LABILLBACKER Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) You're going to see a lot of older QB's start retiring. Starting with Ben, Eli and Philip...Tom next year. Edited October 16, 2017 by LABILLBACKER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Defenses have simply gotten much better. Its been a few years since the NFL instituted their new pass-happy rules and defenses have adapted to them. Meanwhile there are no young star QBs in the mold of Brady or Manning. That age of QBs is fading fast, and every good QB that remains is either inconsistent or unproven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) You're going to see a lot of older QB's start retiring. Starting with Ben, Eli and Philip...Tom next year. I've mentioned this before .. The list of teams going after the top 4 QB's in 2018 is growing longer as the weeks pass. Edited October 16, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 who gives a chit what they think. We'd be in and the drought would be over Of course. But you know certain posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Of course. But you know certain posters. There are a number of posters I just blow past and a few I actually have on ignore. just dawned on me.... Am I one of them? Edited October 16, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Defenses have simply gotten much better. Its been a few years since the NFL instituted their new pass-happy rules and defenses have adapted to them. Meanwhile there are no young star QBs in the mold of Brady or Manning. That age of QBs is fading fast, and every good QB that remains is either inconsistent or unproven. I'm not sure how much I'm ready to attribute to defensive improvement, although I do agree with your assessment of the QB position. Currently there are many aging QB's who appear to be fading, while the young QB's aren't ready for the torch to passed onto them. There are countless high scoring games throughout the league every week. This does not speak to a league with great defense. NFL football in its current form consists of poor fundamentals displayed on both sides of the ball. Lets use the 2017 Pats as an example. They are a very average looking team, yet they have managed to accumulate a 4-2 record. Haven't they allowed something like six consecutive three hundred yard passing games against them? This shouldn't be a 4-2 team with such a poor defense, but the majority of their opponents haven't had good enough QB play to capitalize. The modern NFL is built around the QB. League rules have been manipulated with the intention of pulling the game in that direction. Now we have a QB oriented league, without enough good ones to keep the game entertaining. Edited October 16, 2017 by DriveFor1Outta5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 There are many factors to the current state of the NFL. There have been many seasons that were " wide open" , it seems the OP lacks some historical perspective. Anyway, some of the better QBs are aging, the offseason featured high turnover of coaches and staffs. The new practice rules of the current CBA are on display as sloppy play is prevelant. It's long been the case that defense's were ahead of offenses early in the season but efficient offense is less common as practice time is severely limited. Even training camps are soft and I believe the overall quality of play has suffered as a result. The largest change thus far is the Pats are far less dominant in a season where many believed they would be moreso than ever. All dynasties fade, and while the Pats are 4-2 they might be the least convincing 4-2 out there. If two bungled calls don't happen ( the 4th down Cooks TD that incorrectly stood vs HOU and the debacle with the NYJ Sefarian Jenkins TD yesterday) the Pats could easily be 2-4. These things all contribute to the wide open playoff possibilities currently perceived. As the season goes on some teams will pull away as usually happens. I don't think we will see a week 17 with 4 or 5 division titles up for grabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 And yet the Patriots and Steelers are still in first place. The NFL doesn't need "parity" -- meaning that teams are so mediocre and inconsistent that nobody knows who will win each week. That just makes for ugly and messy football. Fans don't want to see their 9-7 team win the division by default. What the NFL needs is FRESH FACES. Especially in the AFC. It needs new teams with young talent to step up. It needs young quarterbacks to dominate, so guys like Brady, Roethlisberger and Brees can fade out and retire. It needs teams like the Bills, Browns and Jaguars to put together powerhouse franchises, and teams like the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos to drop off for a little while. We've been literally watching the same 5 teams cycle through the AFC for close to 20 years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 There are many factors to the current state of the NFL. There have been many seasons that were " wide open" , it seems the OP lacks some historical perspective. Anyway, some of the better QBs are aging, the offseason featured high turnover of coaches and staffs. The new practice rules of the current CBA are on display as sloppy play is prevelant. It's long been the case that defense's were ahead of offenses early in the season but efficient offense is less common as practice time is severely limited. Even training camps are soft and I believe the overall quality of play has suffered as a result. The largest change thus far is the Pats are far less dominant in a season where many believed they would be moreso than ever. All dynasties fade, and while the Pats are 4-2 they might be the least convincing 4-2 out there. If two bungled calls don't happen ( the 4th down Cooks TD that incorrectly stood vs HOU and the debacle with the NYJ Sefarian Jenkins TD yesterday) the Pats could easily be 2-4. These things all contribute to the wide open playoff possibilities currently perceived. As the season goes on some teams will pull away as usually happens. I don't think we will see a week 17 with 4 or 5 division titles up for grabs. Good post. I agree with most of the above. The only exception is the "what if" scenario with the Pats record. The Pats are gifted countless victories by the officials every season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evans555 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 It's crappy all around, not sure if that's something to be gleeful about. It just means i'll watch the Bills game and possibly not a second of anything else on a given weekend. Used to be 5 or 6 games watched with interest. It's something to be "gleeful" about because it translates to what should be an easier path to the playoffs for the Bills. I think that's why most of us are here, isn't it? To see the team in the playoffs and hopefully one day the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 parity measures are working revenue sharing hard cap salary floor reverse order of draft scheduling 1st place vs 1st place games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corta765 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 And yet the Patriots and Steelers are still in first place. The NFL doesn't need "parity" -- meaning that teams are so mediocre and inconsistent that nobody knows who will win each week. That just makes for ugly and messy football. Fans don't want to see their 9-7 team win the division by default. What the NFL needs is FRESH FACES. Especially in the AFC. It needs new teams with young talent to step up. It needs young quarterbacks to dominate, so guys like Brady, Roethlisberger and Brees can fade out and retire. It needs teams like the Bills, Browns and Jaguars to put together powerhouse franchises, and teams like the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos to drop off for a little while. We've been literally watching the same 5 teams cycle through the AFC for close to 20 years now. Agreed although it is cyclical. The Bills, Chiefs, Dolphins, and Broncos dominated from the mid 80s until 99. The difference to me is the rules allowed QB's to get hit less so guys like Brady, Manning, Big Ben, & Rivers all in the AFC have gotten a life cycle far longer then the previous generations of QB's who melted down around 10-12 years not 13-16 years like we are seeing. Since the 2000 AFC parity really has been a joke. Here is the list of teams from the NFC that have made the SB: PHI, 3x NYG, 2x CAR, ATL, NO, TB, GB, CHI, STL/LA, 3x SEA, SF, & ARZ. 12 of the 16 NFC Teams have made it which is pretty awesome that 75% of your conference has hit that point of success. In regards to the NFC title game only DAL, WSH, & DET have failed to make that in the last 17 years. Now compared to the AFC in SB: NE, PIT, BAL, IND, DEN. A paltry 6 of 16 teams in the AFC only 37%. That really doesn't give much hope or enthusiasm to AFC fan bases and over time only drowns down the energy for teams. It would be nice to see over the next two decades if the AFC could get some more representation for different teams once these guys retire. I myself was honestly not that into the last two SB's given how often Brady and Manning have been around. I think the media likes the story lines of those guys for ratings, but KC or HOU at this point would be a welcome change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Agreed although it is cyclical. The Bills, Chiefs, Dolphins, and Broncos dominated from the mid 80s until 99. The difference to me is the rules allowed QB's to get hit less so guys like Brady, Manning, Big Ben, & Rivers all in the AFC have gotten a life cycle far longer then the previous generations of QB's who melted down around 10-12 years not 13-16 years like we are seeing. Very true. The Bills (with Jim Kelly) started ramping up around 1987-1988. They made their first Super Bowl in 1990, and their last in 1993. By that point, Kelly's knees were shot and his body was falling apart. He retired after the 1996 season, less than 10 years after our run actually started. By comparison, the Patriots (with Tom Brady) started their dynasty in 2001. Here we are 15 years later and they are still defending champs, and Brady is still playing as a top NFL QB. It just doesn't seem fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corta765 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Very true. The Bills (with Jim Kelly) started ramping up around 1987-1988. They made their first Super Bowl in 1990, and their last in 1993. By that point, Kelly's knees were shot and his body was falling apart. He retired after the 1996 season, less than 10 years after our run actually started. By comparison, the Patriots (with Tom Brady) started their dynasty in 2001. Here we are 15 years later and they are still defending champs, and Brady is still playing as a top NFL QB. It just doesn't seem fair. It's why I am honestly stunned Aaron Rodgers doesn't have at least another Super Bowl and why the 2014 NFC Championship looks/feels like such a failed opportunity for GB in retrospect. He is the best pure QB in the game other then Brady and the NFC only had offered basically Matt Ryan/Romo against him as an equal. Eli and Russell Wilson are a notch below Matt Ryan/Romo to me. He still has time to get another ring or two, but there are a lot of QB's who also had their shot and never got back to a SB again or even got to a SB. And with how open the NFC looks again this year that injury completely sucks for him because I think most had GB as the favorite or one of the Top 3 teams. Edited October 16, 2017 by corta765 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Very true. The Bills (with Jim Kelly) started ramping up around 1987-1988. They made their first Super Bowl in 1990, and their last in 1993. By that point, Kelly's knees were shot and his body was falling apart. He retired after the 1996 season, less than 10 years after our run actually started. By comparison, the Patriots (with Tom Brady) started their dynasty in 2001. Here we are 15 years later and they are still defending champs, and Brady is still playing as a top NFL QB. It just doesn't seem fair. Don't forget, Kelly played a couple of seasons in the USFL (and got beaten on pretty good there, too), starting in 1984. So he had a good 13-season run. Edited October 16, 2017 by Rubes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 I can't say Pitt is mediocre after they crushed KC yesterday. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that game, one way or the other. There is something weird going on there. Pittsburgh has KC's number! Not sure it means Pitt is good or that KC is bad...but when those 2 teams get together, Pitt wins, at least in the last 3 match ups. Pittsburgh knows how to stop the KC offense. Very true. The Bills (with Jim Kelly) started ramping up around 1987-1988. They made their first Super Bowl in 1990, and their last in 1993. By that point, Kelly's knees were shot and his body was falling apart. He retired after the 1996 season, less than 10 years after our run actually started. By comparison, the Patriots (with Tom Brady) started their dynasty in 2001. Here we are 15 years later and they are still defending champs, and Brady is still playing as a top NFL QB. It just doesn't seem fair. I think of all the times I watched Jim Kelly get slammed into that old, hard, astro turf at Rich Stadium and elsewhere...and it makes ME hurt all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 The new practice rules of the current CBA are on display as sloppy play is prevelant. Absolutely this has led to sloppy play (less practices, less time to learn and enforce rules). It also has increased the number of players who were brought in for 1 year deals reducing continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 The college game isn't giving us monster RBs and NFL-style QBs. Football is degrading horribly in skill, while pro hoops is growing exponentially in talent. UGA is about to send two studs into the NFL at RB. The rules do need to change back to make it less of a QB driven league. Allow more bumping and contact, this will also help slow down receivers and may help reduce some big collisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts