Papa Juggs
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #226
It's about the size of the city and the population base being able to support the cost of the stadium.
An open roofed stadium surrounded by the world's tallest skyscrapers looks povo.
NFL 2014 NFL - Week 8
- Thread starter balmainforever
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's about the size of the city and the population base being able to support the cost of the stadium.
An open roofed stadium surrounded by the world's tallest skyscrapers looks povo.
GreyWind
Norm Smith Medallist
If everyone played in domes there would be no home field advantage, stupid idea.
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
I think one of the biggest advantages for playing at home is the crowd noise... it's probably one of the few games where the crowd can actually influence the game. (ie: cause delay of games, not allow receivers to hear audibles etc..)
Papa Juggs
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #229
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
The closer to the top of this list you are the more you deserve a nice weather insulated stadium for spectator comfort.
That's all I'm saying, nothing more nothing less.
Watching millionaire players freeze their **** off in December is quite funny though
The closer to the top of this list you are the more you deserve a nice weather insulated stadium for spectator comfort.
That's all I'm saying, nothing more nothing less.
Watching millionaire players freeze their **** off in December is quite funny though
GreyWind
Norm Smith Medallist
Not going to disagree with you there, but it really does depend on the team going into the stadium. The better teams find ways to overcome this problem, compare this to going to an open stadium in a harsh climate and there's going to be more problems for the visiting team.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,139
- 94,978
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Trade Late Picks! - Round-By-Round Breakdown
USC WR R. Jay Soward
To break this all down by round by percentage per round from 2000 to 2011:
First Round 381 players total
You have to really, really try to screw up in the first round. Just 11% of the first round picks were disasters while 71% of the players taken were, at the very least, functional NFL starters. A team has a far, far better chance of finding a star in the first round than a bust, so yes, first round picks really are that valuable.
5 – 29 players 8%
4 - 92 players 24%
3 - 147 players 39%
2 - 72 players 19%
1 - 34 players 9%
0 – 7 players 2%
Second Round 382 players total
There's better than a 50/50 shot of finding a good starter in the second round and there's little risk of the pick being a total bust. While the superstars are almost certainly going to be snapped up in the first round, there aren't too many major misses in the second with a mere 9% of the picks doing nothing and 24% of the selections failing to produce at a decent level. Teams should load up on as many second round picks as possible since that's where the starters are.
5 - 3 players 0.78%
4 – 44 players 12%
3 – 161 players 42%
2 - 83 players 22%
1 - 57 players 15%
0 - 34 players 9%
Third Round 408 players
And here's where the production falls off the map. Lance Briggs is the lone third round pick to make the top category, and just over 3% of the third round picks became major difference-makers. This is when it becomes a gamble to find a good starter with 44% of the third round picks bringing little or no value and 66% of the picks failing to provide a starter worth getting excited about. In other words, teams need to play the percentages and trade a third round pick and any other later round picks to move up into the second whenever possible.
5 – 1 player 0.2%
4 - 12 players 3%
3 – 130 players 32%
2 – 87 players 22%
1 – 94 players 23%
0 – 84 players 21%
Fourth Round 430 players
There isn't a major difference between the third and fourth rounds, but there's still a drop. Roughly 73% of the third round picks didn't turn into difference-making starters, while over 70% of the fourth round picks failed to become worthwhile. There are almost no big-time stars coming from the round – sackmaster Jared Allen was the lone superstar player. If a team was told it had less than a 3-in-10 shot of getting a decent starter, would it still want its fourth round pick?
5 – 1 player 0.23%
4 – 9 players 2%
3 – 105 players 24%
2 – 91 players 21%
1 – 82 players 19%
0 – 142 players 33%
Fifth Round 428 players
This is the dumping round. A fifth round pick sounds relatively valuable, but it's absolutely not and teams need to do whatever possible to trade it away. A whopping 47% of the picks were total wastes of time and close to 85% of the draft picks failed to become relevant starters.
5 – No players 0%
4 – 8 players 1.9%
3 - 61 players 14%
2 – 63 players 15%
1 – 96 players 22%
0 – 200 players 47%
Sixth Round 461 players
Over half the players taken had no value whatsoever and 75% failed to do much of anything. Just under 11% of the players taken in this round turned out to be starters, and there weren't even many bodies to fill in the gaps with just under a quarter of the players selected going on to do anything.
5 - 1 player 0.2%
4 – 2 players 0.43%
3 – 48 players 10%
2 – 63 players 14%
1 – 107 players 23%
0 – 240 players 52%
Seventh Round 492 players
Don't even bother. Cortland Finnegan, Jay Ratliff and Marques Colston were more than merely keepers, but that's about it. Close to 85% of the seventh rounders did absolutely nothing and there's just over a 1-in-10 shot of finding a decent starter - and that's after being way-too-nice with the rankings. It would be better to blow off the seventh round altogether, save the money, and go get the top rookie free agents still available.
5 – No players 0%
4 – 3 players 0.6%
3 – 50 players 10%
2 – 62 players 13%
1 – 99 players 20%
0 – 314 players 64%
In other words, be glued to your TV on Thursday night because that's the future of the NFL. Go out and do something more valuable with your life during the rest of the draft.
USC WR R. Jay Soward
To break this all down by round by percentage per round from 2000 to 2011:
First Round 381 players total
You have to really, really try to screw up in the first round. Just 11% of the first round picks were disasters while 71% of the players taken were, at the very least, functional NFL starters. A team has a far, far better chance of finding a star in the first round than a bust, so yes, first round picks really are that valuable.
5 – 29 players 8%
4 - 92 players 24%
3 - 147 players 39%
2 - 72 players 19%
1 - 34 players 9%
0 – 7 players 2%
Second Round 382 players total
There's better than a 50/50 shot of finding a good starter in the second round and there's little risk of the pick being a total bust. While the superstars are almost certainly going to be snapped up in the first round, there aren't too many major misses in the second with a mere 9% of the picks doing nothing and 24% of the selections failing to produce at a decent level. Teams should load up on as many second round picks as possible since that's where the starters are.
5 - 3 players 0.78%
4 – 44 players 12%
3 – 161 players 42%
2 - 83 players 22%
1 - 57 players 15%
0 - 34 players 9%
Third Round 408 players
And here's where the production falls off the map. Lance Briggs is the lone third round pick to make the top category, and just over 3% of the third round picks became major difference-makers. This is when it becomes a gamble to find a good starter with 44% of the third round picks bringing little or no value and 66% of the picks failing to provide a starter worth getting excited about. In other words, teams need to play the percentages and trade a third round pick and any other later round picks to move up into the second whenever possible.
5 – 1 player 0.2%
4 - 12 players 3%
3 – 130 players 32%
2 – 87 players 22%
1 – 94 players 23%
0 – 84 players 21%
Fourth Round 430 players
There isn't a major difference between the third and fourth rounds, but there's still a drop. Roughly 73% of the third round picks didn't turn into difference-making starters, while over 70% of the fourth round picks failed to become worthwhile. There are almost no big-time stars coming from the round – sackmaster Jared Allen was the lone superstar player. If a team was told it had less than a 3-in-10 shot of getting a decent starter, would it still want its fourth round pick?
5 – 1 player 0.23%
4 – 9 players 2%
3 – 105 players 24%
2 – 91 players 21%
1 – 82 players 19%
0 – 142 players 33%
Fifth Round 428 players
This is the dumping round. A fifth round pick sounds relatively valuable, but it's absolutely not and teams need to do whatever possible to trade it away. A whopping 47% of the picks were total wastes of time and close to 85% of the draft picks failed to become relevant starters.
5 – No players 0%
4 – 8 players 1.9%
3 - 61 players 14%
2 – 63 players 15%
1 – 96 players 22%
0 – 200 players 47%
Sixth Round 461 players
Over half the players taken had no value whatsoever and 75% failed to do much of anything. Just under 11% of the players taken in this round turned out to be starters, and there weren't even many bodies to fill in the gaps with just under a quarter of the players selected going on to do anything.
5 - 1 player 0.2%
4 – 2 players 0.43%
3 – 48 players 10%
2 – 63 players 14%
1 – 107 players 23%
0 – 240 players 52%
Seventh Round 492 players
Don't even bother. Cortland Finnegan, Jay Ratliff and Marques Colston were more than merely keepers, but that's about it. Close to 85% of the seventh rounders did absolutely nothing and there's just over a 1-in-10 shot of finding a decent starter - and that's after being way-too-nice with the rankings. It would be better to blow off the seventh round altogether, save the money, and go get the top rookie free agents still available.
5 – No players 0%
4 – 3 players 0.6%
3 – 50 players 10%
2 – 62 players 13%
1 – 99 players 20%
0 – 314 players 64%
In other words, be glued to your TV on Thursday night because that's the future of the NFL. Go out and do something more valuable with your life during the rest of the draft.
You should realise that players who live in a cold city will be used to the climate more than those who aren't and that creates a unique home field advantage. Can still remember last years game at soldier field with Romo freezing his **** off
Open air stadiums in winter to me is what the NFL is all about. I love it late in the season when the cold weather sets in. Fans can survive, hell I went to the Snow Bowl in Philadelphia last year and there were 69,000 people there and nobody left early.
MAGPIE2013
Club Legend
- Apr 11, 2013
- 2,151
- 1,850
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Arizona Cardinals, Man United,
The dallas washington games seems like a trap game for dallas.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 145,139
- 94,978
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Washington sucks balls
MAGPIE2013
Club Legend
- Apr 11, 2013
- 2,151
- 1,850
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Arizona Cardinals, Man United,
I just cant wait until my cards kick the cowboys ass.
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
Put it this way you'd rather play against Peyton in the cold and ice than a dome. Imagine Lambeau Field with a roof??!! Oh * no! Should be a no roof, all grass policy.
Said saints and seahawks fans before you
MAGPIE2013
Club Legend
- Apr 11, 2013
- 2,151
- 1,850
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Arizona Cardinals, Man United,
Well those 2 teams are not even above 500. Dallas has not played 1 team above the 600 range. 90% of the team you have played have loosing records,and Washington this week wont change that. The arizona cardinals will be your first real test of this seasonSaid saints and seahawks fans before you
Broken
Brownlow Medallist
I'd like to agree, but I think we'll find it very hard to beat the Cowboys.
If we show up offensively the game could become a shoot out - but that's a big if considering how we've been playing this season.
Defensively we're always vulnerable. I'm expecting Bryant to have a big game and the Cowboys o-line to make it a long day at the office for our D, moreso with Orakpo gone for the season.
so was last week, apparently
Seahawks were 3-1 when we played them mate, having beaten green bay and denver.
But by all means dont let facts get in the way of a good story
Last edited:
- Feb 25, 2013
- 51,218
- 58,277
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Arizona's schedule has been about one decent team (Chargers) more difficult than the Eagles'
- Apr 8, 2006
- 40,174
- 41,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys and Texas Longhorns
Yawn.
MAGPIE2013
Club Legend
- Apr 11, 2013
- 2,151
- 1,850
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Arizona Cardinals, Man United,
Beating one previous sub 500 team is hardly impressive . I repeat again,dallas have not beaten a top team yetSeahawks were 3-1 when we played them mate, having beaten green bay and denver.
But by all means dont let facts get in the way of a good story
MAGPIE2013
Club Legend
- Apr 11, 2013
- 2,151
- 1,850
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Arizona Cardinals, Man United,
We had to play 3 teams with our back up quarterback ,well the game again against denver we had to go down to our last quarterback on the depth chart. Our schedule is about to be become insanely hard.
Philly at home
dallas at jerry world
rams at home
Lions at home
Which after that comes the nightmare schedule where we have to play
at Seattle
at falcons
Chiefs at home
At rams
Sehawks at home
At 49ers
apart from the rams and maybe the falcons we have no easy games at all.
- Feb 25, 2013
- 51,218
- 58,277
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Arizona haven't beaten a top team yet either
- Feb 25, 2013
- 51,218
- 58,277
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
So Seattle are a top team if they play Arizona, but not Dallas?
you have no games against 'top teams' in your last 6 weeks
Papa Juggs
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #249
Football at midnight? I knew it was early but damn.
Might have to go to bed extra early.
Game to be previewed soon (I hope).
Might have to go to bed extra early.
Game to be previewed soon (I hope).
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
I never understand why people debate the "who have they beaten" line. W/L tells you little in the Not For Long League. Timing can be everything in terms of personnel & form you face on your schedule.
In Dallas' case, you'd have been long odds on them preseason beating both Seattle & New Orleans let alone them having the record the currently have. As a avowed Dallas hater even I can admit their performances so far have been impressive.
In Dallas' case, you'd have been long odds on them preseason beating both Seattle & New Orleans let alone them having the record the currently have. As a avowed Dallas hater even I can admit their performances so far have been impressive.
