Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
4 Pages<1234>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#16 Posted : Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:58:07 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Okay.. yes the thread title is bouncing it.


But I concur with your statement of facts, but it is not perception.

Now, on the fines and hits being fined. The rule is no helmet to helmet contact, but it is under his watch that they are inconsistently enforcing that rule. It is under his watch that they are determining which hits are being subject to discipline, including the threat of suspension to Ed Reed early this season.

So no, he cannot be absolved of that, while he might not be directly associated with the rulings.. it is upon his watch with input decided by partially of people appointed by him.


Which is why I have stated that I have and will continue to criticize him for how he has been punishing. I can't blame goodell for the defenseless player rule being created, but I can for how he has enforced and punished for it.

Can't blame Goodell for the owners locking out the refs. But I can blame him for how unprepared and bad the replacement officials were.

And can't blame Goodell for the owners talking about expanding the playoffs.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#17 Posted : Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:05:24 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 381
Applause Received: 1,027

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post


And can't blame Goodell for the owners talking about expanding the playoffs.


Agreed... but we can blame him for taking it public, thus subjecting himself (really is name) to public scrutiny. And basically causing more friction amongst the entities he is suppose to be representing.

Edited by user Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:20:33 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Porforis  
#18 Posted : Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:25:08 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Agreed... but we can blame him for taking it public, thus subjecting himself (really is name) to public scrutiny. And basically causing more friction amongst the entities he is suppose to be representing.


For all you know, he knows it's a terrible idea and is making it public before it gains any significant traction amongst the owners precisely because he knows it will get a negative reaction.
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#19 Posted : Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:34:16 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 381
Applause Received: 1,027

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
For all you know, he knows it's a terrible idea and is making it public before it gains any significant traction amongst the owners precisely because he knows it will get a negative reaction.


Agreed.. but then he is taking the sword of criticism. But isn't that still being a shill for the owners and taking away from what should be an exciting time (verge of the playoffs) for the league?

But you are correct, he could be the "hero" we the fans deserve and just destroying his legacy in the process.

I just don't think he would take that approach in a week in which he basically was overturned by PT.. and his "credibility" with the players is at an low point.

Edited by user Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:45:14 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Formo  
#20 Posted : Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:18:14 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
The contradictions that are the Commish.

Player safety and reducing the impacts of hits is vital to the game.

vs.

Lets add more games, thus more hits along the way, to the league.


It isn't about fan value, it isn't that the fans are screaming we need more. It is the concept that the owners think they can squeeze more green blood from the stone.

Never mind they are neutering the game in the process of the current slate of games. Creating rule to promote more scoring; and when the defenses adjust.. add more layers of rules to promote scoring. Making the hit zone an unrealistic target more and more by the week because they are getting bent over backwards in litigation.

Yet, adding more games to the slate seems to be the importance?

Reality is... the owners know they are going to get spanked in court very soon and don't want a dip in the bottom line of their cash flow, so why not take more off the backs of fans and the TV networks.


Don't be fooled my friend. He, nor the NFL, are TRULY concerned about player safety and reducing vicious hits. They are concerned about implementing rules, regulations, and penalties so that they will be absolved from any cases in the courts. One can't sue the NFL for trying to cover up knowledge that football is a dangerous sport if the NFL implements all these rules and regulations to the game (successfully changing it on a nearly fundamental level).

Oh, wait.. You just said that.. =)

That aside.. I actually like the idea of more playoff games. But only if they expand the league by at least 2 more teams (preferably 4)
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline Porforis  
#21 Posted : Friday, December 14, 2012 7:14:02 AM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
That aside.. I actually like the idea of more playoff games. But only if they expand the league by at least 2 more teams (preferably 4)


I didn't think of that earlier, but that's the only way I could possibly think of being okay with more playoff games. But if you're adding new teams, then the concern is if you can field enough quality teams, or if you're going to have a perennial expansion flop team like Jacksonville. Also, I'm afraid that more teams = A team in London which is a colossally bad idea.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#22 Posted : Friday, December 14, 2012 7:38:34 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,868
Applause Received: 2,044

The playoff amount of teams.
The amount of NFL teams.
The lack of a team oversea's.


All are FINE. Quit trying to muck it up!


Eliminate some of the rules. Make them more black/white. Make players watch a video of players who have been retired for more than a decade and sign a waiver of some sort acknowledging they know the dangers of playing in the NFL.

Quit trying to CHANGE the NFL!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
flep on 12/14/2012(UTC)
Offline flep  
#23 Posted : Friday, December 14, 2012 8:42:50 AM(UTC)
flep

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United Kingdom
Joined: 8/14/2008(UTC)
Location: UK

Applause Given: 54
Applause Received: 60

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
I didn't think of that earlier, but that's the only way I could possibly think of being okay with more playoff games. But if you're adding new teams, then the concern is if you can field enough quality teams, or if you're going to have a perennial expansion flop team like Jacksonville. Also, I'm afraid that more teams = A team in London which is a colossally bad idea.


More teams is more watering down of the quality of players.

The only way in my opinion he will extend the playoffs is by making it 14 teams. 7 from each conference (being 4 division winners and 3 WC's) with only the #1 seed from each conference getting a bye week. So there would be 3 wc games in each conference on Saturday and Sunday with he kick of times like a normal Sunday.

And the idea of a London franchise is impractable.

Believe me, I'm from the UK and post on the NFLUK forum, and the vast majority of posters are against a UK franchise. We are very happy (scratch that ecstatic)with 2 games a season being played at Wembley from next year but we are football fans already and all have our teams in the NFL who we support with a passion and would not switch allegiance to another team just because it was based in the UK.

As I have posted in the past the time zone is the biggest obstacle.

All home games would have to be 6PM (UK time) kick offs which is 1PM EST and 9AM PCT. A london team could never host a late afternoon game (9:25PM kick off) as the game wouldn't finish until nearly 1AM UK time. so a Sunday Night, Monday night home game is out of the question as they would kick off at 1:20AM UK time which is totally out of the question.

And this talk of a Superbowl in the UK is just that "Talk".......

The game would have to kick off 7PM UK time at latest which is 10AM PCT. With all the hoopla that goes with the big game i.e. TV build up pre match entertainment etc the TV programming on the West coast would be starting at 5AM in the morning.

This your game USA we just happen to love it and accept the times of kick offs.

Maybe as has been said already Goodell is just putting this out there to gauge fan reaction so he can go to the owners and tell them it's a no go.

We'll see.
Formed Merseyside Nighthawks. British Champions 1992. Packer fan for 30 years

UserPostedImage


I feel very wrong now!!!!!!!!!
Offline Pack93z  
#24 Posted : Friday, December 14, 2012 9:16:32 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 381
Applause Received: 1,027

Originally Posted by: flep Go to Quoted Post
More teams is more watering down of the quality of players.


My opinion, is there is more than enough college talent for a couple more teams across the league. The exception might be the upper echelon QB's, but that really applies to today's game as it is. So what is two more teams with mediocre QB's, the Bears have won for a couple decades with average to below average QB's. So have the Ravens.

I believe there are many young players that exit the league that could be successful in the right situation for their talents.

I don't believe talent is the limiting factor, I believe that it is drawing local fan interest is the issue. Building a stadium is a huge undertaking, then trying the generate and fill those stadiums without a built in tradition is the limiting factor.

Look no further than Jacksonville, Tampa, San Diego.. etc. Weekly they are fighting blackouts and most of the time, upside down yet in investments in the stadium itself. Even established teams like Indy are struggling to recapture public funding money for stadium costs. Buffalo is playing a couple home games a year in Toronto partially because of waning fan interest.

So why in God's green earth would you want to add more teams while we have franchises struggling already.

I think the NFL is too aggressively trying to force growth in place of it naturally taking place with demand for the product.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Formo  
#25 Posted : Friday, December 14, 2012 1:04:51 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
My opinion, is there is more than enough college talent for a couple more teams across the league. The exception might be the upper echelon QB's, but that really applies to today's game as it is. So what is two more teams with mediocre QB's, the Bears have won for a couple decades with average to below average QB's. So have the Ravens.

I believe there are many young players that exit the league that could be successful in the right situation for their talents.

I don't believe talent is the limiting factor, I believe that it is drawing local fan interest is the issue.
Building a stadium is a huge undertaking, then trying the generate and fill those stadiums without a built in tradition is the limiting factor.

Look no further than Jacksonville, Tampa, San Diego.. etc. Weekly they are fighting blackouts and most of the time, upside down yet in investments in the stadium itself. Even established teams like Indy are struggling to recapture public funding money for stadium costs. Buffalo is playing a couple home games a year in Toronto partially because of waning fan interest.

So why in God's green earth would you want to add more teams while we have franchises struggling already.

I think the NFL is too aggressively trying to force growth in place of it naturally taking place with demand for the product.


The bolded is absolutely correct. There are 120 something D1 college football teams. If the NFL expanded drastically and added 4 more teams, there still would be FAR enough talent to go around. I believe there are dozens of extremely high talent that gets lost at the wayside of the NFL because of early injuries/poor college coaching/poor college academics. Expanding the NFL by 4 teams would only force teams to find for those hidden gems even more so.

93z's spot on in that the crimp in the hourglass is the local fan interest and the money to be found to operate the new teams. Certainly there are markets for many more NFL teams.. But unless the new ownership wants to build stadiums that are 50k seats or less, those markets won't be tapped, IMO. The Dakotas come to mind (and I hope they never get a franchise).

I agree with Shawn on his last sentence, too. Well, the second part of it. I think the NFL can be aggressive in expansion, but cut back the stadium capacities and find markets that will be loyal (again, there are plenty). Sometimes those markets are found in the oddest of places (Baltimore is one of them, IMO. I would have never thought that city/market could have handled a NFL team before the Browns moved there. History proved me wrong.)
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline zombieslayer  
#26 Posted : Saturday, December 15, 2012 9:45:21 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

I used to love watching football. I may stop soon. Completely.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline wpr  
#27 Posted : Saturday, December 15, 2012 9:50:56 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,841
Applause Received: 1,370

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
I used to love watching football. I may stop soon. Completely.


I know. The owners think just because they paid for a franchise that means that they can do whatever they want to the game. How can these people who have obviously been incredibly successful in business be so stupid when it comes to what makes football popular? Thus profitable. Sooner or later they will kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs. Then they will wonder what happened.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

thanks Post received 1 applause.
yooperfan on 12/15/2012(UTC)
Offline Wade  
#28 Posted : Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:17:45 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 639
Applause Received: 655

Originally Posted by: packfanwithtwins Go to Quoted Post


Can't blame Goodell for the owners locking out the refs. But I can blame him for how unprepared and bad the replacement officials were.


Can we also blame him for how bad the replacement officials' replacements have been?

Big Grin

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline Wade  
#29 Posted : Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:22:56 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 639
Applause Received: 655

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
I used to love watching football. I may stop soon. Completely.



Hm...I thought the reason I had been more easily distracted from games these days was just frustration with the OL and Mason Crosby.

Maybe there is something deeper in my apathy.

I do know that the NFL looks more like life at a corporation that once upon a time had been driven by innovation and was now "managed" by bean counters and image maintainers.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline gbguy20  
#30 Posted : Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:40:17 AM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 203
Applause Received: 284

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
The bolded is absolutely correct. There are 120 something D1 college football teams. If the NFL expanded drastically and added 4 more teams, there still would be FAR enough talent to go around.


Disagree. The league can't even put out 32 starting caliber quarterbacks as it is. Expansion will just lead to more teams like the Jags, who one, can't even fill half a stadium, and two can't find a QB or the rest of the personnel to field a decent team.
call me Dan
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
4 Pages<1234>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
43m / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

8h / Random Babble / wpr

13h / Random Babble / dfosterf

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

14h / Welcome to our Community! / dfosterf

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

27-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

27-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.