Your Unpopular Football Opinions

[SixtiesFan]

True but GB did have a better record than Dallas, anyway.

Well, the Packers beat the Cowboys in Dallas in 1966. The better team usually won the NFL Championship games whether they were the home team or not.

[Gary Najman]

I was wondering if the playoff sites rotation had to do if NBC and CBS also rotated the early and late playoff games.

[BD Sullivan]

Two thoughts on that hypothetical Mia/Pit '74 AFC-CG:

2. One factor this game would have had- remember Madden famously saying the two best teams had played each other and Noll's "The best team in football is sitting right here in this room." I doubt a guy like Shula would have said such a thing had Miami won- what kind of motivation/bulletin board material do you think Noll might have had?

Probably something like, "They've been champions long enough. Now, it's our turn."

[BD Sullivan]

I was wondering if the playoff sites rotation had to do if NBC and CBS also rotated the early and late playoff games.

Early and Late Games

1970: Baltimore (NBC) and San Francisco (CBS)
1971: Dallas (CBS) and Miami (NBC)
1972: Pittsburgh (NBC) and Washington (CBS)
1973: Dallas (CBS) and Miami (NBC)
1974: Minnesota (CBS) and Oakland (NBC)

[sheajets]

1) I still don't love the 2 point conversion. I understand why it exists, and I wasn't resisting it's arrival in 1994...to me it just wasn't necessary. It was fine that a 16 point lead was something that you should not be able to make up with just two touchdowns and 2 cheap "easter egg" plays to tie the game. Like an artificial booster to leave the door slightly ajar for teams that are trailing to assist them in making comebacks.

Say it's 10-10...then you give up a TD and then allow the opposition to kick 3 consecutive field goals...or allow 2 touchdowns and a safety. You're getting outplayed for a good period of time and it's 26-10...I don't think you deserve to have at your disposal this little 2 pt opportunity to make up the deficit quicker on just two possessions.

If you come within 1 point on a late score...there shouldn't be an opportunity to "steal" the entire game...make it boil down to one special teams play to win or lose. It should be make the extra point (which was moved back as it had gotten too automatic) and then if you want to win the game...get the ball back and score points. Or make a play defensively. The two point conversion was like this wild card that you can suddenly pull out.

2) Belichick's Super Bowl XXV playbook shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Bill Parcells when being told this even remarked that it should've been Ron Erhardt's playbook from that game that should be in Canton. Buffalo had the ball a mere 19 minutes and somehow ripped off 371 yards of offense. The defense did not win that game for them, keeping the ball away from Buffalo did. Belichick deserves praise for a lot of things...but this isn't one of them. Ron Erhardt should get far more credit for the win

3) Yes Payton should've gotten the ball for one more try at the endzone during Super Bowl XX but this is far too wildly overblown and Perry scoring was not some shameful disrespect. The game was over, Payton was a huge contributor to the team winning a Super Bowl. The Patriots did do a pretty good job on him during the game (maybe the only thing they did well) Just being on a Super Bowl winning team is all that should matter for Payton. Who cares about some meaningless pile on TD in a blowout.

[CSKreager]

1) I still don't love the 2 point conversion. I understand why it exists, and I wasn't resisting it's arrival in 1994...to me it just wasn't necessary. It was fine that a 16 point lead was something that you should not be able to make up with just two touchdowns and 2 cheap "easter egg" plays to tie the game. Like an artificial booster to leave the door slightly ajar for teams that are trailing to assist them in making comebacks.

Say it's 10-10...then you give up a TD and then allow the opposition to kick 3 consecutive field goals...or allow 2 touchdowns and a safety. You're getting outplayed for a good period of time and it's 26-10...I don't think you deserve to have at your disposal this little 2 pt opportunity to make up the deficit quicker on just two possessions.

If you come within 1 point on a late score...there shouldn't be an opportunity to "steal" the entire game...make it boil down to one special teams play to win or lose. It should be make the extra point (which was moved back as it had gotten too automatic) and then if you want to win the game...get the ball back and score points. Or make a play defensively. The two point conversion was like this wild card that you can suddenly pull out.

Sorry but I don’t miss the days when an 8 point lead late basically meant game over and pray for an onside kick

1993 Chiefs/Oilers, Houston scores to cut a 21-13 deficit to 21-19. You think a chance to tie it wouldn’t have been exciting? Heck Marcus Allen’s touchdown wouldn’t have been game over

I don’t but into the idea of “artificial” considering 1993, the last year without 2PC, was one of the most boring in NFL history

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Count me in with the favoring no 2-pt conversion group. At some point you have to call something a two-possession, three-possession lead. 16 points as a two-possession lead just doesn't sit right with me. And so many coaches go for two when it's unnecessary and it senselessly changes the momentum of the game to the other team when they don't make it.

Also count me in with favoring regular-season ties. OT ups the chances for injury.

Some of my other likely unpopular opinions:

Not punting on 4th down is usually stupid. Not taking the points on fourth down is also usually stupid. So many times I see teams with chances to chip away at a lead and they end up extending a drive, wasting time off the clock and kicking a field goal anyway or worse, not scoring at all. Kicking the FG was smart even when FG percentages were far lower than what they are today.

Using analytics in football is ridiculous. You can't factor in people getting their clock cleaned in the middle of the play. There is no math for that.

I do miss the get pushed out of bounds it's still a catch rule.One of the few pro-offensive rules that I actually liked.

Change the OT rules back to first team that scores wins. This whole "everybody deserves a chance in overtime" kind of thinking is NOT football. If you can't stop somebody from getting first downs and they score, I don't care if it's just a FG. You had 60 mins to win, you need a stop to have another chance, and if you can't stop the other team, well...

Given a choice, I would much rather see rules that make it easier to get an onside kick rather than the 2pt conversion.

And last - but not least - stop the overuse of replay. Use it for fumbles, whether a guy really has a second foot in bounds. Super duper slow motion whether the ball moves slightly during a catch, whether a team gained six inches or nine inches on the fourth and inches, a lot of time used for things that replay wasn't really intended for.

And my college bonus - Keep the four-team playoff. I don't want to see a three-loss "national champion." Which is worse? Undefeated "mythical" champs or a "champion" with three losses that finished second in their conference?

[Jay Z]

Sorry but I don’t miss the days when an 8 point lead late basically meant game over and pray for an onside kick

1993 Chiefs/Oilers, Houston scores to cut a 21-13 deficit to 21-19. You think a chance to tie it wouldn’t have been exciting? Heck Marcus Allen’s touchdown wouldn’t have been game over

I don’t but into the idea of “artificial” considering 1993, the last year without 2PC, was one of the most boring in NFL history

The whole point of having an extra point in the first place was to lessen the number of ties. It was a kludge included at the outset of the game. If you love ties, just get rid of the extra point entirely and have TD worth 7 points.

That's why I have no issue with moving the distance back and going for two. That was always the point of the extra point anyway.

[TanksAndSpartans]

The whole point of having an extra point in the first place was to lessen the number of ties.

Interesting thought, but originally kicks (both goals from the field and after TDs) were valued more than TDs. Over time that reversed.

[74_75_78_79_]

Like the college football regular season once was...let the 2PC exist in the NFL (it, really, should have in the first place), but no OT at all in the regular season. If 2PCs can't help decide things in regulation, then oh well.

Playoffs? Well, of course, overtime in that case.

I can't believe college allowed ties back then in Bowl games even! Thinking 'bout Dye in '87!