Do you mind the high turnover of players on NFL rosters?

[pbmax]

I'm rooting for the laundry.

[hoosier]

Agree with Bass for the most part (except the part about only watching football: in my current life I don't have time to watch anything at all). Frequent roster turnover deprives teams of continuity and makes watching (for those who have time...) less interesting. For all of its warts, the NFL of the 1970s was much more interesting than the 2010s. Or maybe it was just that the NFL is more interesting when you're a kid.

[RashanGary]

I don't like it. I'd rather teams stay together more.

[Harlan Huckleby]

For all of its warts, the NFL of the 1970s was much more interesting than the 2010s.

Yep. I remember in backyard football we would pretend to be "The Mad Stork", Ted Hendricks. We knew he'd always be a Packer because he was a Packer. And then it happened.


But that was the exception. Teams mostly stayed together in the 80s too. I loved tghe 8-8 Pzackers, just knew they were about to be contenders.

[woodbuck27]

It is what it is and that is a business.

Loyalty = show me the $money$

Looking at the Facts:

http://www.packersnews.com/story/spo...lors/99120766/

Free agency showing Packers' true colors

[Harlan Huckleby]

It is what it is and that is a business.

Loyalty = show me the $money$

Amen. I don't do nothing for free. Madtown pays me a nickle a word to post here. And if lots of people get pissed off, I see a little extra something in my check.

[woodbuck27]

Amen. I don't do nothing for free. Madtown pays me a nickle a word to post here. And if lots of people get pissed off, I see a little extra something in my check.

I am happy that Mad is treating you so well.

[pbmax]

Agree with Bass for the most part (except the part about only watching football: in my current life I don't have time to watch anything at all). Frequent roster turnover deprives teams of continuity and makes watching (for those who have time...) less interesting. For all of its warts, the NFL of the 1970s was much more interesting than the 2010s. Or maybe it was just that the NFL is more interesting when you're a kid.

1970 football was terrible, only I was young so it was hard to know how terrible until the NFL put in the 1978 rules changes.

1970 football was ruled by hoary cliches and a lack of risk taking. Unless your idea of innovation was run, run, then long pass on 3rd and 7.

I could see arguing that the 1960s were better. For every Lombardi then there was the AFL.

But better passing AND player movement means that teams are not stuck in the same track for nearly as long as they were back in the day. Now teams that bounce around from mediocre to terrible and back again are truly poorly run (see Rams, Los Angeles, or Jets, New York).

[hoosier]

1970 football was terrible, only I was young so it was hard to know how terrible until the NFL put in the 1978 rules changes.

1970 football was ruled by hoary cliches and a lack of risk taking. Unless your idea of innovation was run, run, then long pass on 3rd and 7.

I could see arguing that the 1960s were better. For every Lombardi then there was the AFL.

But better passing AND player movement means that teams are not stuck in the same track for nearly as long as they were back in the day. Now teams that bounce around from mediocre to terrible and back again are truly poorly run (see Rams, Los Angeles, or Jets, New York).

Nonsense, you had plenty of innovation. See, the Chiefs and Oilers would run on 3rd and long, and the Raiders would throw long on 1st and 2nd downs. Ok, so the 70s wasn't a good time for offensive innovation. But that is just because it was the defenses' turn to shine.

When I say I liked the NFL of the 70s better I'm not speaking of offensive schemes (although the modern paradigm for offensive innovation was forged in the 70s with Coryell) but of being a fan, of following a team.