The NSG 2011-2012 NFL Football Season thread....

[Mytannion]

I wasn't suggesting that in the slightest. Of course American players would be signed, for obvious reasons - the quality of the players is higher, but chances are - there will be at least on British player in a UK team, if only to make up the numbers needed.

I highly suspect there are 53 American players without an NFL contract who are much better than any British player.

Well, by numbers alone that could be true. After all you have a massive population compared to us, however, there could be untapped potential here and could be a great, great player here - we don't know if there is. He could be a kicker or a punter or one of the other less important positions, I don't know - but it is possible.

EDIT: And you're sure that the 'cheating' isn't just bias towards the team you follow?

[Lackadaisical2]

Fuck yeah, Go Bills!

Didn't get to watch the game today unfortunately (not in the Buff area atm, and didn't feel like a trip to Wild Wings), but we won and thats whats important. Looking forward to stomping the Giants next week.

[Lithatrius]

Ouch, most painful INT in a while over in Houston.

On the plus side, Tennessee, Jacksonville and Indy all lost, so it all gets balanced out for us Also, I could handle not making the playoffs, seeing Indy 0-5

[Bluth Corporation]

I highly suspect there are 53 American players without an NFL contract who are much better than any British player.

Well, by numbers alone that could be true. After all you have a massive population compared to us, however, there could be untapped potential here and could be a great, great player here - we don't know if there is. He could be a kicker or a punter or one of the other less important positions, I don't know - but it is possible.

Except for the occasional soccer kicker who makes it big, you don't just pick up random people off the street--because they wouldn't have a clue what to do, regardless of their natural physical gifts. They're developed, over ten years or more. Where are these British players in American college programs?

If they were around, I suspect they'd already be playing in the NFL. Even in Canada, half the players are American--and it's only that low because the CFL flat-out places a limit on the number of non-American players a team can have on its roster.

[Bluth Corporation]

Ouch, most painful INT in a while over in Houston.

On the plus side, Tennessee, Jacksonville and Indy all lost, so it all gets balanced out for us Also, I could handle not making the playoffs, seeing Indy 0-5

They only appear to be 0-5 because of a sudden surge in cheating in the NFL. Actually, they're 5-0.

[Lackadaisical2]

They beat the Patriots, what more do you want? Who have the Titans beaten that are better than the Patriots?

The titans beat the Ravens, which is there only claim to success. Oh and Hasslebeck doing great.

He looked pretty shitty today but I only watched the fourth quarter.

I still think the Bills are legit, but they wont continueing doing this great.

Probably..

[Mytannion]

Except for the occasional soccer kicker who makes it big, you don't just pick up random people off the street--because they wouldn't have a clue what to do, regardless of their natural physical gifts. They're developed, over ten years or more. Where are these British players in American college programs?

If they were around, I suspect they'd already be playing in the NFL. Even in Canada, half the players are American--and it's only that low because the CFL flat-out places a limit on the number of non-American players a team can have on its roster.

I did say 'untapped potential', after all, we have two codes of rugby here - so the toughness will certainly be there, in bigger amounts, no pads over here. The stamina will certainly be there, I'd say most rugby players (well, backs anyway - the forwards less so) could easily be turned into running backs, cornerbacks etc, once they've had a couple of years of training. So say, a 17-year old rugby player now, if there was a UK-based franchise next season, could probably be a good enough player by the time he's 20. You've got to remember that athletes over here compete earlier, 16 year olds compete for professional teams in real matches - something I don't think happens in the USA. Anyway, that's a bit irrelevant.

If there was a UK-based franchise, it would raise the profile of gridiron over here massively and would generate more interest in the sport, so after a year or two, there could easily be a player of good enough quality.

[Bluth Corporation]

so the toughness will certainly be there, in bigger amounts, no pads over here.

This nonsense again? Rugby players would wear pads if they took the kind of hits football players take. Even with pads, injuries in football are much more common than in rugby.

The stamina will certainly be there, I'd say most rugby players (well, backs anyway - the forwards less so) could easily be turned into running backs, cornerbacks etc, once they've had a couple of years of training.

Would they have that stamina with 30+ pounds of padding and gear on?

So say, a 17-year old rugby player now, if there was a UK-based franchise next season, could probably be a good enough player by the time he's 20.

Conditioning does nothing for the skill set. People who are playing in the pros start learning that when they're eight years old.

[Mytannion]

This nonsense again? Rugby players would wear pads if they took the kind of hits football players take. Even with pads, injuries in football are much more common than in rugby.

If you've ever watched a game of rugby, in either code - you'd know this isn't true. Some of the hits in rugby are untrue and if these players had pads on, they could hit even harder - and have you got statistics for the more injuriesing gridiron than in rugby theory or is it just completely unfounded, biased rubbish?

Would they have that stamina with 30+ pounds of padding and gear on?

I'm pretty sure having this stamina would help towards playing with padding and gear on, yes, they don't need pads - so it's a bit different in rugby..

Conditioning does nothing for the skill set. People who are playing in the pros start learning that when they're eight years old.

I'd imagine conditioning does a massive amount for the skill set actually, would a fat slob be able to beat a lean athlete in the 100m, even if the slob is able to accelerate quicker than the athlete and is naturally quicker? No, no he wouldn't, the weight would slow him down massively - so being fit and having good stamina which means you can go for 80 minutes in a rugby match - longer than a game of gridiron (with only one break that you know will happen, at half-time, whereas stoppages in gridiron are guaranteed in large numbers), would help you be quicker, be able to hit harder and probably as a quarterback, throw further. You also seem to forget that we play sports since we're 8 and younger too, I'm 14 - and I'd bet I can throw an american football further than most people my age in the USA (I have played gridiron a bit locally and I'm planning on joining a BAFL academy team soon), I'd also say once I've learned more plays and things of that sort in the game that I could read the game fairly well. I'm not the quickest, but I can catch well and having played rugby since I was little, I can hit and take hits. We probably play sports from an earlier age actually, as well, I've ran a practice session at my local rugby team for 4 and 5 year olds, playing tag rugby. Football (or soccer, if you insist), is played at this age too, and plenty of other sports supplement this.

So if there was a UK franchise, and gridiron's profile was increased - it would be played more and we would seen young players coming through in a couple of years - I'd expect anyway, you probably won't back down from your point of view, so there you go.

[Lithatrius]

For the record, I used to play locally myself, for the London Olympians of the BAFA National Division 1, and the game is going up so quickly. Yeah, it's 30+ years away from professionalism, but the game in the United Kingdom is sky rocketing.

[Coffee Cakes]

I am loving the Bills run this season so far!
I just wish the Cowboys would match it. :/

[New West Guiana]

Oh god what a way to start the wekk the Pack go down 14-0 and score the next 25 to start 5-0!!

Little fact it's the 7th time the Packers gave started 5-0 the other six time the Pack won it all!!

[Maurepas]

Oh god what a way to start the wekk the Pack go down 14-0 and score the next 25 to start 5-0!!

Little fact it's the 7th time the Packers gave started 5-0 the other six time the Pack won it all!!

And their win keeps Atlanta down, always a worthy cause,

Got a little worried there in the Saints Game when Cam looked like he might pull off the upset, Saints Defense really stepped it up there at the end.

[The Clurichauns]

4-1 GO BILLS!

Suck it nonbelievers!

[Coffee Cakes]

4-1 GO BILLS!

Suck it nonbelievers!

I'll drink to that!
And I'm kinda surprised you posted with a puppet.

[Copiosa Scotia]

Yes.

There has been a lot of cheating in the NFL this year. I mean, more than usual. It's ridiculous.

At least Painter looked sharp. I know it was the Cheif's secondary, but you might want to think about trading out of the no.1 spot instead of nabbing Luck.

There's no way. The only team that can seriously consider passing on Luck is St. Louis, and the way Sam Bradford has played so far this season (25.9 Total QBR per ESPN, -13% DVOA per Football Outsiders), I think even they might take him if they had the chance.

[Chetssaland]

If you've ever watched a game of rugby, in either code - you'd know this isn't true. Some of the hits in rugby are untrue and if these players had pads on, they could hit even harder - and have you got statistics for the more injuriesing gridiron than in rugby theory or is it just completely unfounded, biased rubbish?

I think right here you summed it up in the bold. The reason the NFL is more dangerous and the hits are harder is BECAUSE of the pads. The game is far more violent now than it was in the days of leather pads and helmets.

I'd imagine conditioning does a massive amount for the skill set actually, would a fat slob be able to beat a lean athlete in the 100m, even if the slob is able to accelerate quicker than the athlete and is naturally quicker? No, no he wouldn't, the weight would slow him down massively - so being fit and having good stamina which means you can go for 80 minutes in a rugby match - longer than a game of gridiron (with only one break that you know will happen, at half-time, whereas stoppages in gridiron are guaranteed in large numbers), would help you be quicker, be able to hit harder and probably as a quarterback, throw further. You also seem to forget that we play sports since we're 8 and younger too, I'm 14 - and I'd bet I can throw an american football further than most people my age in the USA (I have played gridiron a bit locally and I'm planning on joining a BAFL academy team soon), I'd also say once I've learned more plays and things of that sort in the game that I could read the game fairly well. I'm not the quickest, but I can catch well and having played rugby since I was little, I can hit and take hits. We probably play sports from an earlier age actually, as well, I've ran a practice session at my local rugby team for 4 and 5 year olds, playing tag rugby. Football (or soccer, if you insist), is played at this age too, and plenty of other sports supplement this.

So if there was a UK franchise, and gridiron's profile was increased - it would be played more and we would seen young players coming through in a couple of years - I'd expect anyway, you probably won't back down from your point of view, so there you go.

The stamina of a rugby player has some correlation with their performance late in games, I'm sure. Well, except for the part about quarterbacks throwing farther. Kids play sports at that same young age as well. In Pop Warner/Peewee football, the earliest age is 5. Baseball, basketball, and soccer also start at 5. That said, you'll see kids in yards playing all of these games at an even younger age as well.

But the real issue with British players is that the athletes in the NFL are incredible. I'm not sure what the 40-times of the top rugby players are, but here are the times of this year's rookies. Their bench presses and others are also there. The average weightof an NFL player in 2007 was 248 pounds, and that is always increasing. 300-pounders are a dime a dozen, and don't think these guys are out of shape. An example of one of the many physical freaks of the NFL is Ndamukong Suh. 307 pounds with a 40-time of 4.92 (5.03 as his average). Even quarterbacks, for the most part, need to be big to survive. Look at Vick, for example. He feels the hits more than guys like Big Ben, even though he gets hit less/the same amount as them.

Here's another little tidbit on the athleticism of the NFL. Not sure on the quality of the website, but it gives you something to think about.

http://www.ballsout.com/art_rugbynfl.htm

[New West Guiana]

Pre-dict:

Lions - 23

Bears - 19

[Bluth Corporation]

My mathematical NFL rankings after week 5:

Rank	Team	Old Rating	Old Rank	New Rating	Rank Change	% Rating Change
1	Baltimore Ravens	1.000	1	1.000	0	0.00%
2	Green Bay Packers	0.893	2	0.959	0	7.39%
3	New England Traitors	0.865	3	0.909	0	5.09%
4	New Orleans Satans	0.849	4	0.851	0	0.24%
5	Detroit Lions	0.746	6	0.823	1	10.32%
6	Pittsburgh Stealers	0.714	7	0.817	1	14.43%
7	San Francisco 49ers	0.557	13	0.796	6	42.91%
8	Houston Texans	0.824	5	0.789	-3	-4.25%
9	San Diego Chargers	0.692	9	0.711	0	2.75%
10	New York Giants	0.699	8	0.640	-2	-8.44%
11	New York Jets	0.657	10	0.619	-1	-5.78%
12	Buffalo Bills	0.542	15	0.582	3	7.38%
13	Philadelphia Eagles	0.608	12	0.577	-1	-5.10%
14	Oakland Raiders	0.535	18	0.576	4	7.66%
15	Tennessee Titans	0.644	11	0.548	-4	-14.91%
16	Washington Redskins	0.542	16	0.547	0	0.92%
17	Chicago Bears	0.544	14	0.475	-3	-12.68%
18	Dallas Cowboys	0.450	20	0.456	2	1.33%
19	Cincinnati Bengals	0.403	21	0.454	2	12.66%
20	Minnesota Vikings	0.287	24	0.441	4	53.66%
21	Atlanta Falcons	0.480	19	0.420	-2	-12.50%
22	Indianapolis Colts	0.333	23	0.314	1	-5.71%
23	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	0.535	17	0.307	-6	-42.62%
24	Carolina Panthers	0.278	25	0.285	1	2.52%
25	Cleveland Browns	0.257	27	0.266	2	3.50%
26	Denver Broncos	0.263	26	0.255	0	-3.04%
27	Miami Dolphins	0.207	28	0.216	1	4.35%
28	Arizona Cardinals	0.344	22	0.205	-6	-40.41%
29	Seattle Seahawks	0.056	30	0.129	1	130.36%
30	Kansas City Chiefs	0.087	29	0.123	-1	41.38%
31	St. Louis Rams	0.000	32	0.011	1	N/A
32	Jacksonville Jaguars	0.034	31	0.000	-1	-100.00%

For the week, home field advantage was worth 5.231 points, conferring a 10.8% increase in winning probability. For the season, home field advantage has been worth 3.154 points, conferring a 7.2% increase in winning probability.

Some comments: Philly at #13 seems high, until you realize that yeah, they're 1-4, but of those four losses only one has been by more than one score (to the Giants). Outside of that, they have a blowout win over a bad team (St. Louis) and one-score or less losses to decent-to-good teams like Buffalo, San Francisco, and Cincinnati. Cincinnati is the lowest ranked team at #19, which isn't awful.

Winless Colts at 22 also seems odd--but remember again that except for the blowout loss to Houston, Colts have been right in, and have often led close to the end of, every game they've played. Meanwhile, Kansas City has close (within one score) wins over Minnesota and Indy, but blowout losses to Buffalo and Detroit. The close games could have gone either way, and the system accounts for that--and Indy's just had more of them than Kansas City. The only team I'd say the system seriously underrates is Carolina--which is in part due to the fact that Carolina was an awful team last year, and it'll usually take a few more weeks before the previous-year carryover that is factored into early season games is completely phased out. Aside from the 15-point loss to Chicago, Carolina--like Philadephia and Indianapolis and Minnesota--has been in nearly every game they've played. And still, at #24 they're only two positions behind Indy, who in turn is two behind Minnesota.

[F1-Insanity]

Just when we were about to win... stupid INT

Good thing for Eli that he's got a shitload of credit since we beat the Cheatriots in the SB...

And as for good times, the Seahawks did give us this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&feat ... VuQ5aw0HAQ

[Dallas]

Just when we were about to win... stupid INT

Haha I laughed pretty hard when that happened, no offense, natural reaction of a rival fan

Go Cowboys! Need to get back to a winning record by beating New England next weekend

[Caleeb]

Go Lions! Seriously, this Thanksgiving game will be the best one in history.

[Minoriteeburg]

So glad that Andy Reid is getting fired after this season. He has been needing to go for a long time now.

[Lackadaisical2]

Liking the way the game is going so far, tied up at 17, Manning going for a lot of bombs vs. the Bills, kinda scary since they seem a little faster than our guys.

E: Fuck you Florens.

[F1-Insanity]

Just when we were about to win... stupid INT

Haha I laughed pretty hard when that happened, no offense, natural reaction of a rival fan

Go Cowboys! Need to get back to a winning record by beating New England next weekend

Cowgirls need to learn how to close out games capitalize on takeaways. I havent said this at all this year but Dallas honestly handed this game to the Pats. After about 2 or 3 passes in that winning drive you knew it was gonna happen... good for the G-men I guess

Bills look like a competent team so far this year, but fortunately not competent enough to win today