Ok so they keep telling us what defenders can't do to the quarterback, what can they do? Give them a hug or a kiss, help them up, pat them on the back.
Quote: @Vikergirl said:
Ok so they keep telling us what defenders can't do to the quarterback, what can they do? Give them a hug or a kiss, help them up, pat them on the back.
This is my point. GB is not interested in the answer to that question. GB is going for 1 thing: enforce the rules, but not so much against us.
And how would you ever manage to do this? Ever hear of the Jordan rules? Jordan was officiated differently than other players, even than other great players. The unspoken justification for that was that he had earned it. The reality is that the aura or legend that had grown around Jordan required that he be able to do certain things in a game and eventually prevail. Fans demanded it. The NBA would be the better for it. It was a superstar rule taken to the extreme. If he did not make a certain shot and a defender was near him it was because he was fouled. If he made a steal we would overlook that he had fouled the ball handler. (By the way, I am a Jordan fan. He lived up to his end of that bargain.)
The equivalent in the NFL is you protect Rodgers, Brady, and maybe Brees to a higher degree than any other player. That would work for GB. It's not perfect, but close enough. And each of those guys can live up to their end of the deal. If the refs protect them just a little more, they will take care of the rest.
Quote: @dadevike said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ dadevike said:
And years from now, when GB no longer has Rodgers and their best players are on defense, what do you think will happen to the Rodgers rule? The Packers will complain about the pussification of the NFL. And the NFL will respond..
Do you think so? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know. I don't doubt the NFL gives the Packers favorable treatment, but I don't know why exactly, and if it will continue forever.
On the one hand, it may be that the NFL favors GB because they have Rodgers (and Favre before). The NFL is an entertainment company and star QBs are their leading men, the performers they market heavily. If their next QB stinks, the NFL might abandon them.
But another possibility is that Green Bay is an official "special case" supported by the NFL because they can use that franchise to deny some complaints leveled at the league. Isn't the NFL just a Billionaire Owners Club? Oh no, look at the Packers, community owned. Doesn't the NFL favor big-market teams? Oh no, a small market team is a perennial playoff contender. They hope 1 exception lets them get away with it.
If it's the latter, the NFL will keep propping up Green Bay even after Rodgers.
I really am not a conspiracy theorist. I tend not to believe that a league dictates to refs the outcomes they want whether in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. And it may not be that the NFL consciously favors GB - although there may be reasons to do so. GB is a huge part of NFL lore. So are the Giants and Bears, and more recently, the Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, and Patriots. Of all those teams, it seems GB has an outsized influence. Maybe that is a result of Vince Lombardi, Starr, Favre, and Rodgers, Title Town, the Lombardi trophy, etc. Maybe they are also a media darling, like the Cowboys.
Or Maybe they are just better at driving a narrative than other teams. They seem to be the most vocal team, maybe in all of the major sports, as far as appealing to their league through their players and coaches via the media. They do not care whether a hit or a play is legal or whether a call is technically correct. If they feel they were victims of an injustice, they will complain. Loudly. And often. And someone will pick it up. Every team is subject to bad calls or correct calls that are nonetheless wrong. Few teams create the uproar that GB does. Fewer still can dictate change like GB can.
Perhaps the NFL believes that its business is better when GB is a contender - like MLB makes more money when the Yankees are good. And if that is the case then so be it. But I would not sit back and let GB drive the narrative. The Vikings should speak up.
No, I don't like to accept the conspiracy perspectives either, but the NFL is too close to reality TV to think they don't consider pushing certain storylines.
To your last point - "like MLB makes more money when the Yankees are good" - true, but that's largely because a good Yankees team earns interest in the largest city in the nation. So why doesn't the NFL push the Jets to perennial contention? It's why I wonder about the small-market/non-billionaire-owner angle. And why would GB be a media darling? I know the announcers rave about GB on camera, but do you really think Erin Andrews thinks, "Oh great I get to spend a week in Wisconsin in January"? These guys have to be wishing there could be more conference champ games in LA or Miami.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ dadevike said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ dadevike said:
And years from now, when GB no longer has Rodgers and their best players are on defense, what do you think will happen to the Rodgers rule? The Packers will complain about the pussification of the NFL. And the NFL will respond..
Do you think so? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know. I don't doubt the NFL gives the Packers favorable treatment, but I don't know why exactly, and if it will continue forever.
On the one hand, it may be that the NFL favors GB because they have Rodgers (and Favre before). The NFL is an entertainment company and star QBs are their leading men, the performers they market heavily. If their next QB stinks, the NFL might abandon them.
But another possibility is that Green Bay is an official "special case" supported by the NFL because they can use that franchise to deny some complaints leveled at the league. Isn't the NFL just a Billionaire Owners Club? Oh no, look at the Packers, community owned. Doesn't the NFL favor big-market teams? Oh no, a small market team is a perennial playoff contender. They hope 1 exception lets them get away with it.
If it's the latter, the NFL will keep propping up Green Bay even after Rodgers.
I really am not a conspiracy theorist. I tend not to believe that a league dictates to refs the outcomes they want whether in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. And it may not be that the NFL consciously favors GB - although there may be reasons to do so. GB is a huge part of NFL lore. So are the Giants and Bears, and more recently, the Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, and Patriots. Of all those teams, it seems GB has an outsized influence. Maybe that is a result of Vince Lombardi, Starr, Favre, and Rodgers, Title Town, the Lombardi trophy, etc. Maybe they are also a media darling, like the Cowboys.
Or Maybe they are just better at driving a narrative than other teams. They seem to be the most vocal team, maybe in all of the major sports, as far as appealing to their league through their players and coaches via the media. They do not care whether a hit or a play is legal or whether a call is technically correct. If they feel they were victims of an injustice, they will complain. Loudly. And often. And someone will pick it up. Every team is subject to bad calls or correct calls that are nonetheless wrong. Few teams create the uproar that GB does. Fewer still can dictate change like GB can.
Perhaps the NFL believes that its business is better when GB is a contender - like MLB makes more money when the Yankees are good. And if that is the case then so be it. But I would not sit back and let GB drive the narrative. The Vikings should speak up.
No, I don't like to accept the conspiracy perspectives either, but the NFL is too close to reality TV to think they don't consider pushing certain storylines.
To your last point - "like MLB makes more money when the Yankees are good" - true, but that's largely because a good Yankees team earns interest in the largest city in the nation. So why doesn't the NFL push the Jets to perennial contention? It's why I wonder about the small-market/non-billionaire-owner angle. And why would GB be a media darling? I know the announcers rave about GB on camera, but do you really think Erin Andrews thinks, "Oh great I get to spend a week in Wisconsin in January"? These guys have to be wishing there could be more conference champ games in LA or Miami.
Why GB? Not sure. As you say, it is not a significant market. Maybe it's a "they were there at the Creation" phenomenon plus they were the first dominant team and had the first legendary coach - whose name is on the SB trophy. So they embody a lot of NFL history.
I don't know if their unique ownership structure as contrasted with the rest of the league has an effect. Maybe. But I think people just expect professional sports to be a billionaire boys club. I don't think they are offended by that.
|
