NFL Thread 2016

[OleMissCub]

[

 

Like I said, looking at it as an outsider it seems forced. By my own arbitrary rules, at the very minimum a good rivalry needs to be between teams who share the same state, or are in states bordering each other. You start skipping states, eh, it feels like reaching.

 

As I said, in the South you kinda have to cross state lines or go great distances to find your rivals.

 

And the fans thing, to this I also say "eh;" Reds fans flood Wrigley, but it feels more like annoyance as opposed to "YEAH, horsefeathers THE REDS." Any rivalry there feels more like a technicality than anything else.

 

An equivalent to the French Quarter isn't walking distance from Wrigley.

 

Make no mistake, it's a genuine rivalry and can get really ugly.

[Sammy Sofa]

Like I said, looking at it as an outsider it seems forced. By my own arbitrary rules, at the very minimum a good rivalry needs to be between teams who share the same state, or are in states bordering each other. You start skipping states, eh, it feels like reaching.

that's a very weird rule

 

by this definition, the Dallas Cowboys don't have a rivalry with anybody in their division

 

Well, yeah; everyone is the rival of the Cowboys.

[David]

Also Reds fans generally horsefeathering hate us, I'm pretty sure.

[Sammy Sofa]

[

 

Like I said, looking at it as an outsider it seems forced. By my own arbitrary rules, at the very minimum a good rivalry needs to be between teams who share the same state, or are in states bordering each other. You start skipping states, eh, it feels like reaching.

 

As I said, in the South you kinda have to cross state lines or go great distances to find your rivals.

 

And the fans thing, to this I also say "eh;" Reds fans flood Wrigley, but it feels more like annoyance as opposed to "YEAH, horsefeathers THE REDS." Any rivalry there feels more like a technicality than anything else.

 

An equivalent to the French Quarter isn't walking distance from Wrigley.

 

Make no mistake, it's a genuine rivalry and can get really ugly.

 

Oh, I'm not saying it's made up; it's just one of those things where you have the really infamous rivalries that everyone knows of, and then ones like this where it's, like," huh; I guess that's a thing."

 

And whole it's no French Quarter, this kinda feels like we're underselling the awfulness of Wrigleyville.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also Reds fans generally horsefeathering hate us, I'm pretty sure.

 

Oh yeah; there's lots of one-sided hating out there. Brewers fans seem to hate the Cubs and their fans, too, but nobody else actually cares.

[jersey cubs fan]

Also Reds fans generally horsefeathering hate us, I'm pretty sure.

I've hated the reds my entire life. Not really sure why specifically, but they've always been right there with the Cardinals in terms of opposing team I hate. And when I was a kid they weren't even in the Cubs division.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also Reds fans generally horsefeathering hate us, I'm pretty sure.

I've hated the reds my entire life. Not really sure why specifically, but they've always been right there with the Cardinals in terms of opposing team I hate. And when I was a kid they weren't even in the Cubs division.

 

As a kid we seemed to mostly end up going to games against the Reds at Wrigley, to the point that I remember being surprised when I finally realized that other teams' fans didn't fill the place up like those Reds fans do. Of course, it seems like they're mostly sending in old folks as opposed to drunken goons, so I ended up just ignoring them. The Reds tended to have players I liked, so outside of their criminal notion of how chili should be made and the general existence of the Brennamans they never have bugged me too much.

[David]

I never really hated any MLB teams outside of season/roster specific situations (i.e. I hated the 07-08 Brewers at the time...really hated the Marlins for a while around/after 03) until this Cardinals run of the last 5-6 years post Pujols. Something about how they kept succeeding with a bunch of boring blobs nobody ever cared to hear about was so obnoxious. I dislike those teams. Success should come with some swag. Makes how our roster is amazingly good AND fun and exciting all the more glorious.

[David]

Also Reds fans generally horsefeathering hate us, I'm pretty sure.

I've hated the reds my entire life. Not really sure why specifically, but they've always been right there with the Cardinals in terms of opposing team I hate. And when I was a kid they weren't even in the Cubs division.

 

As a kid we seemed to mostly end up going to games against the Reds at Wrigley, to the point that I remember being surprised when I finally realized that other teams' fans didn't fill the place up like those Reds fans do. Of course, it seems like they're mostly sending in old folks as opposed to drunken goons, so I ended up just ignoring them. The Reds tended to have players I liked, so outside of their criminal notion of how chili should be made and the general existence of the Brennamans they never have bugged me too much.

 

I feel like this feels that way for me too. I mean, the unbalanced division thing is a big part of it.

 

I feel like every game I go to is a Reds or Pirates game.

[Sammy Sofa]

I've hated the reds my entire life. Not really sure why specifically, but they've always been right there with the Cardinals in terms of opposing team I hate. And when I was a kid they weren't even in the Cubs division.

 

As a kid we seemed to mostly end up going to games against the Reds at Wrigley, to the point that I remember being surprised when I finally realized that other teams' fans didn't fill the place up like those Reds fans do. Of course, it seems like they're mostly sending in old folks as opposed to drunken goons, so I ended up just ignoring them. The Reds tended to have players I liked, so outside of their criminal notion of how chili should be made and the general existence of the Brennamans they never have bugged me too much.

 

I feel like this feels that way for me too. I mean, the unbalanced division thing is a big part of it.

 

I feel like every game I go to is a Reds or Pirates game.

 

Yup. Looking back, it feels like for the first, like, 20 years of being a Cubs fan I went to 60% Reds games and 40% Pirates games. The Cubs might as well have not played anyone else.

[Brian707]

I think as a kid I only saw the Expos or Phillies, but in the 80's they came to Wrigley 9 games a year

[UMFan83]

In our division I think of the Cardinals as our mortal enemy, Brewers as a small rivalry that is made bigger because of geographic distance and their fans forcing us to occasionally pay attention to them, the Pirates are just a team we momentarily dislike because they are moderately good and have some annoying players but I know that once they slink into obscurity again I'll not think twice about them. And the Reds....well their only good run in the last 20+ years coincided with our gut rebuild where I didn't really care enough to form any sort of dislike. Prior to that, there has never been a season that both the Cubs and Reds were relevant in the same year since the Reds were in the NL West. The only thing I hate about the Reds is Marty Brennaman.

 

Conversely, I would guess that every other team in the division would place the Cubs as their most hated team, except maybe the Reds (which might be the Cardinals because of recent history), but from spending plenty of time down there, if we aren't enemy #1 in Cincinnati, we're 1a

[NOLA]

Like I said, looking at it as an outsider it seems forced. By my own arbitrary rules, at the very minimum a good rivalry needs to be between teams who share the same state, or are in states bordering each other. You start skipping states, eh, it feels like reaching.

that's a very weird rule

 

by this definition, the Dallas Cowboys don't have a rivalry with anybody in their division

I mean we are talking about something that is not exactly a science here. I really dislike the Panthers, meh on the Bucs, but the Falcons have this entitlement that is completely unwarranted. I also think all the New Orleanians who relocated to Atlanta after Katrina took the rivalry to a whole new level.

[UMFan83]

Was thinking about OT and how they can reform it to even up the odds even more. I think guaranteeing each team a possession would lead to more ties and I'd like to avoid that. Here are 2 different suggestions I had, feel free to tear them apart.

 

First suggestion: Each team is guaranteed 1 possession unless the first team to have possession scores a TD and a 2 point conversion. It would make for interesting strategy....you can either kick the XP and trust your defense will stop them or you go for the win. If you make it you win, if you don't make it, you risk the other team winning with a TD and XP

 

Second suggestion: Rules are the same as now except in the scenario where the first team to possess the ball kicks a FG, then the second team to possess the ball also kicks a FG, the second team gets a second consecutive possession and sudden death starts. This probably won't change the strategy of whether to have the ball first, but it could definitely change how the first team plays that opening possession, aiming to go for the TD more frequently. If they kick a FG, then the second team has 2 shots to win it, first with a TD, second with a FG and then a FG or TD.

[biittner77]

I think as a kid I only saw the Expos or Phillies, but in the 80's they came to Wrigley 9 games a year

 

Seriously. It seemed like the Cubs played the Phillies every other week. Or the Mets

[WrigleyField 22]

Was thinking about OT and how they can reform it to even up the odds even more. I think guaranteeing each team a possession would lead to more ties and I'd like to avoid that. Here are 2 different suggestions I had, feel free to tear them apart.

 

First suggestion: Each team is guaranteed 1 possession unless the first team to have possession scores a TD and a 2 point conversion. It would make for interesting strategy....you can either kick the XP and trust your defense will stop them or you go for the win. If you make it you win, if you don't make it, you risk the other team winning with a TD and XP

 

Second suggestion: Rules are the same as now except in the scenario where the first team to possess the ball kicks a FG, then the second team to possess the ball also kicks a FG, the second team gets a second consecutive possession and sudden death starts. This probably won't change the strategy of whether to have the ball first, but it could definitely change how the first team plays that opening possession, aiming to go for the TD more frequently. If they kick a FG, then the second team has 2 shots to win it, first with a TD, second with a FG and then a FG or TD.

Interesting suggestions. I like the first better.

[Andy]

Was thinking about OT and how they can reform it to even up the odds even more. I think guaranteeing each team a possession would lead to more ties and I'd like to avoid that. Here are 2 different suggestions I had, feel free to tear them apart.

 

First suggestion: Each team is guaranteed 1 possession unless the first team to have possession scores a TD and a 2 point conversion. It would make for interesting strategy....you can either kick the XP and trust your defense will stop them or you go for the win. If you make it you win, if you don't make it, you risk the other team winning with a TD and XP

 

Second suggestion: Rules are the same as now except in the scenario where the first team to possess the ball kicks a FG, then the second team to possess the ball also kicks a FG, the second team gets a second consecutive possession and sudden death starts. This probably won't change the strategy of whether to have the ball first, but it could definitely change how the first team plays that opening possession, aiming to go for the TD more frequently. If they kick a FG, then the second team has 2 shots to win it, first with a TD, second with a FG and then a FG or TD.

I think the rules as is are fine - the game has to end eventually, and college OT rules, while I suppose more equitable, also put too much emphasis on the kicker - but your first suggestion is intriguing.

[Andy]

For the record, there was an ESPN.com article about Belichick's overtime decision to kick last season against the Jets, and as of that time, the receiving team had won 33 of the 65 non-ties in OT under the current rules, barely over 50% (I don't know of the stats post-2016 but I imagine they haven't drastically changed). Seems perfectly equitable to me.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Especially in the playoffs, it's baffling that they just don't play the full period, or shorten it to 10 minutes and play the full period.

[UMFan83]

Especially in the playoffs, it's baffling that they just don't play the full period, or shorten it to 10 minutes and play the full period.

 

Actually yeah thats a great idea for the playoffs. I can understand why they couldn't want to play a full OT in the regular season but it shouldn't be an issue to play 10-15 mins in a playoff OT game.

[WrigleyField 22]

Especially in the playoffs, it's baffling that they just don't play the full period, or shorten it to 10 minutes and play the full period.

I can definitely understand the appeal of not playing the full period in the regular season. As far as the playoffs, seems you have a really good chance of just continually adding periods on top of eachother as teams match the other and the clock expires. I think you can kind of even keep it simpler than UMFans proposal. "First to 8". No clock, just the play clock.

[jersey cubs fan]

Especially in the playoffs, it's baffling that they just don't play the full period, or shorten it to 10 minutes and play the full period.

 

Actually yeah thats a great idea for the playoffs. I can understand why they couldn't want to play a full OT in the regular season but it shouldn't be an issue to play 10-15 mins in a playoff OT game.

Then you'll end up needing 2nd overtimes since teams will play for the tie.

 

I see no reason to do away with sudden death. It's not a problem, never has been, other than something for people to get upset about.

[jersey cubs fan]

Especially in the playoffs, it's baffling that they just don't play the full period, or shorten it to 10 minutes and play the full period.

I can definitely understand the appeal of not playing the full period in the regular season. As far as the playoffs, seems you have a really good chance of just continually adding periods on top of eachother as teams match the other and the clock expires. I think you can kind of even keep it simpler than UMFans proposal. "First to 8". No clock, just the play clock.

why in the world would you do that?

[WrigleyField 22]

Especially in the playoffs, it's baffling that they just don't play the full period, or shorten it to 10 minutes and play the full period.

I can definitely understand the appeal of not playing the full period in the regular season. As far as the playoffs, seems you have a really good chance of just continually adding periods on top of eachother as teams match the other and the clock expires. I think you can kind of even keep it simpler than UMFans proposal. "First to 8". No clock, just the play clock.

why in the world would you do that?

Its adds to the liklihood that each team has at least one chance to posses the ball, while adding the excitement/intrigue of two point conversions. I don't care of they keep it as is really, though.

 

ETA, I also personally like the sinplicity of something like "First to 8" instead of the complex, "if/unless" series of qualifiers that exists. So actually I kind of would prefer plain old sudden death to the current rules.

Edited February 6, 2017 by WrigleyField 22

[David]

Especially in the playoffs, it's baffling that they just don't play the full period, or shorten it to 10 minutes and play the full period.

 

I completely agree.