OldSchoolSnapper

Fantasy football is actually an example of the exact opposite point. The players don't get anything from it, the league does. It's got people watching random games with players they know nothing about. It's totally interchangeable and a way to get people interested in a game regardless of who's playing or if they're any good. Football is America's favorite game, there's no question about it. But people are on the sport like a drug. They don't really care about the players and it doesn't embrace individualism, which is the exact opposite strategy of the NBA.

Millions play fantasy football, it's all about individual players. Nobody plays NBA fantasy leagues. Even casual sports fans know a lot of NFL players, they don't know NBA players. Lebron sure. That's one, and arguably the goat. Do they know Doncic, Jokic, Siakam, Kemba, etc.? No. Mahomes would be missed way than say, Harden. NFL has been lacking a bit of star power the way it is. Russell Westbrook has more followers on Instagram than Aaron Rodgers, Patrick Mahomes, Tom Brady and Lamar Jackson combined. LeBron James has four times the amount of followers Russell Westbrook does. NBA stars have cult followings in China. I didn't really expect anybody to object to that as I thought it was pretty obvious. NBA players are individual enterprises in a way that NFL players just aren't. It's reflected in the audiences, and the way both leagues are marketed. The NBA players are more like Messis and Ronaldos than NFL players. It's not uncommon for basketball fans to have allegiance to players over teams, much like soccer. It's much less common to find that in football.

Like I said earlier, they've already set a precedent of allowing pretty blah players in. It's not Cooperstown. But then it's odd that they stonewall guys like LeRoy Butler, who EASILY surpass the type of player they've allowed in. Show me why John Lynch and Brian Dawkins are in there and he's not. Name recognition is the only reason, and those two guys aren't even the kind of meh players I'm referring to.

They didn't have Pro Bowlers because those two teams won 19 regular season games combined and nobody votes Pro Bowlers from 9-7 teams. I know that most of those guys had short lived careers and remember there was major drama between Eli and Barber. There was something about Barber saying he wouldn't win a title etc. and then they immediately did. Shockey was irrelevant on the first title team, he was hurt most of the season. I didn't mention them as reasons they won titles, just that he played with good players over his career. But I have to object to the teams that won not being talented. They both had monster defensive fronts. In both cases, that's why they won titles. Tuck was hurt the second time, and getting him back helped them make a run. The first team had him, Osi and an aging but still productive Strahan. For some reason I remember the 2007 run more, but that was a team people knew had underachieved and a lot of people didn't want to play them in the playoffs. At least in 2011 Eli had a nice season. A really damning thing for Eli is how many years they were just bad. They missed the playoffs eight times, basically half his career, and that includes qualifying at 8-8. I can't imagine if the Packers had been that bad that often during Rodgers career. I expect Eli will get in because they beat New England twice, but it is really lowering the bar IMO. I just don't see any modern QB near his numbers getting in. Brees missed the playoffs a bit too, but he's rewriting records and their numbers aren't even close.

Plaxico Burress who was instrumental in getting him a ring and Victor Cruz who was a monster during the second one. Careers cut short due to stupidity and injuries, but very good players. Along with Shockey, Barber and Jacobs. Some of those arguments fall apart though when you consider that he didn't win a whole lot. It's not like a Rodgers or a Marino where he was carrying bad teams. A lot of his teams were really bad and he was one reason. His first Super Bowl season was just flat out bad. A lot of the guys you listed make the argument against him. He has four HOFers in his similarity scores and they're all from the 70s and 80s. Joe Montana is one of his comps, which shows you how disingenuous that can get. QB rating is just a really bad measure for guys in different decades. Derek Carr looks like Michael Jordan if you toss him in John Elway. There is just too much scoring now and 30 TDs is not the mountain it was. Eli is beneficiary of two historic playoff runs. Even with just one of those he's going down as another Joe Flacco or Drew Bledsoe. The second one is an anomaly and it's probably going to get him in. The fact that we have to justify Eli with a bunch of old players should sound the alarm.

I mean...he really didn't have any great seasons. If your criteria is titles then yes. But he was truly never very good. I'm not sure how comparing him to Favre and Aikman really works. We can say that about a lot of more recent players. 30 TDs and 3000 yards used to be a milestone. 3000 yards is 100% meaningless today. There are routinely 26/12 type guys that teams move on from. Two seasons of 30+ TDs for when he played, and a 60% completion %, plus ALL of those picks...without the Super Bowls and name, there is no way that guy is getting into the HOF. He was basically a durable above average QB. I don't think there was one season in which Eli was a top 5 QB.

The football HOF is kind of a joke though. There are very few fringe players. It's not at all like baseball's where a bunch of really good players aren't in. Guys like Cecil Cooper would get into Canton with ease. That's why baseball has the best one by far IMO. He shouldn't get in but he will because of notoriety and the fact that basically everyone remembers his Super Bowls really fondly. Based on the precedent they've set and how watered down it is, it's hard to see him not doing it. That said I've always thought it was weird Sterling Sharpe isn't in. He was clearly on that trajectory and got hurt. He was blowing up records for that era and they've let much worse guys in.

QBs might be faces of the team but they are not close to being faces of the league the way NBA mega stars are. LeBron is practically his own economy. The NBA would miss Giannis retiring tomorrow a lot more than the NFL would miss Patrick Mahomes. NBA stars transcend the cities they play in, in a way NFL players just don't.

The NBA embraces individualism and the NFL has always tried to shut it down, right down to the fact that the players' faces are difficult to see during games. None of that is an accident, and makes a lot of sense when you consider the NBA has a far younger audience (45% of viewership is under 35). This isn't the sport itself either, as the NCAA tournament skews REALLY old and rural. The NBA is a superstar-driven league, plain and simple. Much more common to see a LeBron or Giannis jersey anywhere in the country than it is to see Lamar Jackson's in Chicago. The players are the brand in the NBA; in the NFL, the violence is.

It's an example of what some people associate with the brand, it's not meant to be taken literally, but I get the feeling you're intentionally being obtuse.

When a lot of people hear the words "NBA culture" this is what they think of: I'm aware this is 16 years old. It's still what a lot of people, particularly older people less inclined to live in a large city, think of when they think of NBA basketball. You don't really have to go very far online to find people saying the NBA is full of "thugs" or "druggies" and saying that's why they refuse to watch.

If you're going retro though, it was a good opportunity to do a Nieves, a Cirillo, etc. They had a perfect excuse finally do some of those but went with the same retreads. I totally get why from a sales perspective, but if they didn't do it now it's probably never happening. Sit tight on Hiura. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they did some Asian heritage night (aware he was born here) or something. Or find a way to work him in on Super Hero night. There are almost no announced theme nights outside Star Wars so he might still get one.

Yeah I think the post above pretty much nails it. I think we know what is meant by NBA culture and as much damage control as the NBA has done, and as accurate as it to say that the top guys have done a lot of good in terms of charitable work (LeBron, Curry, Westbrook, etc.) that image still persists, particularly in rural communities. I think it's accurate to say that younger people tend to think of the NFL having a worse image, but the further you get from city centers the older and more conservative you get. I think it'd be fair to say the NBA is definitely the most city-centric league of the major three. I'm not really sure I buy in to the statement that millennials like the Bucks much more than the Brewers. In Milwaukee that might be true with the younger subsection of that demographic, but I consider the Brewers to have a fairly rabid following. I know in my millennial circle the Brewers are 10x more popular. Edit: Misread that, missed "very few.." I agree.

I think anyone dreaming of Jeff Cirillo, Fernando Vina or Juan Nieves can put those to bed. Most people don't know who those guys are and the team would have 15k of them in a storage room. I'm down with Yelich, Molitor and Sheets though.

It makes sense to announce the promos before the tickets go on sale since that is the point. This list usually comes out WAY earlier, around December 6-10, but it would be kind of weird to have a bunch of people upset they purchased tickets already when a lot of people buy based on the promos. This year the announcement is bunched pretty close together with single-game sales in mid Feb. Package holders can submit their games as early as October so those people get a heads up on specific games. The dates have been known for quite some time, just not the items. It's about what I expected. The two-part Yelich should be neat, hoping that it links together or something. As a collector I always hope for some creativity but I realize these are made for the general public so it's going to be a lot of Brauns, Yeliches and Younts. The t-shirts should be really popular. Also of note is that they dropped from all-fan to 35k. I think that is a good move as it will ease up the cluster at the gates right at the start time. Expect more theme nights and special bobbles to be announced later.

All defensive numbers are deceptive and it can be for better or worse. If the 49ers throw 7 passes that's going to be generous to your "passing defense." There are too many variables that go into a matchup to really see how good a unit is based on yardage. You can see this essentially every week. Rodgers had 326 yards on Sunday and I'd hardly say he was slicing and dicing their secondary. Clearly the Packers are vulnerable up the middle, but turnovers and points allowed are really what matters in the end. It's really, to me, more valuable to just go on eye test for the rest of it. You can tell by watching a defense what they do well. They've done a nice job shoring up the secondary and they can get to the QB. That's a hard problem to solve, imo much harder than fixing a rush defense, which Kansas City did in one season - former Packer Mike Pennel has been a big reason why. They have their work cut out for them. The middle of the defense is a sieve. I genuinely feel like they are one great player or maybe two good ones from having a really good defense.

Pump the brakes Cowherd. This play getting any traction is a reach-o-rama. Funny that nobody mentioned it until two or three days later. Rodgers wasn't getting that ball. And no, it's not worse than Cam Newton, but I also thought that play was something of nothing as well. Ripping Rodgers gets viewers. Nobody is talking about that play with anyone else.

The Packers went from 6-9-1 to 13-3 and the defense went from 22nd to 9th in points. You don't get fired for that no matter how hard you get smacked, especially not by an offensive coach who probably doesn't have a grand plan on that side of the ball anyway. I've been underwhelmed a bit by Pettine, honestly. But I'm OK with another year. They added some guys, now add some more and see if they can take that next step.

Good for him. He’s not exactly saying anything that people couldn’t already see. Down 27-0 at halftime in the NFCCG? That’s just horrendous. I see no issue with calling out your guys after that performance. They didn’t play like they cared much at all in the first half. Super Bowl appearance on the line and you can’t hype yourself up enough for that opportunity? Then there’s nothing that will get you out of bed in the morning if not even that will do it for you. Pretty much all season, the defense lacked that tenacity, aggressive, and loose/fun feeling outside of the Smith brothers. The 13-3 season was awesome, but it really was kind of an odd feeling it seemed like when watching the games. They just kind of lacked that “it” feeling. The offense was kind of clunky all season, but even they didn’t exactly show a ton of fire all season outside of a handful of games. I think part of the lack of attitude on the offensive side of the ball could be from the lack of consistency and learning a new system. The lack of having that swagger from the defense as a whole was more puzzling to me. Maybe if they bring in a couple young linebackers that have some attitude to them, it’ll help change that feeling on the defensive side. I was only able to watch about half the games this season, but that’s at least what I took away from watching them. A sad but reasonable explanation is that the Packers didn't expect to win outside of a few guys. I catch a bit of Chmura on days I'm driving, and last week before the game he mentioned the 1995 NFCCG, and said the win over SF the week before had a Super Bowl feel to it. He said basically nobody thought they'd beat Dallas, despite leading in the 4th quarter. Think he used the phrase "house money." It wasn't like the year after where they all thought nobody would touch them.

Man, he doesn't know what he just did with that soundbite. That's going to have legs through next season.

He's an idiot that's used every opportunity to trash MLF from the day he was hired. He has egg all over his face because they won 14 games and this was his last effort to prove how right he was. Nothing more than that. He has a history of making hyperbolic criticism of guys he doesn't like. He kept using this line about "The Packers fired a Super Bowl winning coach to hire an OC from the Titans!" Ignoring that Mike McCarthy was virtually the same exact kind of hire. There's nothing lazier than looking at the rankings of a team an OC/DC coached and determining whether or not he can be a HC. MLF has to have more than one good year to prove himself but give me a break.

The way Scott played the 2nd half of the year is a legitimate concern and they should have a leg in camp just to make him nervous. Something strange is going on there. He lost 15 yards off his punts in the middle of the year. Crosby sticks around because cutting him to sign a guy who kicks a couple percentage points higher isn't worth it when juxtaposed with the disaster you can have if those transitions don't work out.

I didn't compare Mason Crosby's skill to kickers from the 90s and you didn't get the point I was making. Frankly, if you look at the stats, there's a good chance Jason Elam is cut in today's NFL, because he wasn't terribly accurate from mid range. I was pointing out that he's been used like a kicker from the 90s and his numbers reflect that. Gostkowski (not a 90s kicker) is a near-perfect comp because he's the same age and played in similar conditions. If Mason Crosby had, like Gostkowski, attempted 35 kicks from 50+ in his career and connected at his career rate from there, his total % increases to 83.2%. And that's not as generous as it should be, because if he'd played for a coach who cared about it more he'd likely hit more than that since they'd be "safer" kicks. It's not a coincidence that Crosby was 22/24 (though I agree he likely won't hit 90+ next year) this year under a new coach. Like most of the NFL they adapted and go for it more often in no man's land, or they just punt. There's a consequence to missed FGs that was largely ignored by most coaches prior to very recently. He's not Tucker and he's not Gostkowski but you're setting a standard of best kicker in the league. Where I take exception is calling a guy who's made it 14 years as a kicker in arguably the league's worst kicking environment a "guy." When you use variance to look at how ALL kickers respond to stadiums, Lambeau comes in second to last, just ahead of Oakland, so I guess it is now THE worst. There really needs to be a stat that weighs the kicks. Ideally it would take the conditions into account but that's probably not realistic. At least weigh the long distance FGs more than the chip shots like OPS or something.

Let me clarify that I think it's fair to say he's an average K right now. But I don't think it's fair to compare his career achievements to a bunch of 24 year olds that top the league. I didn't pull Gostkowski out of thin air, they're just comped very well due to their age. When you compare Crosby to his peer group, he's been a really good kicker. Being a kicker is a brutal job. At least one of those young guys in the top 5 will suddenly lose it and never got to play again. Teams understandably have a hard time parting with a guy that makes most of the easy ones when you can draft the wrong guy and end up with a disaster on your hands. Crosby's rarely lost games and that's why he's stuck around. I definitely never thought I'd get into kickers this much.

You saying he's not a good kicker isn't a really compelling argument until you give us something to back it up other than weak overall % numbers that tell don't tell us much at all. The two greatest kickers of the 90s are pretty much unanimously Jason Elam and Jason Hanson. Mason Crosby has essentially identical % numbers and what do all 3 have in common? They kicked a ton of long field goals. Morten Andersen? 2 points below Crosby and again…kicked a ton of long field goals. Gary Anderson, attempted 40, hit 12, has a lower % than Crosby. David Akers? Mason is right there with him. The analytics push got NFL teams off attempting really long field goals because hitting 40% of them is probably similar to an interception. Today, most teams won’t attempt a 55 yarder unless they feel really good about the conditions and their guy. There are a good number of teams that generally won’t bother unless they’re indoors. The data on kickers will tell you they’re getting better from every distance, which might be true, but you’ll work in the NFL is you hit 90% from inside 40. Up until around the 2000s, teams were happy with guys that could hit inside 60 and were forgiving of misses If you had a boot. They don’t really do that anymore, and If you’re in the 70% range in short distance you’ll be unemployed. Kicking a lot of long field goals isn't intangible. It's a thing that happens. You don't get to attempt 400+ field goals without being a really good kicker. Gostkowski is averaging 2.5 attempts of 50+ per season, because like most teams, they won't kick them unless they're pretty sure he's going to make them, i.e. they're inside, it's 51 yards and calm, etc. If you're saying Mason isn't Justin Tucker, or he's not Adam Vinatieri, ok. The former might be the best kicker ever. But he is absolutely a really good one, and his body of work speaks for itself.