U play who you U. You can argue that the whole League sucks. The number of teams with a better than .500 record heading into this weak is pitiful.
Meh. Seahawks are pretty vulnerable this year. They've been unable to beat anyone with a winning record so far.
The Seattle game was in Seattle.
Sure, which is why I wouldn't use Carolina as an example for why the NFC has better elite teams than the AFC.
My bad, responded to the wrong post. My reply was meant towards Byrd.
The Steelers lead the NFL in two-point attempts. Among those who haven't attempted it at all -- Arizona, Carolina and New England
umm, no . He owns 21 Papa John's in Colorado, which virtually makes him a jr. partner and, btw, they are making him a second fortune: sales have spiked way up since....the legalization of pot in Colorado... up over 25% in many cases....munchies rule.
Absolutely. If we assume that the Steelers defeat the Seahawks today, then the league looks absurd. In the AFC, 8 of 16 teams will be .500 or better. In the NFC, 5 of 16 teams will be .500 or better. In the NFC, this includes the packers and falcons, who have both went 1-4 in their last 5 games.
How would eliminating the salary cap help? Normally, a salary cap is intended to promote parity.
I think what's he's saying is that if we eliminated the salary cap there might be more of a divide between the have's and have not's but we'd at least have a few "good" teams this year, as opposed to a shitload of mediocrity. It isn't a bad point.
Think of how many they'd sell if their pizzas didn't taste like floor tile with confetti and ketchup sprinkled on it; just goes to show you how picky people are when it comes to quality food when they're stoned.
From the league's stand point how is a "shitload of mediocrity" worse than having a bunch of 2-11 teams going at it in December?
I agree with this viewpoint. When we talk about what constitutes a "great" team, there are two distinct contexts in play. A great team in comparison to established standards, and a great team given current conditions. The Panthers (or the Patriots, for that matter) might be the best teams in the league this season ... even if they might not hold up to the better teams of seasons past.
And this is the year where we had the most number of undefeated teams deepest in to the schedule.
I don't know, I can see it both ways. Parity is definitely great in terms of keeping the most fans engaged for the longest period of time so on that leve i think it is undoubtedly what's best for most of the league.
How old were you the first time you saw someone start gnawing on chocolate chip cookie dough straight out of the freezer?
I think it's more the lack of quality QB play, especially the next generation guys who've got a long, long way to come close to Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, etc.
Well I agree with that as well and made the point in another thread. I think allowing defensive backs to going back to playing how they did even 10 years ago would dramatically increase the number of different ways a team can be built and reduce the importance of having an elite QB.
I know. Nantz is ok. Want an immediate upgrade on the color guy?
Heck, Aaron Rodgers did it three times on Thursday.
No, Super Bowl wasn't a fourth down play trying to draw the first. There are, obviously, many times teams are drawn offsides in other situations.
A 22-year-old movie reference, at that. We have members here who weren't born when it hit the theaters
