Your Unpopular Football Opinions

[CSKreager]

Illegal contact penalties should not be automatic 1st downs

A Make teams have to earn the first down instead of getting it on a technicality.

5 yard penalties of that variety on 3rd Downs of 6 yards or more should mean a retry of that 3rd down.

[74_75_78_79_]

The Jags weren’t one of the best teams by the end of 96, they were just lucky

They were because of the missed kick, but they were maturing late in the season. Once they got in, they were dangerous. They put a running game on the Bills like nobody did from 1990-93, and they knocked off the #1 seed Broncos.

As for NE, I don't know what happened. Maybe the Bronco win was their SB, and they got complacent. They would have won the SB if they beat the Pats.

The Patriots just shut the Jags down. Listening to the broadcast, it felt like the Patriots pumped in noise to distract their offense and McGinest got a pass rush on Boselli that Bruce Smith couldnt do in the wild card game. I also dont feel the Jags would have beaten the Packers in the SB. In the SB, Parcells got out-coached by Holmgren. He overestimated his QB Bledsoe, rather than running Curtis Martin more, though the Packers stuffed their offensive line.

Starting with that opening win over the Steelers (of course beating them the previous year as well), the Jags in '96 were not looking all that bad from the start. Their expansion skin seemed to have already been peeled off of them. As far as the next step, simply being able to beat bad teams regularly, they started doing just that after getting shutdown at the 'Burgh, 28-3, to drop their record to 4-7. They won 5-straight to close the season. None of those wins were against good teams nor any of them decisively - especially that finale at home which they, really, should have lost. Yes, some luck there.

But once that Morten kick was missed - whether they would immediately skip those next couple of gears anyway or it was they being given a 'jolt' by that fortune, or a bit of both - they now were a hot playoff team! Maybe beating the Bills wasn't really an upset being that contention in the Levy Era may have already breathed its last breath. Beating Denver, however, was. Broncos should have been better ready for them, not rusted their starters in the first place those final weeks but still give credit where credit is due. Yes with Jax's running game and now being equipped on both sides of the ball to make a credible run, but law-of-averages simply caught up to them by the time they made it to Foxborough now having to face a Parcells/Belichick team who now knew they were obviously not to be taken lightly at this point.

Despite finishing 9-7 and their '95 expansion/CC-participant counterpart from the other conference at 12-4, I do think Jags top the Panthers in an important Jan '97 game. Hey, they beat them early in the season. They win by more than a TD, I think, as they actually did then. But had, say, the Pats all got the flu and Jax actually went off to NO, I couldn't help but think the buck would definitely have stopped there! Green Bay minus the points for sure (and it likely would be 17.5 at the very, very least). Mostly based on too-much-too-soon for Jax with the pendulum having to swing right on back.

[JameisBrownston]

Don't know if this is unpopular or not, but I never see anyone say it. Kneeldowns and running out clock should be legislated out of the game somehow. Elam rules, fine them, whatever. Both teams should always have to be trying to score. The same goes for sitting lineups in the final week, which has skewed many a close playoff race over the years. Everyone calls baseball boring, but it doesn't have sandbagging like this that's actually unwatchable.

[SeahawkFever]

Don’t know if this is unpopular or not, but I have been thinking lately that if someone appears on a senior committee ballot as a finalist and doesn’t get in, that they shouldn’t appear again for three years (or some amount of years).

That way, more players can at least have the opportunity to be debated.

For lack of a better comparison, it could be like the Baseball Hall of Fame Era Committee where you keep seeing Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly every time their era comes up. (No knock on either of them, but they are repeatedly voted on)

Is there a cooling off period for the Pro Football Hall of Fame senior committee as is?

[7DnBrnc53]

But had, say, the Pats all got the flu and Jax actually went off to NO, I couldn't help but think the buck would definitely have stopped there! Green Bay minus the points for sure (and it likely would be 17.5 at the very, very least). Mostly based on too-much-too-soon for Jax with the pendulum having to swing right on back.

The Pats did outplay them, but I also wonder if beating Denver was Jacksonville's SB, and they didn't have the hunger the next week as a result.

It reminds me of something that happened in the NBA (in 1999). That year, the Blazers were underdogs, but they beat the favored Jazz (who were picked by many to win the title in the post-MJ world) in the second round. They were celebrating like they won the title (I remember J.R. Rider jumping around in celebration).

The next round, they did play well in SA, but after the Memorial Day Miracle, they were summarily swept in four. It didn't seem like they wanted it as bad.

Back to the 96 Jags: If they get out of Foxborough, I think they beat the Packers. The 96 Pack weren't as good as people think (as I said, I know a guy who thinks that they are one of the two worst SB winners ever along with the 2001 Pats).

[ShinobiMusashi]

I get attacked on Facebook football groups for this opinion but I'm not a fan of the double standard and bias towards Cleveland Browns players who's career's overlapped in the AAFC and only had 3-5 good years in the NFL getting in the Hall Of Fame compared to all the AFL legends who get snubbed because they spent most or all of their careers in the AFL. There is a backlog of AFL greats that haven't touched a HOF nomination that should get in. To me some of those Brown's players of the 40's/50's by that standard shouldn't be in the HOF.

[JohnTurney]

I get attacked on Facebook football groups for this opinion but I'm not a fan of the double standard and bias towards Cleveland Browns players who's career's overlapped in the AAFC and only had 3-5 good years in the NFL getting in the Hall Of Fame compared to all the AFL legends who get snubbed because they spent most or all of their careers in the AFL. There is a backlog of AFL greats that haven't touched a HOF nomination that should get in. To me some of those Brown's players of the 40's/50's by that standard shouldn't be in the HOF.

There are two points that come to mind. First, there likely was a pro-Browns bias at the Hall. They accepted AAFC stats from the beginning. When the Hall came up with the passer rating system, you could always see that Otto was the onbe helped most by the inclusion, which the NFl didn't do until recently.

However, the AFL greats didn't play on a dynasty. For good or bad, the AAFC is was ... and looked down on. But when the Browns came in a won a ton in the early 1950s, that showed a lot to writers and back then winning matters a lot. I wonder if Tom Fears and/or Elroy Hirsch would get Hall consideration now. Hirsch, especially, had one great year and a few good ones, but was hurt a lot. Fears, maybe a couple great ones ... they were known for the point-a-minute offense as much as anything, but like Speedie and Lavelli for example, the numbers were good for they era but really didn't have the "numbers" that would look good today.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I get attacked on Facebook football groups for this opinion but I'm not a fan of the double standard and bias towards Cleveland Browns players who's career's overlapped in the AAFC and only had 3-5 good years in the NFL getting in the Hall Of Fame compared to all the AFL legends who get snubbed because they spent most or all of their careers in the AFL. There is a backlog of AFL greats that haven't touched a HOF nomination that should get in. To me some of those Brown's players of the 40's/50's by that standard shouldn't be in the HOF.

I've been down a similar road to no avail. It's unpopular on this board. There were a lot of players I would have put in the HOF before Speedie. At the same time, not even Motley had 3-5 good years in the NFL, so I don't think that's the right criteria. For me it's more about some eras getting over represented and others getting under represented. Lavelli is in, Hirsch is in. Let's get a few players from X in before we add yet another player from Y is how I look at it where X is whatever under represented era (or league in the case of AFL) and Y is whatever well represented era you fill in.