Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Is this what we want the NFL to be?

Jmac

By Jmac,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Jmac Grand Master

Jmac

Posted
Posted

The Panthers have the talent on the offense to put up a 40+ spot on anyone, but is this really what we want to see every week? They have cut the nad's off the defense and makes it almost impossible to compete with a good offense.

So what is the answer? When we play the Saints and they put up 50 and we put up 45 is that what you want to see (or visa versa). Wouldn't  some defense be nice to equal out the advantage? Arena football puts up these kind of numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popsickle Proficient

Popsickle

Posted
Posted

Yes, this is what the NFL wants. It's painfully obvious. 

/Thread

 

Is it what I want? No, if a QB wants to throw a buddy pass to a receiver over the middle, some SS should Ronny Lott the hell out of him and be in top 10. But the NFL wants points because that is what is exciting to the average person that doesn't care about football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crowntownpanther Apprentice

crowntownpanther

Posted
Posted

Short answer, I think it depends on the officials. Tonight was a great example of a game that may have been over officiated, but done equally.  When officials start favoring offensive plays, the defense can’t do much.  If they can call both sides of the ball fairly, that allows the defense to really play.  To me that’s the difference.  I think the defenses in the league haven’t gotten worse, they are just playing 2v1 vs the offense and the officials.  Maybe I have bad flashbacks to the Steelers game.  We would have lost that game no matter what, but it shouldn’t have been what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

This is the type of football the NFL wants and they've been altering the rules for a decade or more to get there. This is the type of football that the casual fan wants to see. No, it isn't the type of football I want to see. Sure, the occasional shootout is fun, but I played defense. I love defense. If defense becomes irrelevant outside of the occasional splash play I'm not sure I'll remain an NFL fan long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Panther Experienced

Bama Panther

Posted
Posted

The times are changing, my friend. In today’s world, attention spans are growing shorter and shorter. Unfortunately, this has led to people needing to be excited far more regularly in order to keep their attention. Defense does not do that for the majority of casual NFL fans. The NFL knows it has the die-hards. They will watch games and spend their money, regardles of what happens to the game. That has been proven over and over again. The NFL is now attempting to pull in the casual fans. The only way to do that is to make the game more exciting for that target audience. The easiest way to do that: have teams scoring 40 points regularly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...