scribo Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 Players don't watch the game, they see film. 874755[/snapback] And how did you come to that conclusion? Did you poll the players? London Fletcher was just on some show last week talking about going to a sportsbar to watch one of the Thursday night games.
generaLee83 Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 The pro bowl has sucked ever since they allowed the fans to vote..... I never watch the pro bowl...... Only the players and coaches should be allowed to vote. 872927[/snapback] Very good observation, honestly fans shouldn't be allowed to vote, it should be players or coaches, or perhaps even a committee of somewhat non-biased NFL personnell. You can vote for the same guy a zillion fu(king times, I voted for Fletcher and Peters like 100 times. Some players contracts get real beefy because of this popularity contest. Makes no sense at all.
ganesh Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 You'd probably be surprised how much the players suck at voting. 874600[/snapback] Rod Woodson had a point. He said lot of NFL players don't care for whom they are voting. They just ask their neighbor and vote as what he did... He said all the players should vote for players playing their position only. That is, all safeties should vote for only the Safeties. I still remember the post-game press conference of Brett Favre and he was searching to remember the name of Nate Clements, the guy who tipped the ball in the end zone causing Simpson to intercept the ball and take it back for 70 yards. Brett acknowledged that Clements is a very good football player, but do you think Brett is going to go and research and find the name of Clements and vote for him to the pro-bowl ?
Chilly Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 Newsflash: Charter flights have televisions. 874627[/snapback] Newsflash: Wait, no newsflash, I did forget about that. That being said, I would still think that its more the whole country being able to see them.
bartshan-83 Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 It is. That's why they make such a big deal out of playing in Prime Time. They know it's the only time the rest of the league will be able to watch them. 874395[/snapback] I gotta agree with BlueFire. Yeah they rest of the league has a better chance to see them, but it's the general public of football fans that the players care about. Popularity=sponsorship deals, leverage in contract negotiations, etc. I think the average NFL player has a MUCH better grasp on who can play in this league than the average NFL fan. As do the coaches. If they really want it to be accurate, let the professional scouts do the voting. Their main job is to evaluate players on different teams every single week.
Dibs Posted December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 ......I think the average NFL player has a MUCH better grasp on who can play in this league than the average NFL fan. As do the coaches.....875261[/snapback] I imagine it's not always the case but (IIRC) Schobel was not even in the top 5 in the popular vote this year. This implies the Players/coaches voted in large numbers for him for him to end up as starter. I tend to think that the players, though not 100%, would pretty much be on the money(as a group).
AKC Posted December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 Very good observation, honestly fans shouldn't be allowed to vote, it should be players or coaches, or perhaps even a committee of somewhat non-biased NFL personnell. You can vote for the same guy a zillion fu(king times, I voted for Fletcher and Peters like 100 times. Some players contracts get real beefy because of this popularity contest. Makes no sense at all. 874765[/snapback] The same argument could be made to cut the opposite way: 1) Let's assume (and I'd sign on to this) that big market players are more likely to get tons of votes simply because they play in front of a larger fan base. In contrast the smaller market players have to really have big games to get enough national attention to offset the homer votes for large market players. 2) And also let's adopt your conclusion that in many cases a Pro-Bowl selection inflates a player's salary prospects. A couple of reasonable assumptions based on the above would be: A) Many large market players of lesser skills but Pro-Bowl berths are being paid more than their smaller market counterparts who are actually better players. B) Small market teams benefit by retaining highly skilled players who in larger markets might earn Pro-Bowl slots and higher paydays, giving he small market team more flexibility in Cap structuring. Ain't parity a wonderful thing!
Dibs Posted December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 The same argument could be made to cut the opposite way: 1) Let's assume (and I'd sign on to this) that big market players are more likely to get tons of votes simply because they play in front of a larger fan base. In contrast the smaller market players have to really have big games to get enough national attention to offset the homer votes for large market players. 2) And also let's adopt your conclusion that in many cases a Pro-Bowl selection inflates a player's salary prospects. A couple of reasonable assumptions based on the above would be: A) Many large market players of lesser skills but Pro-Bowl berths are being paid more than their smaller market counterparts who are actually better players. B) Small market teams benefit by retaining highly skilled players who in larger markets might earn Pro-Bowl slots and higher paydays, giving he small market team more flexibility in Cap structuring. Ain't parity a wonderful thing! 875290[/snapback] Good post.
Recommended Posts