. People can harp on wanting to diversify the game all they want but the fact is that gimmick offenses won't work in the NFL now because the players are too talented, fast, and smart. The Falcons tried to have Mike Vick change the game but even when he ran for 1,000 yards the team was barely .500. What it seems that you are advocating is watering down the talent pool in the NFL to the point where marginal players can succeed against shitty players that wouldn't otherwise be in the NFL just so you and some others can maybe see the Triple Option, while looking the other way about the fact that they are just bad football players.

In this NFL, Tim Tebow is going to be a 2nd round pick, and only that because someone's gonna have a hard on for the guy. In a 64 team NFL, he could be a first rounder... not because he's less talented... he's proven he's not... but because there would be room for that style of player in the NFL.

But he also could still be a 2nd rounder. So then what's the difference?

I'm talking about making room for a whole lot of players who don't fit the NFL now because the NFL is stuck in it's rut. If you open things up, there wont be enough of those types of players for every team to run that style of game.

I don't see the NFL as being stuck in any rut. I enjoy the NFL. Even though people want to complain about the homogenization of the NFL I don't think your idea fixes anything. Hell the USFL or whatever the hell it's called runs the same systems. All these expanded teams are going to want proven pro coaches coming from the NFL to run pro systems and deal with professionsals..so you'll still have more assistants who learned from the same coaches getting the new jobs and I'd be willing to bet that upwards of 90% of the new 32 teams would run basically the same systems and schemes as the current NFL because that's what those coaches know. How many expansion teams can afford to go 1-15 or 0-16 while Paul Johnson tries to install a triple option attack against already proven NFL teams?

[Tengo Juego]

Define shitty football... personally, I watched the Cardinals vs. Packers last week and that was about as shitty as it gets.

Disagree.

That was an entertaining game.

What is a "good-great" game in your mind? Would a 3-6 score game have been a better game?

Is our entertainment level the key to a good game? Or is it something else? I guess you'd have liked to see a few more 3 and outs. A few more punts. Just sayin'. Think about what a good game is. And what a "shitty" or "bad" game is.

I'm a Packers fan, so my view is a bit different than someone who is not a fan of either team. It was a great game. The entire first half gave everyone(including myself) the feeling that it was over, and the Packers had absolutely no shot. Then turned it around and came back. It became a shootout, back and forth. Defense was atrocious, sure. But nevertheless, still a fun game if you're neutral. Probably the best game I've watched since Texas and Texas Tech played in 08.

[mobbdeep1122]

That's right... double the size of the league and go back to the rules that existed in the '80s and '90s for the passing game.

Yes, talent would be a bit diluted, but wouldn't you love to see an NFL team win the Superbowl with the option?

NFL Football would still be vastly faster and a better brand of football than college, but it would create greater disparity in talent, allowing for more diversity in the game. Not quite to the degree of College Football, but at least something more akin to the '80s, when we had the West Coast, the K-Gun, the Gibbs singleback, and many more divergent systems. In Today's NFL, one team's 5 WR set looks much like the next team's 5 WR set, and quite honestly, it's becoming dull.

Roll back the offensive orientated rule changes of the 2000s and double the number of teams, and the league will become infinitely more interesting.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Senser81]

What is a "good-great" game in your mind?

Good game = Cardinals 51 Packers 45

Great game = Packers 51 Cardinals 45

[Diivox]

Good game = Cardinals 51 Packers 45

Great game = Packers 51 Cardinals 45

good quarterback = cardinals 51 packers 45
great quarterback = packers 51 cardinals 45

and the packers are lucky to have a good quarterback. cleveland, oakland, san francisco, detroit, tampa bay, carolina, miami, buffalo... all these teams dont even have good quarterbacks, and half of them have terrible ones. I like high scoring games. i would even venture to say that the average fan feels the same way. not gimmicky fast like the arena football league, but really, the NFL is in an equilibrium right now, it's all working, they are making a ton of money and its by far the most dominant professional league in america, and the premier league/the world cup is the only other sporting event that belongs in the conversation with the NFL.

its not broke. i dont think it needs to be fixed.

you're a college football fan and thats okay AJ. but embrace diversity. the NFL is a uniquely american and fine tuned experience. your intelligence has always served you very well, but bottom line, you could summarize the original post with "I prefer college football"