NFL - 2022 Draft and Onward

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think any team's roster building takes cold weather into account - Rodgers' Packers being Exhibit A - so this seems to be a moot point.

I don't think it's a top priority, but it's still a thing. Part of the debate about taking Baker or Allen was that Allen could throw in the shitty weather in Cleveland on a windy day. A few years later, Buffalo lost to NE, but Mac could not throw the ball at all (hence the three attempts) while Allen was 15/30. Chicago, another place that can be tough to play in, took Fields over Mac as well, and I bet that was in part because they valued his arm strength in a stadium wind legitimately impacts. 

And you pick a clever title flyboy. So far the ones that sound good to me are just picking on the bad teams. Won't someone fade the Bills?!?!?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think it's a top priority, but it's still a thing. Part of the debate about taking Baker or Allen was that Allen could throw in the shitty weather in Cleveland on a windy day. A few years later, Buffalo lost to NE, but Mac could not throw the ball at all (hence the three attempts) while Allen was 15/30. Chicago, another place that can be tough to play in, took Fields over Mac as well, and I bet that was in part because they valued his arm strength in a stadium wind legitimately impacts. 

This...doesn't make sense to me at all.  You're saying Cleveland picked Mayfield over Allen because they were worried about cold weather, but clearly BUFFALO wasn't.  Then, again Mac Jones vs. Fields when both teams that picked them are in very cold weather.  I suppose it's possible these were factors when drafting but (1) if they were, those GMs were idiots; and (2) the idea you can measure how a quarterback will perform in cold weather based on arm strength is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you pick a clever title flyboy.

I will not!  Because, again, you shut your [redacted] mouth.

[DireWolfSpirit]

On adopting mandatory domed fields-

They can adopt skirts and heels like proper office workers next as well.

An NFL player, even in Green Bay is faced with less element exposure than is involved with clearing the snow on an average northern driveway. A task millions of ordinary citizens can accomplish weekly.

Stop sissyfying the NFL.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

This...doesn't make sense to me at all.  You're saying Cleveland picked Mayfield over Allen because they were worried about cold weather, but clearly BUFFALO wasn't.  Then, again Mac Jones vs. Fields when both teams that picked them are in very cold weather.  I suppose it's possible these were factors when drafting but (1) if they were, those GMs were idiots; and (2) the idea you can measure how a quarterback will perform in cold weather based on arm strength is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Sorry, that was a bit of a jackknifed post. Cleveland was reportedly debating between Baker and Allen because the latter's arm strength was seen as an asset in part because of the weather. Buffalo wanted Allen in part because they thought he could be an advantage in the weather and Fields was appealing because his strong arm would be a benefit in Chicago. I was just trying to point out the weather is a factor even if it's not the deciding one. 

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Stop sissyfying the NFL.

 

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was just trying to point out the weather is a factor even if it's not the deciding one. 

I wasn't paying attention during the Mayfield/Allen draft but I definitely was during the Fields/Jones etc. one, obviously, and this is a clearly a bunch of horseshit when it comes to the latter

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I wasn't paying attention during the Mayfield/Allen draft but I definitely was during the Fields/Jones etc. one, obviously, and this is a clearly a bunch of horseshit when it comes to the latter

How so? Jones' lack of arm strength was a giant red flag. It's why I thought it would be strange for the Niners to actually want him and they don't play in New England. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

How so? Jones' lack of arm strength was a giant red flag. It's why I thought it would be strange for the Niners to actually want him and they don't play in New England. 

Sure, his arm strength was indeed a giant red flag.  That's a general concern for all teams.  Extrapolating that to the weather of the team is what's horseshit.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, his arm strength was indeed a giant red flag.  That's a general concern for all teams.  Extrapolating that to the weather of the team is what's horseshit.

Bridgewater's arm strength was a major concern playing outside while he was here. It's not horseshit dude. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Bridgewater's arm strength was a major concern playing outside while he was here. It's not horseshit dude. 

I don't know about Bridgewater and your team - which plays indoors btw - but it definitely is horseshit when we're talking about the draft two years ago.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know about Bridgewater and your team - which plays indoors btw - but it definitely is horseshit when we're talking about the draft two years ago.

He played outdoors at the U of MN stadium. And it was a conversation point. 

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And it was a conversation point. 

This is ludicrous spin to try to save face.  What isn't "a conversation point?"

[dbunting]

To Dome or not to Dome that is the question...

Anyway to say that players should suck it up cuz real men shovel sidewalks in the same weather is silly; I don't go out there in thin spandex pants and a football jersey to shovel, I dress appropriately. I net you think that water during practice makes them weak too!

To me the dome is for the average fans experience, not the players. The southern domes are for ac due to swamp ass and in the north it's heat for ice ass. Die hard fans will come no matter what but it's the average fan that fills a stadium IMO.

[Wilbur]

Also, the NFL (well, all American football, really) is made for television.  Attending a game in person is incredibly boring compared to viewing it on TV, and unless you are in a suite, it is really difficult to imagine "having a good time" in the usual stadium chairs, even on a nice day.

College football is incredibly bad to watch in person, especially if it is televised and you are not in a suite.  Hard, narrow seats (or cement slabs at some universities), long stretches of standing around, the action when it does happen is often fifty yards or more away, and the weather can be cold / pissing down rain / unrelenting sun.  And the game itself is much less good.

Sitting in a suite is OK, mainly because you are in comfy chairs in an air conditioned room with a television.  So you might as well save all the trouble of getting to the stadium (parking, exiting, etc.) and do it in the comfort of your own home or bar of choice.  But I can see where domed stadiums being built today can have better seating, climate control, etc. etc.

Attending games / matches in person in the normal arena / stadia setting, my rankings:

1. Basketball games, with smaller college venues the best (ie. The Palestra).  Constant action, close to the action, good food.

2. English / Scottish football leagues.  The closer to Wales you get, the better the experience, as the quality of fan singing improves with proximity.  The one German stadium I watched a game in was also a good time. 

3. Rugby.  Holy cow, the crowds have themselves a time, and the action is almost non-stop.  I wish I knew more about the game.

4. Baseball.  Some of the newer parks are wonders of American culinary and cultural delight.  For instance, PNC Park has incredible views of Art Deco Pittsburgh architecture, excellent seats, and quite varied dining options.  When they get a professional baseball team, it will be perfect.

5. American football.  See above re long stoppages, distant from the action, cold / rainy / hot.  Domes seem to me to be the obvious solution to a lot of the issues for the NFL teams like Chicago.

But then there is the issue of public financing...

[James Arryn]

15 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Also, the NFL (well, all American football, really) is made for television.  Attending a game in person is incredibly boring compared to viewing it on TV, and unless you are in a suite, it is really difficult to imagine "having a good time" in the usual stadium chairs, even on a nice day.

College football is incredibly bad to watch in person, especially if it is televised and you are not in a suite.  Hard, narrow seats (or cement slabs at some universities), long stretches of standing around, the action when it does happen is often fifty yards or more away, and the weather can be cold / pissing down rain / unrelenting sun.  And the game itself is much less good.

Sitting in a suite is OK, mainly because you are in comfy chairs in an air conditioned room with a television.  So you might as well save all the trouble of getting to the stadium (parking, exiting, etc.) and do it in the comfort of your own home or bar of choice.  But I can see where domed stadiums being built today can have better seating, climate control, etc. etc.

Attending games / matches in person in the normal arena / stadia setting, my rankings:

1. Basketball games, with smaller college venues the best (ie. The Palestra).  Constant action, close to the action, good food.

2. English / Scottish football leagues.  The closer to Wales you get, the better the experience, as the quality of fan singing improves with proximity.  The one German stadium I watched a game in was also a good time. 

3. Rugby.  Holy cow, the crowds have themselves a time, and the action is almost non-stop.  I wish I knew more about the game.

4. Baseball.  Some of the newer parks are wonders of American culinary and cultural delight.  For instance, PNC Park has incredible views of Art Deco Pittsburgh architecture, excellent seats, and quite varied dining options.  When they get a professional baseball team, it will be perfect.

5. American football.  See above re long stoppages, distant from the action, cold / rainy / hot.  Domes seem to me to be the obvious solution to a lot of the issues for the NFL teams like Chicago.

But then there is the issue of public financing...

^^^^never been hit by a bending board at an NHL game, obviously. 
 

Edit: and while the sheer violence does jump out live, the actually biggest thing that live NHL gets more than on tv is the blinding speed…nothing in the sports you listed compares in that regard. I say this with hockey ranked as my least favourite of the traditional NA major sports. 

[dbunting]

15 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Also, the NFL (well, all American football, really) is made for television.  Attending a game in person is incredibly boring compared to viewing it on TV, and unless you are in a suite, it is really difficult to imagine "having a good time" in the usual stadium chairs, even on a nice day.

College football is incredibly bad to watch in person, especially if it is televised and you are not in a suite.  Hard, narrow seats (or cement slabs at some universities), long stretches of standing around, the action when it does happen is often fifty yards or more away, and the weather can be cold / pissing down rain / unrelenting sun.  And the game itself is much less good.

Sitting in a suite is OK, mainly because you are in comfy chairs in an air conditioned room with a television.  So you might as well save all the trouble of getting to the stadium (parking, exiting, etc.) and do it in the comfort of your own home or bar of choice.  But I can see where domed stadiums being built today can have better seating, climate control, etc. etc.

Attending games / matches in person in the normal arena / stadia setting, my rankings:

1. Basketball games, with smaller college venues the best (ie. The Palestra).  Constant action, close to the action, good food.

2. English / Scottish football leagues.  The closer to Wales you get, the better the experience, as the quality of fan singing improves with proximity.  The one German stadium I watched a game in was also a good time. 

3. Rugby.  Holy cow, the crowds have themselves a time, and the action is almost non-stop.  I wish I knew more about the game.

4. Baseball.  Some of the newer parks are wonders of American culinary and cultural delight.  For instance, PNC Park has incredible views of Art Deco Pittsburgh architecture, excellent seats, and quite varied dining options.  When they get a professional baseball team, it will be perfect.

5. American football.  See above re long stoppages, distant from the action, cold / rainy / hot.  Domes seem to me to be the obvious solution to a lot of the issues for the NFL teams like Chicago.

But then there is the issue of public financing...

So American football is somehow worse to view live than soccer despite it being played in similar size stadiums and even larger fields? Seems a bit biased to me. Soccer is also played outdoors so the same rain and heat apply. 

[Kalbear]

16 hours ago, Wilbur said:

College football is incredibly bad to watch in person, especially if it is televised and you are not in a suite.  Hard, narrow seats (or cement slabs at some universities), long stretches of standing around, the action when it does happen is often fifty yards or more away, and the weather can be cold / pissing down rain / unrelenting sun.  And the game itself is much less good.

 

You're totally fucking high and college football is amazing in person, especially in great stadiums and in rivalry games. You're right that seeing the actual gameplay may not be as good, but holy crap is the crowd stellar. 

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

So American football is somehow worse to view live than soccer despite it being played in similar size stadiums and even larger fields? Seems a bit biased to me. Soccer is also played outdoors so the same rain and heat apply. 

I think so.  The constant stoppages in play are really detrimental to my enjoyment in person.  On Television, there are commercials and commentators, etc. to cover over these yawning chasms in action.  In person, there is a lot of time to think about how hot or cold or wet you are.

With soccer, teams may waste time, but it is sort of part of the game play.  This makes soccer better in person, as no other distractions appear in your line of vision.  Unless you are at a game in Brazil, in which case the guy two rows above you with a Zol the size of your arm and the topless woman three rows down are a bit distracting.  Or in Hungary, where you wonder if you will be able to depart the stadium alive when the ultras kick off.  Or at the Bernabéu, where you wonder if the ennui of the spectators will thwart your will to live.

Also, rarely ever do all 22 players clump together and obscure the view of what is happening on a soccer pitch.  This happens on at least a third of American football plays.  On TV, the cameras follow the action and zoom in to show what happened in replay.  Viewing the play live?  Forget it.

[dbunting]

53 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I think so.  The constant stoppages in play are really detrimental to my enjoyment in person.  On Television, there are commercials and commentators, etc. to cover over these yawning chasms in action.  In person, there is a lot of time to think about how hot or cold or wet you are.

With soccer, teams may waste time, but it is sort of part of the game play.  This makes soccer better in person, as no other distractions appear in your line of vision.  Unless you are at a game in Brazil, in which case the guy two rows above you with a Zol the size of your arm and the topless woman three rows down are a bit distracting.  Or in Hungary, where you wonder if you will be able to depart the stadium alive when the ultras kick off.  Or at the Bernabéu, where you wonder if the ennui of the spectators will thwart your will to live.

Also, rarely ever do all 22 players clump together and obscure the view of what is happening on a soccer pitch.  This happens on at least a third of American football plays.  On TV, the cameras follow the action and zoom in to show what happened in replay.  Viewing the play live?  Forget it.

You really are as biased as me! Soccer has the least action of any sport! Most of the players are not involved in any play, they are just meandering about while the ball is 75 yards away!  Constant stoppages, that's called piss time in America.

College football is just ok? Go review the game played between Michigan and OSU last year, you will be hard pressed to find any crowd or atmosphere better at any event in the world, 110,000 screaming singing crying people.

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

You really are as biased as me!...

My bias is the superior and orthodox bias!  Your bias is heterodoxy!

But seriously, many of my complaints have significant remediation in the construction of a dome, with the concurrent creation of giant screens such as in Dallas.

[Rhom]

Football.  I have missed you.