PDA

View Full Version : good list of badly needed changes in the nfl


BeerBaron
03-30-2008, 08:51 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=393518

i especially like 3, 4, and 5 though every one of those would help to keep football the greatest sport in america

etk
03-30-2008, 09:06 PM
#2 is the best concept....take advantage of the opportunities of technology and use them to create the fairest and best product possible.

I also think it's ridiculous how small NFL rosters are....there's no reason not to have 53 men dress up on gameday.

Raiderz4Life
03-30-2008, 09:31 PM
The OT proposal sounded really intruguing. I liked his idea....but who knows when the OT rules will be changed....this was a eal good article.

BeerBaron
03-30-2008, 09:32 PM
#2 is the best concept....take advantage of the opportunities of technology and use them to create the fairest and best product possible.

I also think it's ridiculous how small NFL rosters are....there's no reason not to have 53 men dress up on gameday.

ive heard before that the reasoning for that was back in the day, before the salary cap, roster limits were to keep rich teams from hording players.

its a concept that just never really went away....especially with the salary cap now, why not just blow the limit way up. keep starters healthy cause they wont have to play special teams and also, it gives those young DB's and WR's a place on the roster while they try and prove themselves at their real position

neko4
03-30-2008, 09:48 PM
i love 4 and 5
i hate how much rookies get paid. they can screw a whole franchise that way.

BaLLiN
03-30-2008, 09:48 PM
i love 4 and 5
i hate how much rookies get paid. they can screw a whole franchise that way.

aka Ryan Leaf and Carlos Rogers

The Legend
03-30-2008, 09:53 PM
they all look like good rules, i hope we get the rookie cap rule thou
dont see anything happening this year

zoinks
03-30-2008, 10:04 PM
In an interview, Jeff Fisher once addressed the gameday roster issue. He agreed with the idea in theory, but said that he felt that instead of giving teams greater depth, it would simply lead to a higher level of specialization. Teams would use the extra roster spots to add very specific role players. For example, we'd see more kickers with great power but no accuracy being signed as kickoff specialists....or teams keeping an extra QB who would play only in short yardage situations as a run specialist.

In short, he felt that expanding the roster would further dilute the overall talent level of the players, bringing in players who are nothing more than one-trick ponies.

BeerBaron
03-30-2008, 10:11 PM
In an interview, Jeff Fisher once addressed the gameday roster issue. He agreed with the idea in theory, but said that he felt that instead of giving teams greater depth, it would simply lead to a higher level of specialization. Teams would use the extra roster spots to add very specific role players. For example, we'd see more kickers with great power but no accuracy being signed as kickoff specialists....or teams keeping an extra QB who would play only in short yardage situations as a run specialist.

In short, he felt that expanding the roster would further dilute the overall talent level of the players, bringing in players who are nothing more than one-trick ponies.

i can see in some ways how that would be bad, but i think i could stand it if those came as side effects of the rule.

i think it would be most utilized by keeping around guys to play only special teams. young, cheap guy at that who can do that while being groomed for their regular position.

zoinks
03-30-2008, 10:13 PM
I do think they should re-examine the replay process, and allow for certain penalties to be subject to review.

I've seen several players flagged for roughing on what appeared to be a blow to the QB's head....but review showed that the hand never touched the helmet, and that it only appeared that way from where the official was standing.

We've all seen similar phantom penalties called for other offenses, as well. I've seen game-changing holding calls or DPI calls that reviews proved were blown calls. I'd certainly like the rules to be amended to allow for these clear-cut bad calls to be overturned....particularly when the call will directly affect the outcome of a game.

proshoota25
03-30-2008, 11:18 PM
i like the idea of changing OT. ive always thought college football OT was so exciting, maybe the NFL can adopt something along those lines.... give each team the ball at the 50 yard line and see who can battle it out to win. it would promote more offense, which the nfl seems to always want to do. it would be real exciting and gives both teams a fair chance to win

Raiderz4Life
03-30-2008, 11:34 PM
i dont like college OT...im onot a huge fan of it but maybe college OT with a little modification might be good...like proshoota said...put em in the 50 and let em grind it out or something

BeerBaron
03-30-2008, 11:56 PM
i dont like college OT...im onot a huge fan of it but maybe college OT with a little modification might be good...like proshoota said...put em in the 50 and let em grind it out or something

well not even that. i think that all it has to be is what it is now, just that both teams get to have 1 possession each.

BroadwayJoe10
03-31-2008, 12:03 AM
In an interview, Jeff Fisher once addressed the gameday roster issue. He agreed with the idea in theory, but said that he felt that instead of giving teams greater depth, it would simply lead to a higher level of specialization. Teams would use the extra roster spots to add very specific role players. For example, we'd see more kickers with great power but no accuracy being signed as kickoff specialists....or teams keeping an extra QB who would play only in short yardage situations as a run specialist.

In short, he felt that expanding the roster would further dilute the overall talent level of the players, bringing in players who are nothing more than one-trick ponies.

That's the one problem with this article, it doesn't give the other side of the argument. I enjoy #3 and #4 very much.


I have mixed feelings about #1 and #2. I like the idea of being able to challenge whether or not a player would or would not have landed in bounds if he wasn't pushed, but than that brings up a lot of speculation. I wouldn't mind it as long as there were still a limitation on the number of challenges you have, because I don't want the pace of the game bogged down.

I'm sure a good argument can be made against all these changes.

Mr. Stiller
03-31-2008, 01:17 AM
That's the one problem with this article, it doesn't give the other side of the argument. I enjoy #3 and #4 very much.


I have mixed feelings about #1 and #2. I like the idea of being able to challenge whether or not a player would or would not have landed in bounds if he wasn't pushed, but than that brings up a lot of speculation. I wouldn't mind it as long as there were still a limitation on the number of challenges you have, because I don't want the pace of the game bogged down.

I'm sure a good argument can be made against all these changes.

I think my concern is if you go ahead and do this, where does it end.

Can you challege pass interference on an incompletion?

Holding on a pass play?

Facemask?

Illegal formation?

Thunder&Lightning
03-31-2008, 08:09 AM
They all look like they could help the game. #3,4, and 5 are the rules that i would embrace the most though. Game need some changing...

the decider13
03-31-2008, 09:42 AM
i love 4 and 5
i hate how much rookies get paid. they can screw a whole franchise that way.

I wrote an persuasive essay for school about reducing rookie contracts. It gave me three broad topics and one was spectator sports.

Best example I can give

Jamarcus Russell- six year $61 million

Tom Brady- six year $60 million

point and match, rookies get paid way to much. Look at the lions if you want to see what a bunch of bad first rounders can get you. (harrington, williams, rogers)

21ST
03-31-2008, 09:54 AM
aka Ryan Leaf and Carlos Rogers

How did Carlos Rogers screw a whole franchise

BeerBaron
03-31-2008, 10:12 AM
I wrote an persuasive essay for school about reducing rookie contracts. It gave me three broad topics and one was spectator sports.

Best example I can give

Jamarcus Russell- six year $61 million

Tom Brady- six year $60 million

point and match, rookies get paid way to much. Look at the lions if you want to see what a bunch of bad first rounders can get you. (harrington, williams, rogers)

thats interesting. what kind of grade did you get on the paper? I once wrote an essay about how the BCS needs changed for a class last semester and got an A.

but yeah, the rookie wage scale needs some big changes. i sat here for like 15 minutes trying to type how i would do it but man....its hard to explain

The Unseen
03-31-2008, 10:12 AM
I don't favor changing overtime, but the best way to do it would be to kickoff to the winner of the coin toss, and then kick it off to the other team if they score to see if they can match. Otherwise, it should be played like a normal game. The college rule of placing it on a yard line and basically letting them score is pretty stupid. It's not real football.

BeerBaron
03-31-2008, 10:14 AM
I don't favor changing overtime, but the best way to do it would be to kickoff to the winner of the coin toss, and then kick it off to the other team if they score to see if they can match. Otherwise, it should be played like a normal game. The college rule of placing it on a yard line and basically letting them score is pretty stupid. It's not real football.

which is....what i said earlier.....

keep it just like it is only insure that each offense gets 1 touch of the ball

Shane P. Hallam
03-31-2008, 10:18 AM
which is....what i said earlier.....

keep it just like it is only insure that each offense gets 1 touch of the ball

What about turnovers, etc? If someone picks off a pass, where does the other team get the ball, etc? LOTS of nuance to do it that way.

BeerBaron
03-31-2008, 10:22 AM
What about turnovers, etc? If someone picks off a pass, where does the other team get the ball, etc? LOTS of nuance to do it that way.

well, if the team who gets the original kickoff goes out and on the first play, throws a pick....well, they had an offensive possession didnt they?

the other team would then get theirs and if they scored, they win.

i dont think its that complicated

Iamcanadian
04-01-2008, 12:34 AM
I think all those ideas stink. Yeah, I'll be watching a lot of games as challenges extend the game for an extra hour or so. I'd find it real exciting waiting for 10 minutes of more advertising to see dozens of plays reviewed. They tried it in hockey with goals and it was boring as hell.
Most of those ideas are pure garbage and if anything would destroy the game of football in very short order.
The only idea that has some merit is extending revenue sharing to include every source of revenue and there is about 1 billionth of a chance of getting that agreed upon.

eaglesalltheway
04-01-2008, 06:45 AM
I like the idea of six a lot too. If there is no cap in space, there could end up being a divide in the NFL, and it will take away the parity that makes the game so great. 3,4,5 are good, but if 6 doesn't come about, those three will be the least of the NFL's worries, because, like in the article, the NFL will split apart.

JT Jag
04-01-2008, 12:06 PM
They should make the game-day roster larger and increase the size of practice squads.

ChezPower4
04-01-2008, 01:21 PM
The thing that needs to be changed the most is how much money rookies make. I can tell you right now, i don't care how far J Russell can throw the ball, he is not worth 60 Million (30 guaranteed). The first round should have set pay for each slot like the NBA. Then teams don't have to worry that they can't draft a guy because they might not be able to sign the guy. Plus then they have more money to pay the veteran players who have showed that they can produce in the NFL.

Defence also needs to get radios in the helmets. lets even the playing field

the decider13
04-01-2008, 01:36 PM
thats interesting. what kind of grade did you get on the paper? I once wrote an essay about how the BCS needs changed for a class last semester and got an A.

but yeah, the rookie wage scale needs some big changes. i sat here for like 15 minutes trying to type how i would do it but man....its hard to explain

I havent got it back yet

What I said is have a base salary for each pick. For example, pick one gets 2 year 4 million, pick two gets 2 year 3.9 million and so on. Might not have taken everything in to consideration, but setting a base salary for rookies would give them motivation before their big pay check. It would also help teams if their number one pick busts.

BeerBaron
04-01-2008, 02:52 PM
I havent got it back yet

What I said is have a base salary for each pick. For example, pick one gets 2 year 4 million, pick two gets 2 year 3.9 million and so on. Might not have taken everything in to consideration, but setting a base salary for rookies would give them motivation before their big pay check. It would also help teams if their number one pick busts.

hmm...thats interesting but i would have set the years up like this if it were me:

3 years, a 4th year team option.

and thats for every pick them. and obviously, the higher picks get more money over that time.

but idk if 2 years would be a good enough indicator or not if thats what you would have used