Unpopular Football Opinions That You Have

[SaltwaterServr]

Other than using "a","to", "an" and "or", I have not used any of the other words you use in any of my posts during this thread. Get to work and look.

No need to do so. I once heard a guy in a bar declare that Texas was the most racist state in the country. No one felt the need to debate an obviously flawed theory, yet he used that lack of debate as his line of reasoning, similar to what you are doing here.

You've stated that the gambling entities influence games. That qualifies unquestionably as a conspiracy theory despite your disdain for the term. The fact you do not see it as a conspiracy theory does not thereby preclude it from being such.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

What are some consensus football opinions that you vehemently go against the grain with. Are there certain players, coaches, or teams that you feel were extremely overrated - but everyone says you're nuts?

Go crazy, stand by your guns. If you think Skip Bayless is insightful, Peyton Manning sucks, or Pat McQuistan is handsome - this is the time to express your unpopular sentiments.

I personally think that Big Ben is a very average QB. He may have 2 rings at a young age but I don't think that if he was in a different situation he would have the same results. Great coaching, great defense, well-ran organization has made his job relatively easy, IMHO. Like I said, these are unpopular opinions that you hold.

To go with the spirit of the thread, I was for eliminating automatic entry to the playoffs based on winning your division.

My thoughts were that you take the best 6 teams in each conference and take them to the playoffs. The two best division winning records get the top 2 seeds so that the divisional records still count to an extent and those top seeds still enjoy the current benefits as in the current system.

Home field for the first round would be based solely on win/loss so that even the 16th game of your season could loom very important despite locking up a playoff spot.

The thinking behind this was of course San Diego getting in last season while 11-5 New England sits at home and Arizona getting in while Tampa Bay sat at home with a better conference record.

Arizona and San Diego both played in the weakest divisions in their respective conferences while Tampa Bay and New England both played in significantly tougher conferences.

You can see the obvious flaws with the idea, i.e. both of my "out" teams winning games against supposedly superior playoff teams, and I've since abandoned it as being even remotely plausible.

 

[daschoo]

i'm going to have the most unpopular opinion, i love american football but for me its just nowhere near as good a sport as football or soccer to you guys.
i also am of the opinion that the stick romo takes for his off-field activities is a joke.

 

[Apollo Creed]

i'm going to have the most unpopular opinion, i love american football but for me its just nowhere near as good a sport as football or soccer to you guys.
i also am of the opinion that the stick romo takes for his off-field activities is a joke.

I'm sure if I was born in England I'd be super pumped about watching 90 minute snooze fests. Same as if you were brought up in my home pretending to be Troy Aikman in the front yard since you were old enough to throw a ball. Its all relative man.

But when I break down my barriers of bias, and the doors of perception are cleansed - football is still light years ahead of soccer in almost every facet of sport.

 

[DallasEast]

The 30 yard slant exists. Damn all of you who think otherwise.

:laugh2:

 

[DallasEast]

Chuck Howley and Cliff Harris should already be in the HOF.

******! X infinity!

 

[Hostile]

i'm going to have the most unpopular opinion, i love american football but for me its just nowhere near as good a sport as football or soccer to you guys.
i also am of the opinion that the stick romo takes for his off-field activities is a joke.

It is with me. No offense but I wish mentioning that abomination of a sport on this forum and a comparison to football was a bannable offense.[/tantrum]

 

[Apollo Creed]

It is with me. No offense but I wish mentioning that abomination of a sport on this forum and a comparison to football was a bannable offense.[/tantrum]

Na, we need at least one village idiot.

Because out of the thousands of CZ members, only one would ever have the balls or lack of brains to say something that foolish.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

This is has been one of my favorite threads, and you made the best post in it.

Couldn't agree more with what you had to say here. It was time for Landry to go and I loved the choice of Johnson from day one.

The truth of this post is only surpassed by it's unpopularity. I wonder if you felt as guilty as I did for feeling this way at the time.

Oh, as sad as it was at the time, I think a lot of people knew it was time for a change. I remember Jimmy being mentioned in my local paper as a potential candidate to replace Landry even before Jerry bought the team, because he had so much success at Miami and was a good delegator. At the time people thought Landry was taking too much on himself in running both sides of the ball.

 

[DallasEast]

i'm going to have the most unpopular opinion, i love american football but for me its just nowhere near as good a sport as football or soccer to you guys.
i also am of the opinion that the stick romo takes for his off-field activities is a joke.

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/socceraward.png

 

[Four]

It is with me. No offense but I wish mentioning that abomination of a sport on this forum and a comparison to football was a bannable offense.[/tantrum]

You have bad feet or something?

Seems anything to do with kicking a ball is loathsome for you.

I suspect something traumatic happened with feet and balls in your life.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I suspect something traumatic happened with feet and balls in your life.

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

 

[OAM]

No need to do so. I once heard a guy in a bar declare that Texas was the most racist state in the country. No one felt the need to debate an obviously flawed theory, yet he used that lack of debate as his line of reasoning, similar to what you are doing here.

You've stated that the gambling entities influence games. That qualifies unquestionably as a conspiracy theory despite your disdain for the term. The fact you do not see it as a conspiracy theory does not thereby preclude it from being such.

Now you're comparing this conversation with one you had with someone at a bar about racism. LOL, you're a pretty loopy guy looking for more action than there is.

You could also look at my post and say it's an answer to the OP's question of what unpopular opinion we may have regarding this game. You're using the word conspiracy again. I'm expressing an unpopular opinion requested by the OP.

Take a look at the numbers during games and from that information base your opinion, which you are totally entitled to whichever way it shifts. By the way, go tell all those guys who bet on that Steelers vs Chargers game last year and got suckered they're conspiracy theorists.

Difference with me as I believe people are entitled to their opinions when asked for them, regardless of how unpopular they may be, and you just don't. You start aggressively categorizing people. Look at the statistics and show me where I am wrong, where the handicappers aren't in the 80 + percentile of profiting. The games results sway in favor 80% against where the majority of money is betting on. These are statistical facts, proven stats are no conspiracy.

But it's ugly information for the profiteers to have the gambling masses know. It's ugly information for the leagues corporate masses to know. So instead of getting factual information to prove this statement is wrong, the word "conspiracy" gets used to attempt to scare people off of exposing those factual stats.

 

[CowboyMike]

• I dare say that I believe games are influenced by simple love/hate of a certain team. Bias. Or East Coast bias. They're influenced more by that, I believe, than gambling. (See: Steelers)
• I believe in the 30 yard slant.
• Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb and the entire Philadelphia Eagles organization, the Minnesota Vikings, and the Giants defense are overrated.
• Kurt Warner is a better quarterback today than he was when he was helming the Greatest Show on Turf.
• Matt Lienart will win a Super Bowl.
• Joe Buck and Troy Aikman are the worst announcing team on television.
• Ken Albert and Daryl Johnston are underrated as an announcing team.
• PI should be a 15 yard penalty for incidental, and 20 yard penalty for blatant.
• ESPN should die a horrible horrible death. All of them.
• So should the DMN.
• Jim Kelly was a better quarterback and leader than Troy Aikman, and would have won four or five Super Bowls had he played for the Cowboys.
• Jim Johnson's "Blitzing Defense" is the most overrated scheme in football today. Steve Spagnuolo's version of that defense is not.
• Peyton Manning is the best quarterback to ever play the game, or at least will be that when he retires. It took him five years to win a playoff game.
• Tony Romo will do it in 3 1/2.

 

[RS12]

i'm going to have the most unpopular opinion, i love american football but for me its just nowhere near as good a sport as football or soccer to you guys.
i also am of the opinion that the stick romo takes for his off-field activities is a joke.

I can go down to any local park and see 1-0 games on 6 different fields on the weekend. This is exciting?:laugh2:

 

[THUMPER]

[*]I dare say that I believe games are influenced by simple love/hate of a certain team. Bias. Or East Coast bias. They're influenced more by that, I believe, than gambling. (See: Steelers)

Agree slightly

[*]I believe in the 30 yard slant.

Agree

[*]Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb and the entire Philadelphia Eagles organization, the Minnesota Vikings, and the Giants defense are overrated.

Agree

[*]Kurt Warner is a better quarterback today than he was when he was helming the Greatest Show on Turf.

Not sure, will have to see how he does this year.

[*]Matt Lienart will win a Super Bowl.

Agree, just not with the Cardinals

[*]Joe Buck and Troy Aikman are the worst announcing team on television.

Disagree

[*]Ken Albert and Daryl Johnston are underrated as an announcing team.

Agree

[*]PI should be a 15 yard penalty for incidental, and 20 yard penalty for blatant.

Disagree, incidental should be 5 yards.

[*]ESPN should die a horrible horrible death. All of them.

AGREE!!!

[*]So should the DMN.

AGREE!!!

[*]Jim Kelly was a better quarterback and leader than Troy Aikman, and would have won four or five Super Bowls had he played for the Cowboys.

Disagree on both statements.

[*]Jim Johnson's "Blitzing Defense" is the most overrated scheme in football today. Steve Spagnuolo's version of that defense is not.

Not sure

[*]Peyton Manning is the best quarterback to ever play the game, or at least will be that when he retires. It took him five years to win a playoff game.

Sort of agree. He certainly is one of the top QBs to ever play not the #1 ever, that goes to Otto Graham. The goal is to win and Otto did it better than anyone else EVER!

[*]Tony Romo will do it in 3 1/2.

AGREE!!!

 

[dadymat]

I can go down to any local park and see 1-0 games on 6 different fields on the weekend. This is exciting?:laugh2:

hey ....soccer is great for kids.....until they toughen up then they play American Football

 

[dreghorn2]

I'm arriving late but here goes;

1/Sanders vs Smith.. friends and i have debated for years.

As mentioned Sanders was a boom or bust back that too oftened busted.

There was a period of time (a long period) where Emmitt Smith was simply unstoppable re: gaining 5 yards.

I mean sensational cuts, reads, rolling off blocks, breaking tackles etc.. a truely incredible drive sustainer like the NFL has never seen before or since.

Smith refused to lose, he had determination, desire, pride, a true champion player in every way. Coaches dream, no pray, that their team leaders are players like Emmitt.

No back that is removed in goal line situations (Sanders) can ever be considered the best of all time.

2/Gambling has without a doubt influenced games in the NFL.

The 1970s was notorious for referees being manipulated. I think we are being naive to assume there have not been any Tim Donaghys in the NFL.

3/ We won't go far with our current coaching staff.

Any staff that oversaw the 4th quarter collapse against the Giants in the 2007 playoffs (at home!!), and the disaster down the stretch last season, which included the single worst 'no-show' of a Cowboys team i believe i've ever witnessed, will not lead us to significant success.

3a/ I do not believe in Jason Garrett.

Sorry Hostile (i know you are a fan), i simply do not see the imagination, leadership, or 'feel' for the game, from Jason Garrett, that leads me to believe he will be a great offensive coordinator or head coach.

Maybe more later, just wanted to add to a fine thread.

 

[Apollo Creed]

hey ....soccer is great for kids.....until they toughen up then they play American Football

Exactly.

I've been in this debate almost to the point of blows with some blokes from across the pond.

Football contains such a diverse group of athletes. Monster linemen, jacked linebacks, ripped WRs, stout backs, intelligent QBs with cannons for arms. So much complexity in the game. And my final point is, football players could play soccer if they wanted - soccer players couldn't play football. They're lucky that it hasn't become popular in America because we'd take that **** over too. Stole a little bit of that from Chris Rock, but still.

Soccer is just so, meh. Can't understand why idiots would get into gang fights over it, wait thats right - cause soccer is the only way these uber-nationalistic countries' citizens can express their pent up frustration.

Football rocks, soccer sucks balls. I am willing to fight about it. Seriously.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Now you're comparing this conversation with one you had with someone at a bar about racism. LOL, you're a pretty loopy guy looking for more action than there is.

You could also look at my post and say it's an answer to the OP's question of what unpopular opinion we may have regarding this game. You're using the word conspiracy again. I'm expressing an unpopular opinion requested by the OP.

Take a look at the numbers during games and from that information base your opinion, which you are totally entitled to whichever way it shifts. By the way, go tell all those guys who bet on that Steelers vs Chargers game last year and got suckered they're conspiracy theorists.

Difference with me as I believe people are entitled to their opinions when asked for them, regardless of how unpopular they may be, and you just don't. You start aggressively categorizing people. Look at the statistics and show me where I am wrong, where the handicappers aren't in the 80 + percentile of profiting. The games results sway in favor 80% against where the majority of money is betting on. These are statistical facts, proven stats are no conspiracy.

But it's ugly information for the profiteers to have the gambling masses know. It's ugly information for the leagues corporate masses to know. So instead of getting factual information to prove this statement is wrong, the word "conspiracy" gets used to attempt to scare people off of exposing those factual stats.

Based on the very definition of the word I provided, your "opinion" is that of a conspiracy yet I'm the loopy one? The comparison made is between equally idiotic ideas being presented and not worthy of debate.

But hey, provide all the randomly made up statistics you like to prove your pet opinion isn't your pet conspiracy theory. :laugh2: