Question For You All?

[MIKEBENNIDICT]

For sometime I've read how so many here and elsewhere who've watched the game years or even decades past say they enjoy the NFL more back then than they do now and some won't even watch a modern day game.



Now I'm 45 and can remember watching football before age 5 and in all those years I've not noticed anything that have discouraged me from watching. Of course I must confess that maybe because I don't follow the game so close as some do.

I don't know what exact changes have been made through the years but let's take for example Dick Butkus.

While I've never heard him admit it, it's been claimed that he went out of his way to hurt others. I was recently watching various filmage of him and most of what I'm seen doesn't seem like all of a big deal. There was maybe 1 or 2 plays that looked wrong to me such a where he grabs a Browns player's helmet. Don't know if he did that often or even succeeded in knocking a players helmet off whether intentionally or by accident. If such a thing is done on purpose and it was overlooked then to me that's wrong. Those helmets are worn for a reason.
I've heard Decan Jones say how he wanted to put as much pain on that other player's back.

Look at Hardy Brown who probably hurt many badly with his shoulder pads.

Or that one incident where Former Eagle Chuck Bednarik knock NY Giant Frank Gifford unconscious.

Even many Oakland Raider players were troublesome during the first few decades of their existence.

I've heard people upset and not watching the NFL because in part because of players conduct off the field such as domestic abuse, getting arrested for DUI domestic violence and I'm thinking, well were these veterans any better in their own right for all the other stuff I mentioned?

Now 1 thing I've heard that's changed I think it's that a player can't hit someone too hard. Perhaps that's a bit silly. Then again that maybe a good rule change if any player was doing that just to hurt another.

So while there maybe differences between today's NFL and yesterdays but to me it's still good and all the other thing people complain about is just nitpicking.

Any thought or anything else we could add?

[JuggernautJ]

There are far more commercials and commercial interruptions today than in days of yore.
In effect you are getting far less and paying far more for it.

They've changed the rules of the game to allow for more of the above.
Doing things like altering the timing rules to allow for more commercials has made the game less dependent on strategy and more on physical talent, taking away from the team element of the game.

A simple example would be the reduction of the halftime period from 20 minutes to 12 minutes.
That's eight more minutes of commercials. The trade off is that with 20 minutes there used to be time to make changes in tactics whereas now about all one can do is use the facilities.
The NFL and the advertisers make more money and the quality of the game declines.

Likewise, free-agency has reduced the teamwork aspect of the game and made it more natural-talent driven.
No longer do we have teams that play and practice together for a decade, attaining a very high level of expertise at executing a particular type of game plan (like Lombardi's Packers or Noll's Steelers). Instead we have "strategies" of who can throw the ball further to whomever can run faster and jump the highest.

Lastly (for tonight) taking the play-calling away from the players has turned Quarterbacks into passers, changing the skill-set required to play the position.

[Ronfitch]

There are far more commercials and commercial interruptions today than in days of yore.
In effect you are getting far less and paying far more for it.

They've changed the rules of the game to allow for more of the above.
Doing things like altering the timing rules to allow for more commercials has made the game less dependent on strategy and more on physical talent, taking away from the team element of the game.

A simple example would be the reduction of the halftime period from 20 minutes to 12 minutes.
That's eight more minutes of commercials. The trade off is that with 20 minutes there used to be time to make changes in tactics whereas now about all one can do is use the facilities.
The NFL and the advertisers make more money and the quality of the game declines.

Likewise, free-agency has reduced the teamwork aspect of the game and made it more natural-talent driven.
No longer do we have teams that play and practice together for a decade, attaining a very high level of expertise at executing a particular type of game plan (like Lombardi's Packers or Noll's Steelers). Instead we have "strategies" of who can throw the ball further to whomever can run faster and jump the highest.

Lastly (for tonight) taking the play-calling away from the players has turned Quarterbacks into passers, changing the skill-set required to play the position.

It has simply turned into another money grab - along with so many things in America - with the extended halftime shows for the SB, the owners holding cities hostage for new toys (and the weak politicians caving), the never-ending marketing of NFL merchandise, etc. In that respect, the NFL really is "America's Game." Also, the league mandates of standardization on the most unneccessary crap (would Tom Landry be allowed to wear his fedora on the sidelines in 2017?). The endless self-promotion by some/many of the players.

As for free agency, if the choice is between giving the players the opportunity to have some control over their very short NFL career or return to them being "property" I will take what we have now. At this point the fans are simply cheering for laundry ... and MY laundry will beat the snot out of YOUR laundry ... and a lot of what I like about the past is the relationships that existed between players on a squad over a number of years. But I see it more as owners v. players and I will always (nearly always) take the players' side in that fight.

And I am not even getting to changes on the field that has made it less interesting for me.

[single wing]

Likely it more back then because you had a greater balance between offense and defense. I remember the great defenses of the past. Now more and more it really appears to be a offensive game.

[RRMarshall]

I agree with the game being out of balance between offense and defense. One only need look
at the Super Bowl last night for proof. It's turned into Arena Football with QBs throwing on
every down. Teams go into the shotgun on third and two with regularity. The running game has taken a back seat
and now most teams deploy "situational" backs rather than a featured running back. There are exceptions
of course, but the days of Franco Harris, Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton are rapidly fading. But lots of
points attracts the fans and the TV ratings, but perhaps with TV ratings falling maybe others are tiring of t
his type of football as well.

[Jay Z]

There are far more commercials and commercial interruptions today than in days of yore.
In effect you are getting far less and paying far more for it.

They've changed the rules of the game to allow for more of the above.
Doing things like altering the timing rules to allow for more commercials has made the game less dependent on strategy and more on physical talent, taking away from the team element of the game.

A simple example would be the reduction of the halftime period from 20 minutes to 12 minutes.
That's eight more minutes of commercials. The trade off is that with 20 minutes there used to be time to make changes in tactics whereas now about all one can do is use the facilities.
The NFL and the advertisers make more money and the quality of the game declines.

Likewise, free-agency has reduced the teamwork aspect of the game and made it more natural-talent driven.
No longer do we have teams that play and practice together for a decade, attaining a very high level of expertise at executing a particular type of game plan (like Lombardi's Packers or Noll's Steelers). Instead we have "strategies" of who can throw the ball further to whomever can run faster and jump the highest.

Lastly (for tonight) taking the play-calling away from the players has turned Quarterbacks into passers, changing the skill-set required to play the position.

There is no way the game is less dependent upon strategy than years ago. With far more situational substitution, there is a great emphasis on getting a particular mismatch. That's strategy. What about the two passes to quarterbacks last night? You sure saw that a lot in the grand old 1970s. Wait, you never saw it. QB under the center every single time, until the Cowboys tried the shocking Shotgun. The 1970s was the era of the Minnesota Vikings never using a different formation, never putting a man in motion. What grand strategy that was.

The coordinators upstairs I'm sure are constantly looking at replays, all-22 footage of the game in progress, and making adjustments. It's circulated to the on-field staff throughout the game. Not just halftime. The game may have gotten more expensive, but the work is going into the product. Now athleticism may be more important because there's no place to hide anymore. If you're a step slow, have a lame arm, someone's going to find out fairly quickly.

Now some things have changed. Kickers have gotten better and better. Maybe too good. I'm glad they moved back the extra point, went to the two point conversion. Again, something the NFL did not have for years and years. Here, you can kick the extra point or kick the extra point. From 10 yards away. The extra point is a gimmick play anyway, always was. Needs to be worth watching.

There are far fewer turnovers than there used to be. In a way this cuts down scoring, because teams have to drive farther for their scores. Scores would be much higher if turnovers hadn't come down.

If you like mud bowls, those are extinct. Any outdoor stadium can handle rain today. There is still the occasional blizzard game. There never were all that many of those anyway, even in Wisconsin it isn't always snowing in December.

I have watched my share of 1970s football. I don't prefer it to the present day. It was too dominated by the defense. I can do without TEs and WRs catching 17 passes a year. Jack Tatum and others just sat back in a zone and clobbered people. It wasn't a very diverse game. 1950s or 1960s football was probably more fun to watch than the 1970s. I grew up in that era, so it's no issue of bias.

[Jay Z]

Likely it more back then because you had a greater balance between offense and defense. I remember the great defenses of the past. Now more and more it really appears to be a offensive game.

Broncos had a great defense just two years ago. Seahawks had a great defense.

[Rupert Patrick]

I agree with the game being out of balance between offense and defense. One only need look
at the Super Bowl last night for proof. It's turned into Arena Football with QBs throwing on
every down. Teams go into the shotgun on third and two with regularity. The running game has taken a back seat
and now most teams deploy "situational" backs rather than a featured running back. There are exceptions
of course, but the days of Franco Harris, Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton are rapidly fading. But lots of
points attracts the fans and the TV ratings, but perhaps with TV ratings falling maybe others are tiring of t
his type of football as well.

I've never understood why so many QB's drop back into the shotgun to throw when they are at the opponent's one-yard line to throw a TD pass. Well, I know why it is, it is to pad their stats, but that is a play that became popular I believe with Kurt Warner, and for some reason is popular although highly risky. Remember when the Seahawks lost Super Bowl XLIX because Wilson threw a pass at the New England one-yard line when he had Marshawn Lynch? I remember the days when Walter Payton would take the handoff and leap over the line and into the end zone, and you rarely see a QB sneak for a TD anymore, or on a third-and-one or fourth-and-one.

I know a lot of people are saying last night's game was the greatest Super Bowl ever. I think it was one of the half dozen greatest games, but I do not think it was the greatest because there was not enough defense. There was a lot of great offensive plays, but there were no great defensive plays. I still put Super Bowl XLIII (Steelers-Cardinals) in front because you had great offensive and defensive plays, great offensive and defensive performances. Last night's game was an exciting game, but it was a track meet.

[Jay Z]

I've never understood why so many QB's drop back into the shotgun to throw when they are at the opponent's one-yard line to throw a TD pass. Well, I know why it is, it is to pad their stats, but that is a play that became popular I believe with Kurt Warner, and for some reason is popular although highly risky. Remember when the Seahawks lost Super Bowl XLIX because Wilson threw a pass at the New England one-yard line when he had Marshawn Lynch? I remember the days when Walter Payton would take the handoff and leap over the line and into the end zone, and you rarely see a QB sneak for a TD anymore, or on a third-and-one or fourth-and-one.

I know a lot of people are saying last night's game was the greatest Super Bowl ever. I think it was one of the half dozen greatest games, but I do not think it was the greatest because there was not enough defense. There was a lot of great offensive plays, but there were no great defensive plays. I still put Super Bowl XLIII (Steelers-Cardinals) in front because you had great offensive and defensive plays, great offensive and defensive performances. Last night's game was an exciting game, but it was a track meet.

I agree. It was very competitive, but a little one dimensional. The offensive lines mostly held sway over the defensive, and QBs always look better when that happens. It's better if there are a variety of plays, both offensive and defensive.

[JuggernautJ]

There is no way the game is less dependent upon strategy than years ago....

I don't recall that I made a value judgement as to whether there was more or less strategy in today's game.
I did list some ways in which the game has changed that decreases (in my opinion) some strategic opportunities.

It is possible to note a decrease (or an increase) in a thing without making an ultimate judgement as to whether the whole is larger or greater than previous.