How Bad Is The NFL Right Now?

[Scottemojo]

Going into week 11, there were only 11 teams with winning records. 21 teams had records below .500 going into this weekend.

The AFC South leader is tied between the 5-5 Texans and the 5-5 Colts. Not far behind are the 4-6 Jaguars.

The NFC East isn't much better, the 5-5 Giants hold the lead with the 4-6 Eagles not far behind. And as horrible as the Cowboys were without Romo, they have to like their chances with him back even though they are 3-7.

The Seahawks look like the front runner for the final WC spot with a 5-5 record. Most years at 5-5 your season would be finished. Basically every NFL WC contender is .500 or below. Yes, even Tampa Bay has playoff aspirations at 5-5.

I know the Panthers, Bengals, Pats, and Cards are good teams, but I think their records may be more of an indication of how weak the competition in the NFL is right now than how good they are. The Panthers are good, but not 10-0 good.

What a weird year for football.

They'll never do it because of TV ratings, but the NFL should have a rule that no one with a .500 record or less gets into the playoffs even if they are the division champion. Somebody gets in who is lousy and one-and-done while another team in another division with a better record sits home. That happened to someone a couple years ago. We're not the NHL for crissakes.

Except that those .500 or worse teams win their first playoff game.

Why even have divisions if division winners don't get playoffs in all cases?

 

[Hawk-Lock]

Going into week 11, there were only 11 teams with winning records. 21 teams had records below .500 going into this weekend.

The AFC South leader is tied between the 5-5 Texans and the 5-5 Colts. Not far behind are the 4-6 Jaguars.

The NFC East isn't much better, the 5-5 Giants hold the lead with the 4-6 Eagles not far behind. And as horrible as the Cowboys were without Romo, they have to like their chances with him back even though they are 3-7.

The Seahawks look like the front runner for the final WC spot with a 5-5 record. Most years at 5-5 your season would be finished. Basically every NFL WC contender is .500 or below. Yes, even Tampa Bay has playoff aspirations at 5-5.

I know the Panthers, Bengals, Pats, and Cards are good teams, but I think their records may be more of an indication of how weak the competition in the NFL is right now than how good they are. The Panthers are good, but not 10-0 good.

What a weird year for football.

They'll never do it because of TV ratings, but the NFL should have a rule that no one with a .500 record or less gets into the playoffs even if they are the division champion. Somebody gets in who is lousy and one-and-done while another team in another division with a better record sits home. That happened to someone a couple years ago. We're not the NHL for crissakes.

Except that those .500 or worse teams win their first playoff game.

Why even have divisions if division winners don't get playoffs in all cases?

I agree, you must let division winners in. If not, divisions mean nothing. And on top of that, playoff races wouldn't be as fun to watch. As horrible as the AFC South and the NFC East are, they should be entertaining division races to watch down the stretch. The only thing I would change is that if a wild card has a better record than the divisional opponent, they should have the home game. Or if that is taking it to far, then don't let a team host a playoff game if they don't have more than 8 wins.

 

[TwistedHusky]

It isn't that the NFL teams are "bad", but that the NFL itself is skewed.

The league as it stands is the unintended consequence of the push to sell the QB as the celebrity, and thus changing all the rules to suit the QB.

Before, it was more paper, rock, scissors. You would have a great run team with a shot in the playoffs. Followed by a great passing team. Or maybe a team light on offense but strong on defense.

The rules are pushed in favor of the QB where that simply is not possible. The 5 yard after contact rule giving a 1st down no matter the down and distance on a play where the judgement is all too often subjective or often wrong? That rule alone probably added 80+ yards to the average QB in a game. It gives teams that pass more bites at the apple, and makes it that much more difficult to play defense.

Toss in the "don't hit the QB too high or too low" rule and teams that have good to great QBs have a near unsinkable advantage. Which translates to "If you don't have a top 10 (or likely top 5) QB, you have no chance at a SB".

By focusing on the QB (since they are easily marketable), the NFL overcame the issue of how you market 53 players (you don't, you market 1 per team) but it also assured that if your team is one of the 70% without a great QB - that 70% turns into the losers.

Even worse, since QBs are now overvalued, teams that are struggling can no longer try to build with effective drafts, they are forced to take flyers on QBs hoping one will pan out. That means that ones that do not, sink the team even deeper behind. Look at the QBs that have gone in the 1st round over the past five years and ask there were better football players that teams had to overlook to spend high draft picks on QBs that did not work out.

Even worse, if you DO build through the draft, it almost assures you no hope. Because you need to be terrible to get a high enough pick to get a good shot at a good QB. A team that scratches from the bottom to make it to a bit above .500 by putting all the pieces in place but for the QB, is never going to get that missing piece unless they get lucky with an overlooked talent (like a Russell Wilson).

Bottomline, most teams have to spin the wheel repeatedly for a chance at the pool of QBs, most of which won't even scratch top 10, so they have to return to spin the wheel again & again. All of which makes them get worse over time, not better.

 

[Rex]

It isn't that the NFL teams are "bad", but that the NFL itself is skewed.

The league as it stands is the unintended consequence of the push to sell the QB as the celebrity, and thus changing all the rules to suit the QB.

Before, it was more paper, rock, scissors. You would have a great run team with a shot in the playoffs. Followed by a great passing team. Or maybe a team light on offense but strong on defense.

The rules are pushed in favor of the QB where that simply is not possible. The 5 yard after contact rule giving a 1st down no matter the down and distance on a play where the judgement is all too often subjective or often wrong? That rule alone probably added 80+ yards to the average QB in a game. It gives teams that pass more bites at the apple, and makes it that much more difficult to play defense.

Toss in the "don't hit the QB too high or too low" rule and teams that have good to great QBs have a near unsinkable advantage. Which translates to "If you don't have a top 10 (or likely top 5) QB, you have no chance at a SB".

By focusing on the QB (since they are easily marketable), the NFL overcame the issue of how you market 53 players (you don't, you market 1 per team) but it also assured that if your team is one of the 70% without a great QB - that 70% turns into the losers.

Even worse, since QBs are now overvalued, teams that are struggling can no longer try to build with effective drafts, they are forced to take flyers on QBs hoping one will pan out. That means that ones that do not, sink the team even deeper behind. Look at the QBs that have gone in the 1st round over the past five years and ask there were better football players that teams had to overlook to spend high draft picks on QBs that did not work out.

Even worse, if you DO build through the draft, it almost assures you no hope. Because you need to be terrible to get a high enough pick to get a good shot at a good QB. A team that scratches from the bottom to make it to a bit above .500 by putting all the pieces in place but for the QB, is never going to get that missing piece unless they get lucky with an overlooked talent (like a Russell Wilson).

Bottomline, most teams have to spin the wheel repeatedly for a chance at the pool of QBs, most of which won't even scratch top 10, so they have to return to spin the wheel again & again. All of which makes them get worse over time, not better.

Excellent post!

 

[mrt144]

It isn't that the NFL teams are "bad", but that the NFL itself is skewed.

The league as it stands is the unintended consequence of the push to sell the QB as the celebrity, and thus changing all the rules to suit the QB.

Before, it was more paper, rock, scissors. You would have a great run team with a shot in the playoffs. Followed by a great passing team. Or maybe a team light on offense but strong on defense.

The rules are pushed in favor of the QB where that simply is not possible. The 5 yard after contact rule giving a 1st down no matter the down and distance on a play where the judgement is all too often subjective or often wrong? That rule alone probably added 80+ yards to the average QB in a game. It gives teams that pass more bites at the apple, and makes it that much more difficult to play defense.

Toss in the "don't hit the QB too high or too low" rule and teams that have good to great QBs have a near unsinkable advantage. Which translates to "If you don't have a top 10 (or likely top 5) QB, you have no chance at a SB".

By focusing on the QB (since they are easily marketable), the NFL overcame the issue of how you market 53 players (you don't, you market 1 per team) but it also assured that if your team is one of the 70% without a great QB - that 70% turns into the losers.

Even worse, since QBs are now overvalued, teams that are struggling can no longer try to build with effective drafts, they are forced to take flyers on QBs hoping one will pan out. That means that ones that do not, sink the team even deeper behind. Look at the QBs that have gone in the 1st round over the past five years and ask there were better football players that teams had to overlook to spend high draft picks on QBs that did not work out.

Even worse, if you DO build through the draft, it almost assures you no hope. Because you need to be terrible to get a high enough pick to get a good shot at a good QB. A team that scratches from the bottom to make it to a bit above .500 by putting all the pieces in place but for the QB, is never going to get that missing piece unless they get lucky with an overlooked talent (like a Russell Wilson).

Bottomline, most teams have to spin the wheel repeatedly for a chance at the pool of QBs, most of which won't even scratch top 10, so they have to return to spin the wheel again & again. All of which makes them get worse over time, not better.

Thank you for this post - it sums up how I've felt for a few years now. One thing I think the rule changes have done is widened the talent gaps between individual QBs to the point where there are probably only a quarter in the NFL who are capable of playing and excelling in a high reward passing offense. The ceiling on output was enlarged by these changes but the talent probably has stayed roughly equivalent, maybe even been worse in some regards although with less emphasis on rushing at all levels of football there might be an equilibrium.

Factoring that 1/4th of QBs are capable, the market inefficiency is at an all time high and the 2nd contracts for the most recent stable of QBs shows that.

 

[chris98251]

It isn't that the NFL teams are "bad", but that the NFL itself is skewed.

The league as it stands is the unintended consequence of the push to sell the QB as the celebrity, and thus changing all the rules to suit the QB.

Before, it was more paper, rock, scissors. You would have a great run team with a shot in the playoffs. Followed by a great passing team. Or maybe a team light on offense but strong on defense.

The rules are pushed in favor of the QB where that simply is not possible. The 5 yard after contact rule giving a 1st down no matter the down and distance on a play where the judgement is all too often subjective or often wrong? That rule alone probably added 80+ yards to the average QB in a game. It gives teams that pass more bites at the apple, and makes it that much more difficult to play defense.

Toss in the "don't hit the QB too high or too low" rule and teams that have good to great QBs have a near unsinkable advantage. Which translates to "If you don't have a top 10 (or likely top 5) QB, you have no chance at a SB".

By focusing on the QB (since they are easily marketable), the NFL overcame the issue of how you market 53 players (you don't, you market 1 per team) but it also assured that if your team is one of the 70% without a great QB - that 70% turns into the losers.

Even worse, since QBs are now overvalued, teams that are struggling can no longer try to build with effective drafts, they are forced to take flyers on QBs hoping one will pan out. That means that ones that do not, sink the team even deeper behind. Look at the QBs that have gone in the 1st round over the past five years and ask there were better football players that teams had to overlook to spend high draft picks on QBs that did not work out.

Even worse, if you DO build through the draft, it almost assures you no hope. Because you need to be terrible to get a high enough pick to get a good shot at a good QB. A team that scratches from the bottom to make it to a bit above .500 by putting all the pieces in place but for the QB, is never going to get that missing piece unless they get lucky with an overlooked talent (like a Russell Wilson).

Bottomline, most teams have to spin the wheel repeatedly for a chance at the pool of QBs, most of which won't even scratch top 10, so they have to return to spin the wheel again & again. All of which makes them get worse over time, not better.

One problem I have with this argument, Russell Wilson was a 3rd round pick slated to be a back up at most in the NFL, he came out and went to the play offs and then two Super Bowls, he is still looked upon as a gimmick by many, a smart gimmick but a gimmick QB in a system that has him just Manage the Games by many experts.

Sure he has his endorsements, but he isn't Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers Nationally running products on their level.

The knob slobbering that RG III had when he came out was a whole different story, you can see the divergence here.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

It isn't that the NFL teams are "bad", but that the NFL itself is skewed.

The league as it stands is the unintended consequence of the push to sell the QB as the celebrity, and thus changing all the rules to suit the QB.

Before, it was more paper, rock, scissors. You would have a great run team with a shot in the playoffs. Followed by a great passing team. Or maybe a team light on offense but strong on defense.

The rules are pushed in favor of the QB where that simply is not possible. The 5 yard after contact rule giving a 1st down no matter the down and distance on a play where the judgement is all too often subjective or often wrong? That rule alone probably added 80+ yards to the average QB in a game. It gives teams that pass more bites at the apple, and makes it that much more difficult to play defense.

Toss in the "don't hit the QB too high or too low" rule and teams that have good to great QBs have a near unsinkable advantage. Which translates to "If you don't have a top 10 (or likely top 5) QB, you have no chance at a SB".

By focusing on the QB (since they are easily marketable), the NFL overcame the issue of how you market 53 players (you don't, you market 1 per team) but it also assured that if your team is one of the 70% without a great QB - that 70% turns into the losers.

Even worse, since QBs are now overvalued, teams that are struggling can no longer try to build with effective drafts, they are forced to take flyers on QBs hoping one will pan out. That means that ones that do not, sink the team even deeper behind. Look at the QBs that have gone in the 1st round over the past five years and ask there were better football players that teams had to overlook to spend high draft picks on QBs that did not work out.

Even worse, if you DO build through the draft, it almost assures you no hope. Because you need to be terrible to get a high enough pick to get a good shot at a good QB. A team that scratches from the bottom to make it to a bit above .500 by putting all the pieces in place but for the QB, is never going to get that missing piece unless they get lucky with an overlooked talent (like a Russell Wilson).

Bottomline, most teams have to spin the wheel repeatedly for a chance at the pool of QBs, most of which won't even scratch top 10, so they have to return to spin the wheel again & again. All of which makes them get worse over time, not better.

I agree with what you are saying, but regardless of how the NFL is putting more emphasis on the QB and the passing game, there are still really bad teams. There are plenty of good QB's on horrible teams: Rivers (SD), Brees (NO), Flacco (BAL), Andrew Luck (IND), Matt Ryan, (ATL), Eli Manning (NYG), etc.

And I don't think you need a great QB to go to the playoffs. If the playoffs were to start today, the QB's in the playoffs would be: RW, Tom Brady, Andy Dalton, Big Ben, Brock Osweilier/Peyton Manning, Alex Smith, Andrew Luck/Matt Hasselback, Brian Hoyer, Cam Newton, Teddy Bridgewater, Aaron Rodgers, and Kirk Cousins. I'm not exactly sure I would call Cousins, Bridgewater, Hoyer, Alex Smith, the Denver QB's, and the Indy QB's great QB's. Yes it helps to have a good QB, and you definitely need one in the NFL to have a decent shot at a SB, but there are plenty of good QB's sitting on awful teams.

Overall, there are just a lot of bad teams in the NFL right now. You can try to slice it how you want, but it is what it is. Just bad football all around with an exception to about 10-12 teams.

 

[chris98251]

I think the bad teams is associated with the lack of technique and fundamentals coached all the way up the ranks now, even High School and lower put a premium on winning over everything, that and the emphasis on no contact practice and drills. College Coaches used to be mainstays as well, now if your not winning your not coaching at almost any level, or not for long anyway.

 

[rideaducati]

If the playoffs started today, both the Chiefs and Texans would be the AFC Wild Cards. At one point the Chiefs were 1-5 and the Texans were 2-5. Yes, the NFL is still bad.

Chiefs look like a reasonable side, they may finish with 10 wins

One and done in the playoffs too. The AFC version of the Cardinals with wins over puff opponents and losses vs good teams.