The State of the N.F.L.

BillyC · 01-20-2004, 04:59 PM

After watching all the teams play this year, I have come to the conclusion that none of the teams are nearly as good as in years past. Philly and Indy both made it to their division championship game and both teams have major weaknesses. The Colts defense might be OK by today's standards, but hardly remind me of a strong defense. Philly's offense is just plain bad. Before free agency and all the new teams, talent wasn't so spread out through the league. Now days, I see players that really couldn't have cut it in the NFL in years past.

Carolina and the Pats are in the super bowl, but neither one is a great team by past standards. The Buffalo teams that lost 3 superbowls would destroy both of those teams. As a matter of fact, the Bobby Hebert led Saints with the dome patrol defense would destroy both of those teams. How do you think Jake would like facing Pat Swilling, Ricky Jackson, Sam Mills, Vaugn Johnson, Wayne Martin, and Co.?

After seeing how bad some the playoff teams were this year, it made me feel much better about the Saints. We're much closer than I thought. I'm going to even have to reevaluate my thinking on Jim Haslett after watching some of the terrible coaching in the playoffs.

Teams don't play to win anymore. Well, the Pats do, but I really saw no one else that did. I think 99.9% of the teams have a very good chance at going to the playoffs next year. If the Pats are considered a dynasty team, I don't think that speaks too highly of the NFL.

[Edited on 20/1/2004 by BillyC]

BlackandBlue · 01-20-2004, 05:06 PM

Carolina and the Pats are in the super bowl, but neither one is a great team by past standards.

The Pats were one bad call away from making the Super Bowl last year, and they won it the year before. They are the closest thing we\'ve had to a \"dynasty\" in this decade, plus they are overall young, and have plenty of draft picks coming up in the near future.

BillyC · 01-20-2004, 05:21 PM

That\'s exactly my point BandB. The Pats are a dynasty team by today\'s standards. The Pats are simualar to the 49\'er dynasty, in that they play mistake free football. But that\'s where the comparison ends. They aren\'t overly talented and really only have average talent.

The 49\'ers were super talented and playing mistake free football put them above the rest of the great teams. Today there are no great teams. Not one!! There are a bunch of average teams that win by playing mistake free football. Some call it parity. I call it watered-down football. I don\'t like seeing teams that play not to lose.

Take the Panthers defense. They\'re the best thing going in the NFL, but would rank way down the list in 1987. Anyone checked out the takling across the NFL. It\'s pathetic. These good teams today are lacking in so many ways compared to years past.

Cassady37 · 01-20-2004, 06:43 PM

I think the free agency system that is in place at the moment has destroyed any chance of seeing \"sound\" football on a consisitent basis. The best coaches in the NFL have to contend with the salary cap, the free agency market and the high price tag players and their agents are demanding. With that kind of system they can\'t possibly keep a team together long enough to be a well-oiled machine for more than a few years. And if any one team can manage to balance it just right, there are still a league-full of teams that can\'t for one of those reasons. I long for the NFL of yesteryear when a player who played for his teammates, coaches and the love of the game, wasn\'t the exception.

WhoDat · 01-21-2004, 05:26 PM

If three playoff appearences and Two trips to the Super Bowl with at least one win) doesn\'t translate into a dynasty, what does?

I mean, they were 14-2 this year. Weren\'t they 13-3 in their Super Bowl year? They\'ve gotta have over 30 wins with about 10 losses in the last three years. That\'s a dynasty.

[Edited on 21/1/2004 by WhoDat]

saintfan · 01-21-2004, 05:47 PM

The Patriots? A dynasty? I think not. The Steelers of the 70\'s. Now THAT\'S a dynasty. The 49ers of the 80\'s -- the Cowboys of the 90\'s...those were what I\'d call a Dynasty. So the Patriots won about 30 games in three years...and...soo...how many did the Bill\'s win in the years they made it (and lost) to the Superbowl?

Let New England win it all this year (and I think they will) and come back and do it again next year and THEN I\'d consider \'em a dynasty. In my opinion wins don\'t make a team a dynasty, winning the big game does.

[Edited on 21/1/2004 by saintfan]

01-20-2004, 04:59 PM	#1
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842	The State of the N.F.L. After watching all the teams play this year, I have come to the conclusion that none of the teams are nearly as good as in years past. Philly and Indy both made it to their division championship game and both teams have major weaknesses. The Colts defense might be OK by today's standards, but hardly remind me of a strong defense. Philly's offense is just plain bad. Before free agency and all the new teams, talent wasn't so spread out through the league. Now days, I see players that really couldn't have cut it in the NFL in years past. Carolina and the Pats are in the super bowl, but neither one is a great team by past standards. The Buffalo teams that lost 3 superbowls would destroy both of those teams. As a matter of fact, the Bobby Hebert led Saints with the dome patrol defense would destroy both of those teams. How do you think Jake would like facing Pat Swilling, Ricky Jackson, Sam Mills, Vaugn Johnson, Wayne Martin, and Co.? After seeing how bad some the playoff teams were this year, it made me feel much better about the Saints. We're much closer than I thought. I'm going to even have to reevaluate my thinking on Jim Haslett after watching some of the terrible coaching in the playoffs. Teams don't play to win anymore. Well, the Pats do, but I really saw no one else that did. I think 99.9% of the teams have a very good chance at going to the playoffs next year. If the Pats are considered a dynasty team, I don't think that speaks too highly of the NFL. [Edited on 20/1/2004 by BillyC]
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842

01-20-2004, 05:06 PM	#2
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	The State of the N.F.L. Carolina and the Pats are in the super bowl, but neither one is a great team by past standards. The Pats were one bad call away from making the Super Bowl last year, and they won it the year before. They are the closest thing we\'ve had to a \"dynasty\" in this decade, plus they are overall young, and have plenty of draft picks coming up in the near future.

01-20-2004, 05:21 PM	#3
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842	The State of the N.F.L. That\'s exactly my point BandB. The Pats are a dynasty team by today\'s standards. The Pats are simualar to the 49\'er dynasty, in that they play mistake free football. But that\'s where the comparison ends. They aren\'t overly talented and really only have average talent. The 49\'ers were super talented and playing mistake free football put them above the rest of the great teams. Today there are no great teams. Not one!! There are a bunch of average teams that win by playing mistake free football. Some call it parity. I call it watered-down football. I don\'t like seeing teams that play not to lose. Take the Panthers defense. They\'re the best thing going in the NFL, but would rank way down the list in 1987. Anyone checked out the takling across the NFL. It\'s pathetic. These good teams today are lacking in so many ways compared to years past.
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842

01-20-2004, 06:43 PM	#4
Cassady37 100th Post Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Kilgore, Texas Posts: 337	The State of the N.F.L. I think the free agency system that is in place at the moment has destroyed any chance of seeing \"sound\" football on a consisitent basis. The best coaches in the NFL have to contend with the salary cap, the free agency market and the high price tag players and their agents are demanding. With that kind of system they can\'t possibly keep a team together long enough to be a well-oiled machine for more than a few years. And if any one team can manage to balance it just right, there are still a league-full of teams that can\'t for one of those reasons. I long for the NFL of yesteryear when a player who played for his teammates, coaches and the love of the game, wasn\'t the exception.

01-21-2004, 05:26 PM	#5
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	The State of the N.F.L. If three playoff appearences and Two trips to the Super Bowl with at least one win) doesn\'t translate into a dynasty, what does? I mean, they were 14-2 this year. Weren\'t they 13-3 in their Super Bowl year? They\'ve gotta have over 30 wins with about 10 losses in the last three years. That\'s a dynasty. [Edited on 21/1/2004 by WhoDat]
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-21-2004, 05:47 PM	#6
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	The State of the N.F.L. The Patriots? A dynasty? I think not. The Steelers of the 70\'s. Now THAT\'S a dynasty. The 49ers of the 80\'s -- the Cowboys of the 90\'s...those were what I\'d call a Dynasty. So the Patriots won about 30 games in three years...and...soo...how many did the Bill\'s win in the years they made it (and lost) to the Superbowl? Let New England win it all this year (and I think they will) and come back and do it again next year and THEN I\'d consider \'em a dynasty. In my opinion wins don\'t make a team a dynasty, winning the big game does. [Edited on 21/1/2004 by saintfan]
	C'mon Man...