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

[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"

 

[FirstTimer]

Anyone here read TMQ by Gregg Easterbrook over at espn.com? He's always talking about the pussification of coaches in the NFL. He's brought up endless research into how coaches should almost always go for it on 4th down instead of punting and is forever pointing out those coaches who kick field goals when down 30-0 just to keep the shutout off their records.

There's some great research into this here http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html

The final conclusion:

Basically, in any situation underneath that line, the number crunching says that coaches should go for it (yes, even on 4th and 11 from the opponents 38) because it'll lead to more points in the course of the game than kicking a FG or punting the ball away.

Now that's revolutionising the game.

Haven't looke dinto it a ton but I think part of that theory ignores how much more likely teams are to score when they start drives from outside their own 20 or starting near/in their opponets territory. I have no doubt that if a team went for it on nearly every 4th down they'd be likely to score more...but I also think they'd be really likely to give up a lot more points too. In the end it's more of a gimmick IMO that ends up in a wash more than it really revolutionizing the game.

 

[Garrett67]

While it would be nice to see some variety from offenses and defenses not being castrated by the new rule enforcement, expanding the league is not the answer. 32 teams is perfect.

Doesn't that girl know how to drink a bottle of water? She isn't going to get anything out of it like that.

 

[Senser81]

Anyone here read TMQ by Gregg Easterbrook over at espn.com? He's always talking about the pussification of coaches in the NFL. He's brought up endless research into how coaches should almost always go for it on 4th down instead of punting and is forever pointing out those coaches who kick field goals when down 30-0 just to keep the shutout off their records.

There's some great research into this here http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html

The final conclusion:

Basically, in any situation underneath that line, the number crunching says that coaches should go for it (yes, even on 4th and 11 from the opponents 38) because it'll lead to more points in the course of the game than kicking a FG or punting the ball away.

Now that's revolutionising the game.

Interesting article. I've read a few articles on this topic, and they all conclude that NFL coaches should go for it on 4th down more often. I haven't read many articles that say NFL coaches should punt more often...although I did read an article that said NFL teams should "quick kick" more often on 3rd and longs in their own territory, since the chances of converting a 3rd and long is slim.

Anyway, I am a little suspicious of studies that depend on "expected points". These studies treat scoring in terms of averages and probabilities, when an actual NFL game does not deal with scoring averages. For instance, a 1st and 10 from your opponents 20 yard line gives you 4 "expected points", yet its impossible to score 4 points. On offense, you basically score points in amounts of 3 or 7. These numbers aren't rounded off into averages. "Expected points" might do well in assessing how things happened during a season in retrospect, but they aren't really going to help you in decision-making during a game. In reality, you are either going to kick a FG for 3 points or score a TD for 7 points. Your decision making-process isn't "if I go for it on 4th down now and get to the 20-yard-line, I score 4 points."

This is just my subjective opinion, but I think in the NFL its easy to kick a FG but its difficult to score a TD even when you get within an opponent's 10-yard line. Based on that, I think NFL coaches are more apt to settle for a FG than go for it, because even if you gain a first down in your opponent's territory, you still have to score a TD otherwise you haven't really gained anything.

On the other side of the coin, I think NFL coaches are loathe to go for it in their own territory because they know that a failure to convert a 4th down will, in the very least, give the other team 3 points because the kickers are so good in the NFL (for the most part).

 

[FirstTimer]

That's the thing, the numbers used in this research were taken from the 1st and 3rd quarter of every game from 2000-2008. These are how the numbers come up over a long period of time.

Why not use the 2nd and 4th quarters as well?

Plus regardless of how many years they took the data from that still doesn't change or disprove my point/idea......

 

[mgoblue2290]

I don't think its as black and white as saying every team should go for it more. If you have a good defense and are confident in their ability to stop the other team, punt it. No need to go for it and potentially give the other team the ball at the 40 and have them basically need to fall forward several yards and get 3 points.

If you have a shitty defense who is likely to let the other team score regardless of where the other team starts from, the Lions, then really there is no harm in going for it. Plus it might give the defense some false sense that the coaches believe in them.


This may sound like the opposite of what teams should do to some of you.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

On the other side of the coin, I think NFL coaches are loathe to go for it in their own territory because they know that a failure to convert a 4th down will, in the very least, give the other team 3 points because the kickers are so good in the NFL (for the most part).

I think it has more to do with not wanting to deal with the scrutiny from the media, and to a lesser degree, the fans.

 

[Prodigal Son]

So, your idea to make the league better is to make the talent worse?

 

[Fox1994]

I like T2B and adem's ideas. I don't need expansion, I need diversity.

Best case scenario this year: Urban Meyer goes to Oakland and Leach goes to Buffalo and they're both successful.

Worse case: Nothing happens and we see the same redundant shit for a few more years until somebody does something new and everyone else copies them.

Worst case: Leach goes to Oakland and two crazy people can't date each other, so naysayers actually have proof that the Texas spread can't succeed in teh NFL.

 

[adembroski]

So, basically, incompetent defense = Great Game
while incompetent offense = Terrible game

Personally, I hate both.

 

[Aso]

Best case scenario this year: Urban Meyer goes to Oakland and Leach goes to Buffalo and they're both successful.

Neither will happen.

I really would like to see Mike Leach in the NFL though. That would really be something.

I would also love to see Steve Spurrier get a second chance.

 

[Diivox]

The league needs a few renegades to spice things up.

rule changes, and regulations, will not change this. I agree with this, with one caveat: the NFL needs a few SUCCESSFUL renegades to spice things up. But renegades have failed. If i walk into my work tomorrow and say, okay guys, this is exactly how i want it to be, and it will work, they will all laugh at me. if i walk into work tomorrow, and do things completely differently, and make a fuckton of money, they will say "holy shit what did you do to be so successful."

this is professionalism. Same with my career and yours. it needs to be a success before people take it seriously.

 

[stevsta]

I dont like your idea. But the diversity is something I'd like to see.

It wont be long before everyone adapts the spread offense. Pretty soon 1,000 yard 75-100 point games wont be so unusual.

when that time comes why would people even want to watch football that would basically be madden on rookie just putting a man deep and throwing a bomb eventually after the 3rd touchdown it just gets boring

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

So, your idea to make the league better is to make the talent worse?

In his Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James makes a pretty convincing argument that baseball could easily support something like 100 major league teams, and the idea that expansion greatly dilutes talent is flawed.

The only reason it wouldnt work the same way for football, is the lack of quality QB's--which would be solved by more variety in the offenses team run. Your Kliff Kingbury's and Timmy Chang's who can't run a current NFL offense can step right in and run a June Jones Run 'N Shoot or a Leach spread, but nobody wants to run those systems. That's what adem is getting at.

RB's and LB's and DB's are a dime a dozen, and you could easily field 64 teams and see little or no drop off. The bottom 25% of every NFL roster (and the entire Rams roster) is littered with cheaper, inferior, "upside" talent--while guys who are better players (but higher on the pay scale) are cut every August.

 

[Prodigal Son]

So instead of having the top talent in the NFL, it should be littered with system players?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

What you are saying is true for teams that mix it in once or twice a game, but it definately works for Miami, who use it to win games with inferior offensive talent, and if you watched Cleveland towards the end of the season, it was a big part of the Browns finishing strong.

Media types scoffing at the Wildcat, because some random team only averaged 3.2 yards per play with limited use, is the prime reason this thread exists. Coaches fear the scrutiny, and refuse to think outside the box.

Everyone wants to use two HB's, the west coast short passing game, and mix in some 4 wide to exploit pass favoring rules. That's almost everyones offense in a nutshell. Why? Because that's the trend, and you wont be second guessed.

Meanwhile, Mike Martz cant get a job, Mike Leach is available, June Jones never gets a sniff, and supposedly the spread won't work despite no one ever trying it. The league needs a few renegades to spice things up.

Plenty of teams have tried and some have variations of it, the problem is, that it looks too much like every other NFL offense (Colts, Saints, Patriots are the more successful running variations of it...the Chiefs at the end of last year ran the most true spread I've seen in some time in the NFL)...nothing that really distinguishes one from another...then again, there isn't a talent gap like there is in college football either, which is the reason for a wide variation of offenses at that level.

The purpose of running offenses like the option and the spread option and the Air Raid and the Wildcat (and all of the shades of gray in between) in college is try and provide your team with some semblance in equality of talent (ie: accentuating your positives)...

In this day and age of football, the only real talent gap is at the QB position where you have the haves and the havenots, and you can't really offset that by having your team run a different scheme..linebackers and defenses in general are too big, too fast, and too good (even the NFL's worst defenses). The biggest difference comes on defense...if you dilute the league, you dilute the defenses, which then allows for offenses to be more creative and diverse.

The NFL being so boring, stale, etc has a lot to do with, as mentioned early, the lack of creativity, but also, the types of players in todays games...just superior athletes across the board with a very small talent gap between the best and the worst. The difference between 14-2 and 2-14 in the NFL isn't as large, as say, a 12-0 and a 0-12 college football team.

The rules, too, are killing defensive schemes, too. The level of physicality in the NFL is dropping insanely by the year. I understand the leagues need to keep the players healthy, but at some point we have to realize we are playing a game of football here.