EPTNFL Playoffs 2008-2009 - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Games |
lilsusie
3861 Posts
| ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
At the same time tho, I have to admit that NOT having him in the game lessens the experience overall, just because of the fact that the best of the best is not out there on the floor. That excuse will always be there. So even if the Celtics or any other team were to facestomp the Lakers this year without Kobe, it just wouldn't be the same. I think that's the same way with this Tom Brady scenario; it might feel good to see your local team win that extra game, but overall fans of the sport would've loved it more to see football at its best. | ||
|
lilsusie
3861 Posts
| ||
|
tfeign
United States2980 Posts
On September 10 2008 13:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Football is the consummate team sport; every player needs to play well on both sides of the ball for the team to win it all. The Giants last year are a perfect example: the whole team was firing at the same time. It wasn't JUST Eli's heroics, or Tyree's catch, or Steve Smith's third down conversion catches, or the two DE's kill the Pats O-Line, all those things had to happen for them to win. In basketball a single player can take over the game. MJ did it all the time. Kobe does it now, Lebron does it. That doesn't happen in football. If it did, the Lions of the 90's would have been winning all the rings because Barry was the best player in the league, hands down. The same goes for your Tiger Woods, etc, comparisons. All those players play on their own, and therefore have a much bigger impact than a football player would. No one's attitude toward football has ever changed when a great player has retired. Did the NFL lose viewership when Walter Payton called it quits? Barry Sanders, John Elway, Jerry Rice (granted, he quit way after his prime), Emmit Smith, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Steve Young, and on and on and on? People watch TEAMS in the NFL, not PLAYERS (I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard that statement). The old saying holds true here, in football, where it doesn't in those sports "No one player is bigger than the team. No one player is bigger than the league." Tiger Woods is bigger than the PGA, MJ was bigger than the NBA, that's not the case in the NFL, because you need execution from everyone to win games. Personally, and I am really willing to bet this holds entirely true for MOST fans, I am more interested in watching the Broncos play and win, than I am in seeing Jay Cutler play and win. If Cutler were traded tomorrow, I would still be a Broncos fan. And I am willing to bet that's true, because the Packers still have just as many fans today as they did last year. In fact, "-Tonight's paid attendance was 71,004, the largest regular-season crowd in Lambeau Field history (besting 70,945, vs. Min., Nov. 11, 2007). It marked the 270th consecutive sellout (254 regular season, 16 playoffs) at Lambeau Field." from packers.com Yes, and the very fact that the NFL is more of a team sport is the same reason why Tom Brady's injury isn't going to destroy NFL's viewership. The best NFL player not competing does not do the fans ANY good, but the fact that football is more team-oriented is reason why viewership won't plummet like what happened in the NBA. Fans are NOT more interested in watching any kind of league when the bests are not competing. Fans are less interested, some to a much greater degree than others (basketball vs football is good example). But to say any kind of injury that sidelines a player who normally would compete, let alone one that takes out the best in the league for the whole season, is good for viewership is complete nonsense. | ||
|
Ozarugold
2716 Posts
Football has some hot cheerleaders, eh? Just trying to lighten the mood... | ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
On September 10 2008 15:15 Ozarugold wrote: It's kind of hard to post something when you guys are talking so passionately, which isn't bad of course, but... Football has some hot cheerleaders, eh? Just trying to lighten the mood... Boy do I feel sorry for those Steeler fans. | ||
|
sundance
Slovakia3201 Posts
On September 10 2008 13:49 tfeign wrote: I'm to tell you that because I know for a fact that fans are not more interested in watching sports due to injury to the league's best player. Fans like to see the bests compete, that is always true in any form of sports or competition, small or large, ancient or modern, team or not. Whether you are more interested or not is of course your own opinion, but it is not representative of the overall fanbase. Well I agree with SweetLemons and lilsusie, so it makes us three in one thread. Even salary cap and free agency was introduced to help the competition amongst other things and lessen the chance that some team will become dynasty. That's why I hate european soccer (besides it's sport for pussies :D - I'm european btw) is because there are some very rich teams which are winning their national leagues pretty much every year and it makes it extremly boring. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
On September 10 2008 15:15 Ozarugold wrote: It's kind of hard to post something when you guys are talking so passionately, which isn't bad of course, but... Football has some hot cheerleaders, eh? Just trying to lighten the mood... good god, the packers cheerleaders were so fucking boring it hurt to watch them on MNF | ||
|
Sir.Kimmel
United States785 Posts
 1. Eddie Royal DEN 146 as a rookie ... burned Hall twice.... embarrased him actually...... Hall was never a top tier corner anyways I wondered why he got paid so well... I thought maybe asi would cover for him but heh this is exciting...Once Marshall comesback whooo.... and if Cutler continues to play like that I see the Broncs being a favorite again.... | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 10 2008 15:02 tfeign wrote: Yes, and the very fact that the NFL is more of a team sport is the same reason why Tom Brady's injury isn't going to destroy NFL's viewership. The best NFL player not competing does not do the fans ANY good, but the fact that football is more team-oriented is reason why viewership won't plummet like what happened in the NBA. Fans are NOT more interested in watching any kind of league when the bests are not competing. Fans are less interested, some to a much greater degree than others (basketball vs football is good example). But to say any kind of injury that sidelines a player who normally would compete, let alone one that takes out the best in the league for the whole season, is good for viewership is complete nonsense. First of all, he's not the best player in the league, he's not even the best QB by everyone's standards (I think Peyton is). Nobody cares how their team wins, just that they win. Did the Patriots fans (or anyone that wanted them to win) care that LT couldn't play in the AFC Championship game? Hell no they didn't. When a good player goes down, the fans from the other teams breathe a sigh of relief because their team doesn't have to deal with that guy anymore. I breathed a sigh of relief, because the Broncos don't have to face Tom Brady this year (even though they kill him every time [7-1 against him]). There are two other people in this thread alone that are agreeing with what I'm saying. That would seem to imply that it's YOU with the distorted view. What it comes down to is that people like to see their team win. And most people don't give a shit how they do it, as long as they do it. On September 10 2008 22:09 Sir.Kimmel wrote: all I'm saying 1. Eddie Royal DEN 146 as a rookie ... burned Hall twice.... embarrased him actually...... Hall was never a top tier corner anyways I wondered why he got paid so well... I thought maybe asi would cover for him but heh this is exciting...Once Marshall comesback whooo.... and if Cutler continues to play like that I see the Broncs being a favorite again.... Yeah, definitely. Cutler has needed a reliable second target for years now. Stokely is about as reliable as they come, but he really isn't anything more than a slot receiver. And Darrell Jackson isn't really that guy either, in my opinion. Royal, on the other hand, is looking like the real deal. Marshall on one side--a guy that is impossible to tackle--and Royal on the other... things are looking up for the Denver Broncos this year. All they need to do now is learn how to stop the run more effectively (which, minus a big run from Fargas, they did pretty well). A real test awaits that defense this week. | ||
|
Dknight
United States5225 Posts
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 10 2008 23:51 Dknight wrote: Lets not get too excited for the Broncos just yet as they only played the Raiders this past weekend. I don't care. They're amazing! | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
On September 10 2008 22:09 Sir.Kimmel wrote: all I'm saying 1. Eddie Royal DEN 146 as a rookie ... burned Hall twice.... embarrased him actually...... Hall was never a top tier corner anyways I wondered why he got paid so well... I thought maybe asi would cover for him but heh this is exciting...Once Marshall comesback whooo.... and if Cutler continues to play like that I see the Broncs being a favorite again.... you've been on the "broncos this year" train for a few years now, i'm still not convinced that it'll happen this year, but we'll see | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36402 Posts
sweetlemons and susie's position could hold only if a very small minority of elite players get injured and those that do get injured are on the best teams (like Tom Brady). while this might decrease viewership in Boston, it could theoretically increase viewership in every other AFC team. this is most likely not the case though, as i doubt many people think wow no Brady, time to watch the NFL! the people who care about the Brady injury and its impact on their non-patriots team are already watching the NFL. thus the effect is largely negative, the impact of Tom Brady not playing on the quality and entertainment value of games most likely overrides the "emotional lift" provided to other teams' fans with regards to extra hope to make the playoffs. just take it to the extreme, if the best player on every team was injured would viewership be maximized? obviously not. its all about the bottom line, if injuries to top players were good for ratings then the would not NFL enact extremely stringent roughing the passer penalties, would not fine for helmet to helmet hits, etc. even though the impact of a single injury on a team sport like football is less than in individual sports like golf or tennis, its obviously better for overall ratings for the stars and best players to play. | ||
|
Sir.Kimmel
United States785 Posts
On September 11 2008 00:06 KOFgokuon wrote: you've been on the "broncos this year" train for a few years now, i'm still not convinced that it'll happen this year, but we'll see they are my team of course I'm going to bewe switched back to our def scheme that we are used too... you know the one a few years back that didn't allow a touchdown in 6 games mmmmm our run defense looked goooddddd considering how amazing oakland was figuring to be at the running game this year we'll see its going to be a good season though if they can continue to play like that they've been doing it throughout the preseason too.... tore right through dallas's starters | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3579504 if you can't take a little criticism you don't deserve to be making millions of dollars a year | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 11 2008 02:04 KOFgokuon wrote: man what a pussy http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3579504 if you can't take a little criticism you don't deserve to be making millions of dollars a year That's what I said when I heard that. On September 11 2008 01:22 Hot_Bid wrote: tfeign is simply saying that for overall viewership in the NFL, an injury to an elite player is never good. this is a generally accepted truth no matter how you spin it or compare differences between sports. sweetlemons and susie's position could hold only if a very small minority of elite players get injured and those that do get injured are on the best teams (like Tom Brady). while this might decrease viewership in Boston, it could theoretically increase viewership in every other AFC team. this is most likely not the case though, as i doubt many people think wow no Brady, time to watch the NFL! the people who care about the Brady injury and its impact on their non-patriots team are already watching the NFL. thus the effect is largely negative, the impact of Tom Brady not playing on the quality and entertainment value of games most likely overrides the "emotional lift" provided to other teams' fans with regards to extra hope to make the playoffs. just take it to the extreme, if the best player on every team was injured would viewership be maximized? obviously not. its all about the bottom line, if injuries to top players were good for ratings then the would not NFL enact extremely stringent roughing the passer penalties, would not fine for helmet to helmet hits, etc. even though the impact of a single injury on a team sport like football is less than in individual sports like golf or tennis, its obviously better for overall ratings for the stars and best players to play. This isn't an extreme case, though. We're talking about ONE player. It's not like Patriots games are exciting to watch, unless you enjoy watching far superior teams beat up on bad ones (like the Patriots v that whole division). The point is that people are not watching the game to see Tom Brady play. There is, yes, a certain segment of the viewers who do that, but by and large I believe that statement is untrue. To me, Patriots games will be MORE exciting now, because they'll be closer. I would much rather watch the Patriots now than I would have last week, because their games will no longer be comparable to Mike Tyson vs a semi-retarded five year old. | ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
| ||
|
Butigroove
Seychelles2061 Posts
On September 11 2008 03:20 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's what I said when I heard that. I have much less respect for Tennessee fans after hearing about that, not for Vince Young. Way to alienate your quarterback, instead of supporting him. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 11 2008 03:30 Butigroove wrote: I have much less respect for Tennessee fans after hearing about that, not for Vince Young. Way to alienate your quarterback, instead of supporting him. He put himself in the spotlight so that he would one day be on the biggest stage his sport offers, and now he's crying because he can't handle the pressure he asked for? There's nothing to feel sorry for. He was brought in, and paid millions of dollars to throw the football and make exciting plays. He failed to do that last week. Kerry Collins came in and did a better job. That's like saying you would have had less respect for Chargers fans when they booed Ryan Leaf. Vince Young need to appease the fans, the fans don't need to appease him. He was drafted third overall three years ago to win games for the team, and bring them back to the Super Bowl. "Since 2006, no NFL quarterback with at least 500 attempts has a lower passer rating than Vince Young." That means, by any measurable statistic, Vince Young is the WORST QB in the league. | ||
| ||
