Is the regular season now just mostly or completely meaningless? (1 Viewer)

[Kool-Aid Larry]

1) i like baltimore 2) i was rooting for baltimore

2 years running now we've had some pretty deeply flawed champions of the post-season 1-off tournament.

Last year a 9-7 team that really just got hot at the right time and rode the momentum to the championship... somewhat similar to their 2007 performance, but this particular version was even less impressive.

I'd say the reg season means more than it ever has, as it's always a mad scramble at the end of the year to even get a chance at playing in the superbowl, whereas in the past it was more a formality, since you knew the niners, et al, would be there at the end.but as an aside, let me just say how annoying it is when people use phrases like, really just got hot at the right time and rode the momentum --- it reminds me that even centuries later we're still the same people that thought it was hot outside because the sun was angry with them, only now we come up with lottery systems based on whichever numbers are 'due'.

by definition, a team is 'hot' when it wins a string of games --- so, why did it win those games?

because it's 'hot' --- it's ####### ######ed.

everybody has fond memories of yesteryear, when they were growing up and watching all these iconic teams and players, but football is about competition --- that's what makes for a great sport and a great team, competition, and the nfl is more about competition today than ever, which is why you don't see a handful of teams dominate, anymore, which basically prevents any single team from becoming iconic.

that's great that you might still be able to talk about the rosters of those great niners teams decades later, but I looked up some stuff for a post in another thread, recently, and found out that in one particular year in the early nineties (the random one I looked up), shortly before the advent of the salary cap, the final four teams that year were all in the top 7 in team payroll.

I think the best record that year belonged to the niners, with 14 wins, iirc, and not only were they among the top teams in payroll, their payroll actually exceeded those other 3 final 4 teams by 25%, by 50% over the nfl median, and actually 100% of another team in their own division.

that's greatness?

I don't think anyone would dispute the greatness and iconic identity of the original dream team, but is that what you'd really prefer the nfl to return to ---- a handful of haves rolling chumps all season?

people love some of those old dominant teams because people love winners, which is why there were so many people adopting the yankees all over the country, so many celtics and lakers fans, raiders, cowboys, etc --- because if you wanted to root for a winner you might have to adopt a team that plays home games 2000 miles away from you.

btw, that 14-2 niner team with the bloated payroll didn't make the superbowl that year.

this was right around the time montana was wrapping up his 13 year run, and handing off the legacy to steve young, who played 13 years of his own for the club.

we all recognize some of the fixtures from those rosters, years later --- roger craig - 8 year run, rice - 16 years, clark - 9 years, rathman - 8 yrs, lott - 10 yrs, haley - 6 yrs, taylor - 9 yrs, etc

maybe the closest thing we've had in the current nfl would be the patriots, with the tenured brady being the most recognizable name, of course.

but how many others on this 'dynasty' even last long enough to see a contract extension in a salary capped nfl -- mankins, wilfork, and......?

nobody, outside pats fans, is talking about a couple linemen, and the rest of the team is pretty much regularly turned over with lesser luminaries, and rookie contracts, because that's what you have to do when free agency exists, and you can't spend 100% more than a division 'rival', to use the term loosely.

welker might be one of the more easily identified with this current bunch, and he could be out the door after a spectacular 6 year run.

yeah, when you see the same faces over and over, year after year, on one of the 3 networks you have access to, it's a little easier to identify the players and build memories, but that's not competition, and it's not true greatness --- that's just comfortable familiarity.

 

[gianmarco]

Was 2009 so long ago?I mean, the New Orleans Saints started the year 13-0 (finished 13-3). They had a big matchup in week 6 against the then 5-0 NYG and won. They then had an epic MNF matchups with the NE Patriots in week 12 to remain undefeated. They also had an incredibly memorable NFCC game against the Vikings with Favre throwing a crucial INT at the end of the game.That same year, Indy went 14-0 to start the year and finished 14-2.These 2 teams were epic powerhouses. They were the elite of the elite that year. And BOTH of these teams made it to the Super Bowl as the #1 seeds. The game turned out to be all that it was billed to be with a crucial late INT to seal an otherwise close game. A game that also had a memorable onside kick after the half.But yeah, I guess this only happened like 3 years ago, so I can see where you're going with this.

 

[Dentist]

Was 2009 so long ago?I mean, the New Orleans Saints started the year 13-0 (finished 13-3). They had a big matchup in week 6 against the then 5-0 NYG and won. They then had an epic MNF matchups with the NE Patriots in week 12 to remain undefeated. They also had an incredibly memorable NFCC game against the Vikings with Favre throwing a crucial INT at the end of the game.That same year, Indy went 14-0 to start the year and finished 14-2.These 2 teams were epic powerhouses. They were the elite of the elite that year. And BOTH of these teams made it to the Super Bowl as the #1 seeds. The game turned out to be all that it was billed to be with a crucial late INT to seal an otherwise close game. A game that also had a memorable onside kick after the half.But yeah, I guess this only happened like 3 years ago, so I can see where you're going with this.

great teams, great game.no question about it.Unfortunate that it seems like this is becoming more the exception than the norm.

 

[Dentist]

I think the level of QBing has vastly improved over the last couple of decades and the rules have shifted to favor the passers. You have guys like Wilson, Kap, RG3, and Luck who have top notch throwing talent year one in the league.

has the level of QBing really improved? or is it what you said.. that the rules have made passing easier, the offensive schemes are better... and thus stats inflation has occurred BIG time.because has the QB talent level really exceeded the level of the CB's, LB's, pass rushers?

 

[Dentist]

I'd say the reg season means more than it ever has, as it's always a mad scramble at the end of the year to even get a chance at playing in the superbowl, whereas in the past it was more a formality, since you knew the niners, et al, would be there at the end.

but as an aside, let me just say how annoying it is when people use phrases like, really just got hot at the right time and rode the momentum --- it reminds me that even centuries later we're still the same people that thought it was hot outside because the sun was angry with them, only now we come up with lottery systems based on whichever numbers are 'due'.

by definition, a team is 'hot' when it wins a string of games --- so, why did it win those games?

because it's 'hot' --- it's ####### ######ed.

Good piece on familiarity... but do you not agree that a team/players can get "hot"have you never been on a streak shooting 3's during a pickup game?

serve never been just "really working well" when playing tennis?

hot run of cards at poker?

sick run of really epic root canals where you're just in there finding every canal, filling them to perfection?

on the flip side haven't you had stretches where nothing went your way?

It's one of the main reasons I have disdane for the one and done format in any sport (i realize best of 3 isn't realistic for football...)

Baseball and football have become sports of "who's hot now"..

the NBA is the only sport left where fairly consistently the best team on paper often ends up also winning the title.

 

[MikeMan]

This may sound too simplistic but when I was growing up getting interested in football, it was good rushing if >4.0 yards per carry and good passing at >7 yards per attempt. So I always wondered why every team didn't pass a whole lot more!I think bc coach bequeith coaches bequeith coaches and the game was built on running the ball. Run-and-shoot and similars kinda sputtered out but common sense prevails that it's better to get 7 yards than 4.

 

[gianmarco]

Was 2009 so long ago?I mean, the New Orleans Saints started the year 13-0 (finished 13-3). They had a big matchup in week 6 against the then 5-0 NYG and won. They then had an epic MNF matchups with the NE Patriots in week 12 to remain undefeated. They also had an incredibly memorable NFCC game against the Vikings with Favre throwing a crucial INT at the end of the game.That same year, Indy went 14-0 to start the year and finished 14-2.These 2 teams were epic powerhouses. They were the elite of the elite that year. And BOTH of these teams made it to the Super Bowl as the #1 seeds. The game turned out to be all that it was billed to be with a crucial late INT to seal an otherwise close game. A game that also had a memorable onside kick after the half.But yeah, I guess this only happened like 3 years ago, so I can see where you're going with this.

great teams, great game.no question about it.Unfortunate that it seems like this is becoming more the exception than the norm.

You're not going to get this every year. If teams like the '85 Bears were around every year, then they wouldn't be the '85 Bears. That's the thing about being elite....it's not commonplace. To have that expectation every year is silly. If it wasn't for the "mediocre" teams sprinkled in that end up winning, you wouldn't think these other teams were as memorable.If the #1 seeds made it every single year, the luster would be gone. Think of it this way--In the last decade, you've had:The Greatest Show on TurfPatriots winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 yearsThe Saints/Colts Super Bowl featuring two #1 seeds.If you want the top team to win it all every year then just get rid of the playoffs.

 

[Herb]

yeah, when you see the same faces over and over, year after year, on one of the 3 networks you have access to, it's a little easier to identify the players and build memories, but that's not competition, and it's not true greatness --- that's just comfortable familiarity.

Well said. The NFL is the premier sport in the land, and IMO the single largest reason is you simply don't know who will be standing at the end. Teams can come from nowhere and win the championship. And that is interesting and entertaining.I really hope Dentist is in the minority with his opinions on "greatness."

 

[Insein]

Dynasty's blow, parity rules. We didn't know it at the time, but the 80s and 90s sucked. There is nothing more boring than watching the same few teams win title after title. This is the reason the NBA has become unwatchable. The only people that like that are the fans of those teams, and it turns them into entitled ##### fans that can no longer appreciate how difficult the sport is. Greatness, shmateness. Give me a hot team playing well at the right time over one that is a concensus "best team on paper."

I'm not even asking for dynasties. I'd be thrilled with another '85 Bears. Hell, I'd be thrilled with a '99 Rams, '00 Ravens, or '02 Bucs. I just want some sense that this season's results had greater meaning to the history of the NFL than "wow, that team sure had 3-4 great games in a row". Give me an epic defense or offense. Give me a historically dominant squad. I'll even take a lovable loser making good like the Cardinals' SB run or the Saints' championship. But Baltimore? The game was entertaining for 4 hours, and now I'll just forget it and never remember back to it. The only mental impressions I have of this team all involve Ray Lewis crying on the sidelines or Rahim Moore committing the most unforgivable defensive lapse in postseason history.

02 Bucs wasn't that great. They had a very good defense but the Eagles beat them handily during the season and they lost to the Saints twice. They had the right gameplan for NFCCG though.

 

[Dentist]

This may sound too simplistic but when I was growing up getting interested in football, it was good rushing if >4.0 yards per carry and good passing at >7 yards per attempt. So I always wondered why every team didn't pass a whole lot more!I think bc coach bequeith coaches bequeith coaches and the game was built on running the ball. Run-and-shoot and similars kinda sputtered out but common sense prevails that it's better to get 7 yards than 4.

risk reward facet there as well though.in the quest to get a first down, most rushing plays at least garner 2-3 yards.. sure some get stopped for a loss, but that's a rarity... generally it's 1-3 yards... with the option for more... and the turnover/fumble % low.. very low.Passing... higher possible gain... but the downsides are higher... potentially zero yards if incomplete, interception % higher than fumble %, sacks at least as frequent as "rushes for a loss".Things have definitely changed as completion %'s have risen.... and the rules have been changed to make passing easier.. not to mention playing surfaces.We're just not watching the same game that we watched 15 years ago.... and i'm not sure if it's for better or worse.

 

[DrJ]

Obviously not completely meaningless since only a subset of teams make the playoffs based on their performance in the regular season.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I'd say the reg season means more than it ever has, as it's always a mad scramble at the end of the year to even get a chance at playing in the superbowl, whereas in the past it was more a formality, since you knew the niners, et al, would be there at the end.

but as an aside, let me just say how annoying it is when people use phrases like, really just got hot at the right time and rode the momentum --- it reminds me that even centuries later we're still the same people that thought it was hot outside because the sun was angry with them, only now we come up with lottery systems based on whichever numbers are 'due'.

by definition, a team is 'hot' when it wins a string of games --- so, why did it win those games?

because it's 'hot' --- it's ####### ######ed.

Good piece on familiarity... but do you not agree that a team/players can get "hot"have you never been on a streak shooting 3's during a pickup game?

serve never been just "really working well" when playing tennis?

hot run of cards at poker?

sick run of really epic root canals where you're just in there finding every canal, filling them to perfection?

on the flip side haven't you had stretches where nothing went your way?

It's one of the main reasons I have disdane for the one and done format in any sport (i realize best of 3 isn't realistic for football...)

Baseball and football have become sports of "who's hot now"..

the NBA is the only sport left where fairly consistently the best team on paper often ends up also winning the title.

I absolutely think a shooter can get 'hot', or maybe a qb can be on his game some weeks more than others --- but, it gets a little ######ed when you try to extrapolate the analogy out to 53 guys all getting simultaneously 'hot' at what they do for several games, each game a week apart.it's ######ed tautology.

they're 'hot' because they're winning, but it's the winning that makes them 'hot'.

lose a game? you're not hot anymore, which must be why you just lost.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, it was much better when dominant teams would blow their way through the playoffs and then win a boring Super Bowl by 20+ points. By all means, let's return to those days.

It was. At least those teams were memorable. At least I could watch them and know that I was witnessing greatness. The kind of greatness that I would remember decades later. That Pitt/Zona Super Bowl was maybe the most exciting ever played, but you know what I remember about that Steelers team? Nothing. I remember the 15-1 squad in Roeth's rookie year, but was that second SB champion really all that special? I remember the GSoT Rams like they were yesterday. I can picture the last SB Champion Ravens taking the field on defense, relying on Sharpe to stake them to a lead. I recall the 2002 Bucs, and that awesome Eagles squad they played in the NFCCG. I remember the 14-2 Chargers team and can picture them clearly, but I can't come up with any impression at all of the second Giants' squad except that they lucked into the playoffs on tiebreakers.

That's fine, but I remember games now, which is way more important than remembering specific teams, IMO. Think of how many great Super Bowls we've had since 1997. And think of how many great ones we had in the 10 years prior. Maybe two or three? Does anyone remember much about the Cowboys three Super Bowl wins in the 90s aside from the Lett/Beebe play and O'Donnell's INTs? Who can forget the ending to both Giants/Patriots Super Bowls? Or Rams/Titans? Or Steelers/Cardinals? Or Patriots/Panthers? We might not have as many memorably dynastic teams, but we are getting more great playoff games and Super Bowls, and that is a good thing.

 

[DrJ]

This may sound too simplistic but when I was growing up getting interested in football, it was good rushing if >4.0 yards per carry and good passing at >7 yards per attempt. So I always wondered why every team didn't pass a whole lot more!I think bc coach bequeith coaches bequeith coaches and the game was built on running the ball. Run-and-shoot and similars kinda sputtered out but common sense prevails that it's better to get 7 yards than 4.

risk reward facet there as well though.in the quest to get a first down, most rushing plays at least garner 2-3 yards.. sure some get stopped for a loss, but that's a rarity... generally it's 1-3 yards... with the option for more... and the turnover/fumble % low.. very low.Passing... higher possible gain... but the downsides are higher... potentially zero yards if incomplete, interception % higher than fumble %, sacks at least as frequent as "rushes for a loss".Things have definitely changed as completion %'s have risen.... and the rules have been changed to make passing easier.. not to mention playing surfaces.We're just not watching the same game that we watched 15 years ago.... and i'm not sure if it's for better or worse.

I'd say worse. It took a lot greater skill to play a lot of these positions in the past IMO, starting at QB. Part of the reason that rookie QBs typically took more time to develop in the past is because there was a lot more to the position. You led your WR into a defender over the middle and he got wasted, that was the QBs bad. Pocket presence was far more important - you couldn't just run out of the box and chuck it to the sidelines. A DL had a lot more ability to be disruptive and make game changing plays. This made the skill of the OL even more important. A good portion of the risk you're referencing has been taken out of the game intentionally. Now you have guys like Flacco whose offensive game are built on just chucking it downfield and hoping for a penalty a lot of times. The QBs of this era are terribly overrated and most of these stats are more worthless than you think the regular season is. The record Brees set this year is worthless compared to Johnny U. And it's really not all that fun to watch. I barely watch football these days outside of my home team.

 

[DrJ]

Yeah, it was much better when dominant teams would blow their way through the playoffs and then win a boring Super Bowl by 20+ points. By all means, let's return to those days.

It was. At least those teams were memorable. At least I could watch them and know that I was witnessing greatness. The kind of greatness that I would remember decades later. That Pitt/Zona Super Bowl was maybe the most exciting ever played, but you know what I remember about that Steelers team? Nothing. I remember the 15-1 squad in Roeth's rookie year, but was that second SB champion really all that special? I remember the GSoT Rams like they were yesterday. I can picture the last SB Champion Ravens taking the field on defense, relying on Sharpe to stake them to a lead. I recall the 2002 Bucs, and that awesome Eagles squad they played in the NFCCG. I remember the 14-2 Chargers team and can picture them clearly, but I can't come up with any impression at all of the second Giants' squad except that they lucked into the playoffs on tiebreakers.

That's fine, but I remember games now, which is way more important than remembering specific teams, IMO. Think of how many great Super Bowls we've had since 1997. And think of how many great ones we had in the 10 years prior. Maybe two or three? Does anyone remember much about the Cowboys three Super Bowl wins in the 90s aside from the Lett/Beebe play and O'Donnell's INTs? Who can forget the ending to both Giants/Patriots Super Bowls? Or Rams/Titans? Or Steelers/Cardinals? Or Patriots/Panthers? We might not have as many memorably dynastic teams, but we are getting more great playoff games and Super Bowls, and that is a good thing.

I'd rather see the best teams rather than a game that is close because you took a good part of the skill out of many positions. And created a system whereby every team is seriously flawed so they all have a puncher's chance of winning despite those glaring flaws. This also puts the game in the hands of the officials far more often, which sucks as well.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think the level of QBing has vastly improved over the last couple of decades and the rules have shifted to favor the passers. You have guys like Wilson, Kap, RG3, and Luck who have top notch throwing talent year one in the league.

has the level of QBing really improved? or is it what you said.. that the rules have made passing easier, the offensive schemes are better... and thus stats inflation has occurred BIG time.because has the QB talent level really exceeded the level of the CB's, LB's, pass rushers?

Yes it has greatly. The college game and even high school game has changed towards being more pass oriented. Larger pool of NFL prospects who have been honing their craft for much longer periods of time. You remember the days when a rookie QB would automatically sit the first year? I'm thinking half of the league's QBs started day one of their career.Ryan/Freeman/NewtonManning/RG3StaffordWilson/BradfordSanchez/TanneyhillBen/Dalton/Flacco/WeedenPalmer/ManningLuck/Gabbert (game 2)That's more than half.

 

[Dentist]

Obviously not completely meaningless since only a subset of teams make the playoffs based on their performance in the regular season.

ok so just mostly then.thanks for answering the original question.. the first to do so!

 

[DeaLerZ]

1) i like baltimore 2) i was rooting for baltimore

2 years running now we've had some pretty deeply flawed champions of the post-season 1-off tournament.

Last year a 9-7 team that really just got hot at the right time and rode the momentum to the championship... somewhat similar to their 2007 performance, but this particular version was even less impressive.

I'd say the reg season means more than it ever has, as it's always a mad scramble at the end of the year to even get a chance at playing in the superbowl, whereas in the past it was more a formality, since you knew the niners, et al, would be there at the end.but as an aside, let me just say how annoying it is when people use phrases like, really just got hot at the right time and rode the momentum --- it reminds me that even centuries later we're still the same people that thought it was hot outside because the sun was angry with them, only now we come up with lottery systems based on whichever numbers are 'due'.

by definition, a team is 'hot' when it wins a string of games --- so, why did it win those games?

because it's 'hot' --- it's ####### ######ed.

everybody has fond memories of yesteryear, when they were growing up and watching all these iconic teams and players, but football is about competition --- that's what makes for a great sport and a great team, competition, and the nfl is more about competition today than ever, which is why you don't see a handful of teams dominate, anymore, which basically prevents any single team from becoming iconic.

that's great that you might still be able to talk about the rosters of those great niners teams decades later, but I looked up some stuff for a post in another thread, recently, and found out that in one particular year in the early nineties (the random one I looked up), shortly before the advent of the salary cap, the final four teams that year were all in the top 7 in team payroll.

I think the best record that year belonged to the niners, with 14 wins, iirc, and not only were they among the top teams in payroll, their payroll actually exceeded those other 3 final 4 teams by 25%, by 50% over the nfl median, and actually 100% of another team in their own division.

that's greatness?

I don't think anyone would dispute the greatness and iconic identity of the original dream team, but is that what you'd really prefer the nfl to return to ---- a handful of haves rolling chumps all season?

people love some of those old dominant teams because people love winners, which is why there were so many people adopting the yankees all over the country, so many celtics and lakers fans, raiders, cowboys, etc --- because if you wanted to root for a winner you might have to adopt a team that plays home games 2000 miles away from you.

btw, that 14-2 niner team with the bloated payroll didn't make the superbowl that year.

this was right around the time montana was wrapping up his 13 year run, and handing off the legacy to steve young, who played 13 years of his own for the club.

we all recognize some of the fixtures from those rosters, years later --- roger craig - 8 year run, rice - 16 years, clark - 9 years, rathman - 8 yrs, lott - 10 yrs, haley - 6 yrs, taylor - 9 yrs, etc

maybe the closest thing we've had in the current nfl would be the patriots, with the tenured brady being the most recognizable name, of course.

but how many others on this 'dynasty' even last long enough to see a contract extension in a salary capped nfl -- mankins, wilfork, and......?

nobody, outside pats fans, is talking about a couple linemen, and the rest of the team is pretty much regularly turned over with lesser luminaries, and rookie contracts, because that's what you have to do when free agency exists, and you can't spend 100% more than a division 'rival', to use the term loosely.

welker might be one of the more easily identified with this current bunch, and he could be out the door after a spectacular 6 year run.

yeah, when you see the same faces over and over, year after year, on one of the 3 networks you have access to, it's a little easier to identify the players and build memories, but that's not competition, and it's not true greatness --- that's just comfortable familiarity.

I think this pretty much sums it up on all fronts...Why would anyone want the competition go back to the way it was??? This is what makes the NFL so exciting every year, because none of us no matter how good we are at statistics, and "eye-balling" great teams.. have a clue what is going to happen because the competition is so good, and so much better than all other professional sports

The Ravens and the 49ers made key changes to their offense during the season, and with already very strong defenses and strong running games got themselves to the superbowl.. I really don't think this was a tail of two teams getting "hot"...i think it was more of two teams fine-tuning their offense after they had seen enough of mediocre production, and knew they were better than that

Not to mention the Ravens had been in the playoffs 5 years in a row, and the 49ers were a superbowl favorite at the beginning of the season, not to mention it was their 2nd NFC championship in a row... we might be witnessing a dynasty forming with the 49ers, Harbaugh, Kaepernick, and that defense (although they looked like crap last night)

I don't understand why anyone would complain about these kind of games... or a different NFC team making it there each year... I am already excited about next season and what it may bring

 

[DrJ]

I think the level of QBing has vastly improved over the last couple of decades and the rules have shifted to favor the passers. You have guys like Wilson, Kap, RG3, and Luck who have top notch throwing talent year one in the league.

has the level of QBing really improved? or is it what you said.. that the rules have made passing easier, the offensive schemes are better... and thus stats inflation has occurred BIG time.because has the QB talent level really exceeded the level of the CB's, LB's, pass rushers?

Yes it has greatly. The college game and even high school game has changed towards being more pass oriented. Larger pool of NFL prospects who have been honing their craft for much longer periods of time. You remember the days when a rookie QB would automatically sit the first year? I'm thinking half of the league's QBs started day one of their career.Ryan/Freeman/NewtonManning/RG3StaffordWilson/BradfordSanchez/TanneyhillBen/Dalton/Flacco/WeedenPalmer/ManningLuck/Gabbert (game 2)That's more than half.

Because they've made the position significantly easier. No longer do you have to worry very much about the guy being able to read the defense quickly, or making a dumb throw that gets his WR murdered. He can just move a couple feet to the side and toss it out of bounds when he can't read quickly enough rather than being a part of the turf or putting it in play where it might result in a pick. No one wanted to put their QB out there before when he wasn't ready, because it would have had a detrimental impact on both that season and his career. Not so much anymore.

 

[DrJ]

I also hate Thursday Night football and only watched a single contest this year because my home team was appearing in it. The flex schedule, a pile of crap. Flying teams across the globe to play? Pile of crap. I think it's more important to consider the people supporting their teams by buying tickets to the game rather than the people sitting at home watching on TV and worrying about their fantasy stats. The vast majority of these decisions are made with money in mind, and I'm guessing they're making money on it and I'm in the minority. As a whole, the NFL is going the way of suck.

 

[pecorino]

1) i like baltimore 2) i was rooting for baltimore2 years running now we've had some pretty deeply flawed champions of the post-season 1-off tournament.Last year a 9-7 team that really just got hot at the right time and rode the momentum to the championship... somewhat similar to their 2007 performance, but this particular version was even less impressive.This year we had a 10-6 team that:1) actually didn't have momentum (lost 4 of their last 5)2) only beat the hapless chiefs by 3 points, needed overtime to beat a poor san diego team, and lost to a bad philadelphia team... and had gotten pwned by Denver and Houston previously.. in fact one of their only good wins was early against new england.Then they needed a fluke play to beat what was probably the best team in the AFC and barely survived against a 49ers team that went 0-1-1 vs. the St. Louis Rams?These last 2 champions were unimpressive in almost every way.There was absolutely no indication in ANY game in the regular season that Baltimore was a legit contender.Are we done seeing dominant teams win titles like in the 80's and 90's?Has the erosion of home field advantage made it so that truly you just need to qualify for the playoffs.. is home field advantage worth much?It's just gotten to the point where I don't know what to believe anymore... you'd think the games would be a way to gauge teams... an audition of sorts to sort out the good from the bad.But either my eyes now deceive me, or the game has just changed.What say you?

wow, this is an incredibly objective take from a ravens fan--i rarely hear or see this, so well done on your post.i think you hit the nail on the head by noting that this is a single elimination tournament. and these games are so closely contested and in some ways kind of short, that one or two fluke plays can turn the tide. i mean, each offense only gets something like 10 possessions. you could see in the niners opening drive that one penalty, the five-yard boneheaded illegal alignment call, can cripple one of these possessions. so with such a small sample of potential scoring drives and in a one game tournament, the cream doesn't always rise to the top. congrats on the big win.

 

[massraider]

There not being an all-time great champion every year--too bad.I agree with SSOG, it'd be great to see that one great team put it all together. However, it was great to see a Cinderella. Baltimore was dogs in three games (heavy dogs in two), won all of them, and one of the all-time best linebackers got to win one on his way out the door. Is that not a nice playoff story? If you are unhappy that the 'best' regular season team doesn't win it every year, well....maybe you should just get over it. Why is that a bad thing? What's the alternative, play a 20 game regular season, have some complicated formula to determine the best team, then hand them a trophy?Is basketball better? With its mostly or completely meaningless playoffs?? Basketball is interesting, it has a meaningless regular season (everyone gets in) and a meaningless postseason (#1 seed vs. #1 seed for the title).

 

[Dentist]

I also hate Thursday Night football and only watched a single contest this year because my home team was appearing in it. The flex schedule, a pile of crap. Flying teams across the globe to play? Pile of crap. I think it's more important to consider the people supporting their teams by buying tickets to the game rather than the people sitting at home watching on TV and worrying about their fantasy stats. The vast majority of these decisions are made with money in mind, and I'm guessing they're making money on it and I'm in the minority. As a whole, the NFL is going the way of suck.

 

[Dentist]

I absolutely think a shooter can get 'hot', or maybe a qb can be on his game some weeks more than others --- but, it gets a little ######ed when you try to extrapolate the analogy out to 53 guys all getting simultaneously 'hot' at what they do for several games, each game a week apart.it's ######ed tautology.they're 'hot' because they're winning, but it's the winning that makes them 'hot'.lose a game? you're not hot anymore, which must be why you just lost.

In a physical game like football, emotion, preparation, confidence can mean a lot... that's why i mean by being "hot"If there's not such thing as "hot" or "cold", streaking, or not streaking...Then what business do 10-6 or 9-7 teams have In or winning championship games? I wish 9-7 couldn't even make the playoffs... there should be a 10 win minimum or something.... and if it were 11 that'd be ok by me as well.Once the nfl expands the playoffs you're going to see some 7-9 or 8-8 team in or winning the superbowl at some point. I'm sorry, that's not good for the sport.

 

[Eminence]

Any given Sunday?*shrugs*

 

[Dentist]

Any given Sunday?*shrugs*

change it to saturday and i'll quit complaining.Super Bowl SATURDAY!! The greatest party!

 

[Yenrub]

I say regardless of sport, Dentist whines about the champion if they are not the best regular season team

look i realize i've made this argument a lot... but even as i watched atlanta and houston play, i never felt like they were as good as their record.Teams in the past that were 13-3 were damn good teams... very solid. No question Atlanta and Houston are talented, but at no point did they instill any sense of great play or dominance in me when i watched.the 2007 Pats and 2011 Packers were truly dominant regular season teams... when i watched those teams play they passed the eyeball test of truly great teams... and both of them got edged by the fluky Giants.I don't know what to believe anymore... it feels like the regular season is without value

Just an FYI the Giants played both the 2007 Patriots & 2011 Packers and while the lost to both in the regular season they played both of them very close in those regular season loses

 

[David Dodds]

4 teams earned a bye in the 1st round of the playoffs. Of those, three (Atl, SF, and NE) played in their conference championships. Seems like a non-issue to me. Both Baltimore and San Francisco were a play away from going to the big show last year.

 

[Riversco]

You want a stud QB and you want to be able to pressure the QB without blitzing. That's what wins. The Seahawks were really the only team in the playoffs that had both. Wilson was playing like a stud and they could get pressure without blitzing. What undid them was Chris Clemons being lost for the season in the Redskins game to injury. It showed in the Falcons game as they could not get to Ryan without blitzing him. It was a devastating loss.Its fairly rare for a team's sack leader to get lost to injury in the middle of the playoffs. Once that happened and the Seahawks went down by a hair, the playoffs became a crapshoot.

 

[Riversco]

You could also point to Justin Smith suffering a torn bicep, which a lot of people point to as screwing up the 49ers pass rush.Couple of key injuries at the wrong time for top teams.

 

[SSOG]

Good piece on familiarity... but do you not agree that a team/players can get "hot"have you never been on a streak shooting 3's during a pickup game?serve never been just "really working well" when playing tennis?hot run of cards at poker?

People see "random" and confuse it with "alternating". If you flipped a coin 1,000 times, you wouldn't just alternate H and T the whole way. You'd get huge clusters- runs of 5 or 10 flips coming up the same way in a row. The coin isn't "hot", it's just that random is messy. Same principle with shooters in basketball- if you have 500 field goal attempts, you're going to go on plenty of 11-for-14 stretches. That doesn't mean you're hot, it just means that random is messy and streaky and clumpy and far more irregular than we think.If "hot shooting" were a thing, we'd expect players to be more likely to get a make after a make than they would be after a miss (because "hot" means streaky, so you'll have more runs of makes and misses than alternations between makes and misses). People have looked at NBA data and found the opposite to be true- the more shots you hit, the more likely your next shot will be a miss. They theorized that this was because people BELIEVE in hot streaks, so when they think they're hot, they'll take objectively worse shot attempts.Anyway, long story short, what most people think of as "getting hot" is really just randomness coming up and smacking us in the face to remind us that random is far more random than we give it credit for.

Dynasty's blow, parity rules. We didn't know it at the time, but the 80s and 90s sucked. There is nothing more boring than watching the same few teams win title after title. This is the reason the NBA has become unwatchable. The only people that like that are the fans of those teams, and it turns them into entitled ##### fans that can no longer appreciate how difficult the sport is. Greatness, shmateness. Give me a hot team playing well at the right time over one that is a concensus "best team on paper."

I'm not even asking for dynasties. I'd be thrilled with another '85 Bears. Hell, I'd be thrilled with a '99 Rams, '00 Ravens, or '02 Bucs. I just want some sense that this season's results had greater meaning to the history of the NFL than "wow, that team sure had 3-4 great games in a row". Give me an epic defense or offense. Give me a historically dominant squad. I'll even take a lovable loser making good like the Cardinals' SB run or the Saints' championship. But Baltimore? The game was entertaining for 4 hours, and now I'll just forget it and never remember back to it. The only mental impressions I have of this team all involve Ray Lewis crying on the sidelines or Rahim Moore committing the most unforgivable defensive lapse in postseason history.

02 Bucs wasn't that great. They had a very good defense but the Eagles beat them handily during the season and they lost to the Saints twice. They had the right gameplan for NFCCG though.

No, the Bucs weren't great... but that defense sure as hell was. Ronde Barber, John Lynch, Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks, Simeon Rice, Monte Kiffin... unbelievable unit.

You want a stud QB and you want to be able to pressure the QB without blitzing. That's what wins. The Seahawks were really the only team in the playoffs that had both.

Denver?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

You could also point to Justin Smith suffering a torn bicep, which a lot of people point to as screwing up the 49ers pass rush.Couple of key injuries at the wrong time for top teams.

not to make excuses, but injuries are a big part of it.these teams aren't static units --- you might have several injuries at a single position, maybe a stud gets knocked out, or maybe it's just young guys getting better over the course of a season.some teams lose players at different points during the season, and some lose them in the playoffs.with the salary capped competitive nature of the nfl it's just not always going to be possible to replace some of these guys, and it can easily tip some close games the other way.every year I keep thinking the pats are going to be that transcendent breakthrough team, and every year they're just good --- maybe next year you guys will get that juggernaut you're pining for......

 

[Stinger Ray]

You could also point to Justin Smith suffering a torn bicep, which a lot of people point to as screwing up the 49ers pass rush.Couple of key injuries at the wrong time for top teams.

The 49ers almost won and his torn bicep had nothing to do with that.

 

[Runningman]

Regular season still has it's purpose, you have to prove you are at least in the top 1/3 of teams in the league to get a shot.

 

[Insein]

Regular season still has it's purpose, you have to prove you are at least in the top 1/3 of teams in the league to get a shot.

Which is not that easy. Some years you get a 9-7 team in (or the anomaly 7-9) but for the most part, you need to win at least 10 games to go the playoffs and that's not always a guarantee as the Bears will tell you. If you win 63% of your games and still don't make the playoffs, I don't know how much harder we can make it?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Regular season still has it's purpose, you have to prove you are at least in the top 1/3 of teams in the league to get a shot.

Which is not that easy. Some years you get a 9-7 team in (or the anomaly 7-9) but for the most part, you need to win at least 10 games to go the playoffs and that's not always a guarantee as the Bears will tell you. If you win 63% of your games and still don't make the playoffs, I don't know how much harder we can make it?

pats couldn't get in with 11 wins in '08

 

[Insein]

Regular season still has it's purpose, you have to prove you are at least in the top 1/3 of teams in the league to get a shot.

Which is not that easy. Some years you get a 9-7 team in (or the anomaly 7-9) but for the most part, you need to win at least 10 games to go the playoffs and that's not always a guarantee as the Bears will tell you. If you win 63% of your games and still don't make the playoffs, I don't know how much harder we can make it?

pats couldn't get in with 11 wins in '08

Exactly.

 

[Wingnut]

Why do you hate parity?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Obviously not completely meaningless since only a subset of teams make the playoffs based on their performance in the regular season.

ok so just mostly then.thanks for answering the original question.. the first to do so!

Couldn't you just as easily say that the regular season was even less meaningful in those days that you're pining for? What was the point of the regular season when we knew SF or Dallas was going to win the Super Bowl when all was said and done?

 

[MikeApf]

This may sound stupid, but why have a playoff unless anyone making the playoffs can win the tournament? Otherwise, give the championship to the team with the best record at the end of the season. (On a side note, this is why "March Madness" is the most exciting playoff in all of sports -- the dominent teams normally make it through but the Cinderellas always provide spice and excitement).Other than that, yes of course regular season performance is incredibly important and a key factor in winning a Super Bowl. Teams like New England may have lost a few games to "less decorated" teams like the Giants or Ravens along the way, but the fact that they have been excellent year in and year out have put them in Super Bowl contention every year, and they have in fact won some of those games. Compare this to the recent fortunes of someone like the Browns or Jags -- their poor in seaason performance does not even give them a chance to "get hot" in the playoffs.This seems to be an odd discussion. What some seem to be unhappy with is the whole idea that there is more parody in the league. It's less fun for some that we don't have dynasties but on the other hand, it really hurt the overall competitiveness of the league. It's not a perfect system, but on balance, I think parody is more interesting and fun.

 

[saintsfan]

I can't believe somebody in this thread wants to replace the best postseason in sports with something that resembles the BCS. Unreal...

 

[Ghost Rider]

I can't believe somebody in this thread wants to replace the best postseason in sports with something that resembles the BCS. Unreal...

Yeah, and remember the beating Alabama put on Notre Dame and how boring that game was? The Super Bowl used to be like that nearly every year. I am shocked that any fan would want to go back to that, just for the sake of remembering a dominant team. The unpredictability of the NFL playoffs nowadays is what makes it so awesome. Sure, as a Broncos fan, it sucked to see them get upset by the Ravens in the divisional round, but as a football fan, I love having very few games anymore where you can definitively say one team is gonna beat the other.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

I can't believe somebody in this thread wants to replace the best postseason in sports with something that resembles the BCS. Unreal...

This also blew my mind. Two #1's and a #2 seed in the Conference Championships and 3/4 teams returning from last years CCG. Yeah the regular season doesn't matter.

 

[Rick James]

the best team doesn't always win, plain and simple. Baltimore won the tournament. They're the champs.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I can't believe somebody in this thread wants to replace the best postseason in sports with something that resembles the BCS. Unreal...

This also blew my mind. Two #1's and a #2 seed in the Conference Championships and 3/4 teams returning from last years CCG. Yeah the regular season doesn't matter.

dentist cries everytime the "best" regular season team regardless of sport dont win the title.

 

[Dentist]

4 teams earned a bye in the 1st round of the playoffs. Of those, three (Atl, SF, and NE) played in their conference championships. Seems like a non-issue to me. Both Baltimore and San Francisco were a play away from going to the big show last year.

By that logic, if New England goes 9-7 next year you'd have no problem with them being in the Super Bowl because of last year's performance?I don't understand what last year has to do with anything

 

[Dentist]

If you want the top team to win it all every year then just get rid of the playoffs.

This is a pretty good idea

 

[12punch]

4 teams earned a bye in the 1st round of the playoffs. Of those, three (Atl, SF, and NE) played in their conference championships. Seems like a non-issue to me. Both Baltimore and San Francisco were a play away from going to the big show last year.

By that logic, if New England goes 9-7 next year you'd have no problem with them being in the Super Bowl because of last year's performance?I don't understand what last year has to do with anything

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it

 

[Dentist]

This may sound stupid, but why have a playoff unless anyone making the playoffs can win the tournament? Otherwise, give the championship to the team with the best record at the end of the season. (On a side note, this is why "March Madness" is the most exciting playoff in all of sports -- the dominent teams normally make it through but the Cinderellas always provide spice and excitement).

you just made my argument for why march madness should really only be a 16-32 team tournament at most.they include a TON of teams that can't win the tournament... like no chance in hell.Same this with most tennis tournaments.. 128 man tournament... no way anyone outside the top 10 players has a real shot at winning.. so why bother?i wouldn't have too many problems with a football tournament as long as they reduced the number of teams (which will never happen due to money) and got rid of conferences and divisions so that we can just take the top 8 overall teams... and with that scenario there will definitely be 8 10 win teams in most year. In addition you won't have schedule bias from the horrible divisions because no one will play anyone else more than once... and you'll have exposure to at least 1/2 the league's teams.

 

[12punch]

Maybe we can just vote in a champion based on record and who has the most colorful characters