NFC North/NFL Thread 2016-17

[wadesworld]

There are a ton of missed calls both ways in every football game at every level.  I have a hard time believing that refs go out there and get all warm and fuzzy over the "fan owned" Green Bay Packers and give them all the 50/50 calls.  I'd venture to guess home teams typically get the benefit of the doubt in most games in the NFL.  BUT, I'm a blind Packers fan.  So what do I know?  The refs really do get warm and fuzzy over the Pack.

[PGsHeroes32]

As I said,

I'm content.

[MerrittsMustache]

There are a ton of missed calls both ways in every football game at every level.  I have a hard time believing that refs go out there and get all warm and fuzzy over the "fan owned" Green Bay Packers and give them all the 50/50 calls.  I'd venture to guess home teams typically get the benefit of the doubt in most games in the NFL.  BUT, I'm a blind Packers fan.  So what do I know?  The refs really do get warm and fuzzy over the Pack.

Yep. That's exactly what I said 

[mu03eng]

Yep. That's exactly what I said 

So what are you saying exactly? You have a concept that the Packer's get more favorable calls than other teams? Zero evidence, at best anecdotal......any "enemy" fanbase is likely to say that about another team.

[Goose]

I am diehard Packer fan and do believe Favre and Rodgers do get benefit of doubt similar to Jordan. I was big Jordan fan and felt the same way regarding him. Very glad I am Packer fan because it does seem to lean our way more often than not.

[MerrittsMustache]

So what are you saying exactly? You have a concept that the Packer's get more favorable calls than other teams? Zero evidence, at best anecdotal......any "enemy" fanbase is likely to say that about another team.

I'm saying that the Packers tend to get favorable calls, particularly at home. Was it that confusing?

Of course, there's no hard data to prove this because it can't really be measured, but it's believed by many football fans, even those who aren't part of "an enemy fanbase." Sure, just because something is believed by the football world, that doesn't make it fact. It just means that the belief is out there. I don't know why it seems to be upsetting people.

[mu03eng]

I'm saying that the Packers tend to get favorable calls, particularly at home. Was it that confusing?

Of course, there's no hard data to prove this because it can't really be measured, but it's believed by many football fans, even those who aren't part of "an enemy fanbase." Sure, just because something is believed by the football world, that doesn't make it fact. It just means that the belief is out there. I don't know why it seems to be upsetting people.

Not upset at all....just find it surprising that a human adult believes one team gets better calls than others "just cause" 

[wadesworld]

I'm saying that the Packers tend to get favorable calls, particularly at home. Was it that confusing?

Of course, there's no hard data to prove this because it can't really be measured, but it's believed by many football fans, even those who aren't part of "an enemy fanbase." Sure, just because something is believed by the football world, that doesn't make it fact. It just means that the belief is out there. I don't know why it seems to be upsetting people.

I've literally never heard that until you just mentioned it.  So you're telling me that if I run into some random Patriots fan he's going to be like, "Aww man, you guys always get so lucky with the refs!"  I find it hard to believe, but hey, I'm a blind Packers fan so maybe!

In what way does Rodgers/did Favre/do the Packers get favorable calls?  What types of calls do quarterbacks get?

What's funny is over the past 5 seasons the Packers have been penalized less than your beloved Bears just once.

My gosh I can't believe how the Bears, and specifically Jay Cutler, get away with everything!

[MU82]

Serious questions for those who think the Packers get more calls than their opponents:

Is this only a Favre/Rodgers Era phenomenon or does it date back to Majkowski, Wright, Dickey, Whitehurst, Hadl and Hunter years?

Was it more pronounced during the Lombardi/Starr years than it is even now?

How about before Lombardi?

I mean, what is the evolution of this preferential treatment and what are the reasons for it?

[Goose]

My thought on the Favre/Rodgers era has been good for the Nfl in many ways. The Pack has been great television for both Packer fans and non fans. Over the past several years it seems like the Pack gets several defensive first downs every game and some seem favorable to me. This is coming from a Packer fan and I have commented many times over the years to my kids that we actually laugh when the flag is thrown downfield.

[MerrittsMustache]

My thought on the Favre/Rodgers era has been good for the Nfl in many ways. The Pack has been great television for both Packer fans and non fans. Over the past several years it seems like the Pack gets several defensive first downs every game and some seem favorable to me. This is coming from a Packer fan and I have commented many times over the years to my kids that we actually laugh when the flag is thrown downfield.

That can't be possible! No human adult would believe that! But...but...but look at the Packers' penalties compared to the Bears'!


Lighten up, guys. I don't know why you seem to think this is a bad thing and why you're so thin-skinned that you need to argue about it and refuse to believe there's any truth to it.

[mu03eng]

That can't be possible! No human adult would believe that! But...but...but look at the Packers' penalties compared to the Bears'!


Lighten up, guys. I don't know why you seem to think this is a bad thing and why you're so thin-skinned that you need to argue about it and refuse to believe there's any truth to it.

[mu03eng]

That can't be possible! No human adult would believe that! But...but...but look at the Packers' penalties compared to the Bears'!


Lighten up, guys. I don't know why you seem to think this is a bad thing and why you're so thin-skinned that you need to argue about it and refuse to believe there's any truth to it.

Again I don't think anyone's getting bent out of shape on this but you. You posited a theory, we disagreed and now you seem to be upset that we didn't blindly accept your original posit. Maybe you're right, maybe you aren't. I don't think there is a significant difference in calls between any teams certainly not anymore more than I think Jim Burr is actually biased against Marquette.

[wadesworld]

That can't be possible! No human adult would believe that! But...but...but look at the Packers' penalties compared to the Bears'!


Lighten up, guys. I don't know why you seem to think this is a bad thing and why you're so thin-skinned that you need to argue about it and refuse to believe there's any truth to it.

...because you say it is, so anyone who questions it is thin skinned. Hilarious.

Don't answer the questions about your absurd claim that Green Bay gets away with things nobody else does and ignore the fact that the actual numbers disagree with your claim and just call people thin skinned. Classic case of "I can't tell you what a QB would be getting away with, he's not defending a receiver so not getting away with PI or defensive holding, not catching a ball so not getting away with offensive PI, not blocking so not getting away with holding, etc. Just, you know, it's Aaron Rodgers and he does all these crazy penalties but he's Rodgers so he does what he wants and I said so so if you don't believe it you have thin skin!"

You want to claim a team gets away with penalties more than any other team yet you want to ignore the number of penalties that teams get. Okay. I got it. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Again I don't think anyone's getting bent out of shape on this but you. You posited a theory, we disagreed and now you seem to be upset that we didn't blindly accept your original posit. Maybe you're right, maybe you aren't. I don't think there is a significant difference in calls between any teams certainly not anymore more than I think Jim Burr is actually biased against Marquette.

I'm not upset at all. I actually find it laughable how Packer fans respond to a simple "theory," as you called it, that their team tends to get the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking of thin-skinned fans...

...because you say it is, so anyone who questions it is thin skinned. Hilarious.

Don't answer the questions about your absurd claim that Green Bay gets away with things nobody else does and ignore the fact that the actual numbers disagree with your claim and just call people thin skinned. Classic case of "I can't tell you what a QB would be getting away with, he's not defending a receiver so not getting away with PI or defensive holding, not catching a ball so not getting away with offensive PI, not blocking so not getting away with holding, etc. Just, you know, it's Aaron Rodgers and he does all these crazy penalties but he's Rodgers so he does what he wants and I said so so if you don't believe it you have thin skin!"

You want to claim a team gets away with penalties more than any other team yet you want to ignore the number of penalties that teams get. Okay. I got it. 

When did I say anything about Aaron Rodgers committing penalties? Or penalties in general?

[Spotcheck Billy]

I didn't see this absurd story posted here yet, forgive me if it was:
http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/espnw-columnists/article/17565198/what-pro-football-hall-fame-thinking-darren-sharper-nomination
Darren Sharper a Hall of Fame nominee? Come on football, you can do better

Donovan McNabb. Jason Taylor. LaDainian Tomlinson. Hines Ward.

These distinguished former football stars are among the players who were announced Thursday as nominees for the Pro Football Hall of Fame's Class of 2017.

Also on the list of 94? Darren Sharper.

You know, the five-time Pro Bowl safety currently serving 18 years in prison after pleading guilty to drugging and raping multiple women in several states. Yes, that Darren Sharper is among those being considered for enshrinement in the sport's most hallowed of spaces.

While several cuts remain before the finalists are ultimately determined, and Sharper is unlikely to make it that far in the process, it still begs the obvious question: How did this happen?

To be considered for nomination, a player must be retired from the league for at least five years. And, as clearly evidenced by Sharper's inclusion, there is no character clause in the bylaws.

There are several players currently in the Hall with criminal records, including O.J. Simpson and Lawrence Taylor. The Hall neither removed Simpson's bust or on-field honors after he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping, nor after he was accused of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. But in 2013, the Hall did remove a mere photo of former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez "in the spirit of good taste" after he was charged with first-degree murder.

However, the NFL has come under heavy scrutiny over the past few years regarding the league's treatment of women, most notably coming to a head after then-Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice was suspended just two games after brutally attacking his then-girlfriend (now-wife) in an elevator in 2014. The team ultimately released Rice, the league suspended him indefinitely, and a string of promises from NFL brass to do better quickly followed.

One might, perhaps foolishly, believe that in the wake of this, the league would make sure it did everything in its power to ensure that crimes involving violence toward women are always treated with the utmost importance. At the very least, one would assume the league would go out of its way to avoid another public relations nightmare.

Both the NFL and Hall of Fame claim they have no input in who is nominated or ultimately elected. "Any fan may nominate any player, coach or contributor who has been connected with pro football simply by writing to the Pro Football Hall of Fame," the Hall's website says. Of course, the 48-member selection committee decides who will ultimately appear on the ballot (based solely on the contributions they have made to the sport), but this open nomination conveniently takes the blame off of the league and the Hall. It could be anyone who nominated Sharper. Yet, is there no one who reviews this list -- the last version before winnowing it to 25 -- before releasing to the public?

It goes without saying, that someone at the very least checked the list to ensure eligibility, or just made sure there were no spelling errors. But at no point did anyone raise a red flag? At no point, did someone say, "We have a convicted serial rapist on this list?"

Because when seeing the name of someone who has committed such disgusting crimes on such an illustrious list, it should be called into question. And if not because it's the right thing to do, then because it devalues the other 93 names on the list.

Yes, Sharper had a good career over his 14 seasons in the league, but does that really overshadow the pain and suffering he inflicted on as many as 16 women? If you are unsure, please take a moment to review his crimes. One would have to be delusional to truly believe anyone could just brush over what he has done.

The College of William & Mary, his alma mater, couldn't overlook it. Despite having a storied career at the school, he was removed from its Athletics Hall of Fame in April 2015 -- almost immediately after he pleaded guilty.

A friend recently asked me how I could justify watching football as a feminist. I stumbled then in finding an adequate answer, as I have for the past several years. And now, when seeing something like this, it really makes me once again question my fandom. Even if Sharper's inclusion didn't violate any standards of the Hall of Fame, perhaps it's time to set new standards.

Perhaps it's time to make sure a SERIAL RAPIST, who even called his own actions "heinous" during sentencing, can't be considered for football's greatest honor.

And if not, perhaps it's time for the rest of us to realize this is a sport that really doesn't care about keeping us as fans.

Do better, football. Seriously.

[naginiF]

I didn't see this absurd story posted here yet, forgive me if it was:
http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/espnw-columnists/article/17565198/what-pro-football-hall-fame-thinking-darren-sharper-nomination
Darren Sharper a Hall of Fame nominee? Come on football, you can do better

THAT is absurd.  It's like they have an internal betting pool on the most insensitive thing they can do......."so a one game suspension for 20 domestic violence inquiries didn't do it, i know what if we put Sharper up for the Hall?"

[mu03eng]

THAT is absurd.  It's like they have an internal betting pool on the most insensitive thing they can do......."so a one game suspension for 20 domestic violence inquiries didn't do it, i know what if we put Sharper up for the Hall?"

"Best" part is they take the whole "we can't interfere, we don't judge based on character" position. Listen, this isn't a slippery slope here....the man raped women and was convicted of it, that's a cliff I think they should feel comfortable taking a stand on.

[mu03eng]

I'm not upset at all. I actually find it laughable how Packer fans respond to a simple "theory," as you called it, that their team tends to get the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking of thin-skinned fans...

When did I say anything about Aaron Rodgers committing penalties? Or penalties in general?

[wadesworld]

I'm not upset at all. I actually find it laughable how Packer fans respond to a simple "theory," as you called it, that their team tends to get the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking of thin-skinned fans...

When did I say anything about Aaron Rodgers committing penalties? Or penalties in general?

So if you're not talking about the Packers getting away with penalties then what are they getting away with?  This just gets more and more confusing lol.

Do the Packers get to deflate footballs?!

[naginiF]

So if you're not talking about the Packers getting away with penalties then what are they getting away with?  This just gets more and more confusing lol.

Do the Packers get to deflate footballs?!

My perspective is that there are games where one team clearly gets the benefit of the doubt (peoples exhibit A = Broncos:Panthers game wk 1).  Those games are not a rarity and happen +/- to every team.  By having to (or getting to depending on your POV) watch more of certain teams you are going to be exposed to more games where they have this go in their favor - add in fan bias and you have a team that gets preferential treatment. 

I haven't seen the Dolphins play more than 3 times in the last decade, and i don't give a rip about them, so i've never seen a game that they got the benefit.  As a Vikes fan i've seen more than a few games where GB got favorable calls - some favorable only through purple shades most just the refs favoring GB.

Also - AP has torn meniscus.  out 0 to 10 weeks

[GooooMarquette]

I'm saying that the Packers tend to get favorable calls, particularly at home. Was it that confusing?

As a Packers fan, I agree with you.

I also know that you could replace "Packers" with every other team in the league, and the statement would still be true.  It's one of the benefits of home games.

[Dish]

Been impressed with Whitehair tonight, except for an errant shotgun snap, really impressed.

[Dish]

INT & fumble by Cutler were both brutal, 100% both on him.

[jesmu84]

The Bears STINK.

Injuries all over the place.

Seems relevant (from 2012): http://grantland.com/features/we-seem-keep-redefining-jay-cutler-every-four-quarters/