Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Gucci Mane

NFL Third Place Game?

83 posts in this topic

Vince Lombardi detested the Playoff Bowl, coaching in the games following the 1963 and 1964 seasons, after winning NFL titles in 1961and 1962. To his players, he called it "the 'poo Bowl', ...a losers' bowl for losers." This lack of motivation may explain his Packers' rare postseason defeat in the 1964 game (January 1965) to the St. Louis Cardinals. After that loss, he fumed about "a hinky-dink football game, held in a hinky-dink town, played by hinky-dink players. That's all second place is – hinky dink."[1]

 

it's funny that lombardi got autocorrected calling it a sh1t bowl. i thought that poo was funny.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the Playoff Bowl (and loss) as motivation in 1965, the Packers won the first of three consecutive NFL championships from 1965-67.

 

Sounds like vince was just pissed that his team sucked that year ['64]... Thats why he didnt like the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or it could be that he knew that the only thing that matters is first place. the only reason you play is because you want to get that championship. nothing is going to happen to make third place something worth playing for. there are no consolation prizes and we don't need to make any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or it could be that he knew that the only thing that matters is first place. the only reason you play is because you want to get that championship. nothing is going to happen to make third place something worth playing for. there are no consolation prizes and we don't need to make any.

 

no one is arguing the first part.. i've said that repeatedly in this thread.

 

I'm just saying if its any more popular than a preseason game, then the league should do it. More football for those that want to watch. The stars can sit if they want. And a little more revenue for the league/ participating teams if they want.

 

It doesnt have to be this glorified event, just another game. thats it, thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there's no incentive for players/team to play, then there's no incentive for the game to exist at all.

 

no one wants to be third best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok.. im going to stop repeating myself cause you cant seem to comprehend much.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah. thats probably it. i couldn't be just because its really not that good of an idea and whatever incentives you dreamed up for this didn't sound all that appealing and wouldn't be worth the effort in pursuing because the cost involved would outweigh any real benefits, esp. for a game that in the big scheme of things would just be a reprise of the original poo bowl.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, lets put it this way...a 3rd place game in football makes no sense.  Maybe if it was...

 

A. A fans choice game.  1 game not involving Superbowl Particpants that was voted on by a poll.   I'm probably down for that.

 

B. Arch rival game.  Game involving arch rivals ie.. cowboy redskin, falcons panthers, etc etc.. I would watch. Especially if the losing team has to put the other teams logo on their field for the next home game.  Or maybe like college football some kind of made up trophy like a boot or something.

 

C. Maybe a match up between the last 2 teams out of the playoffs.... kind of a stretch ..however

 

 

I would rather see any of those before a 3rd place "MEANINGLESS" game.    Say I don't know about football, economics, the heart of players, etc ..etc..  IDC.  Would I want to see a game that has teams actually playing rather than going through the motions,  yes definitely.  However, no matter how you spin it, a 3rd place game means nothing in the NFL.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Im pretty sure he was white as a ghost in the comics bro
    • They're results, not skillsets.  Too many factors go into those results to get a conclusive evaluation.  For instance, how many times was Howard targeted downfield compared to Njoku?  How was he used in the redzone...as a receiver, blocker, the primary option, and so forth? And yards after contact is a very inconsistent measure since not all contact is the same, nor are the situations in which a player gets the ball.  Not to mention the role the offensive scheme and surrounding talent plays.  Heck, if all we had to do was look at the numbers, there wouldn't be any need for the combine, all-star games, pro days, private workouts, etc.  Teams could just pull out the stat sheet and make their selections.  No, teams look for the skillsets a player possesses to determine how they translate to the NFL.  Stats are only an indicator to use as part of the puzzle.  So, just looking at the actual skills, what does Njoku possess that is superior to Howard?  Has he shown better hands?  Has he shown he can run better routes?  Is he a better athlete?  Is he a better blocker? The answer is no to all of them.  Does that mean Njoku is a bad player?  Absolutely not.  But Howard clearly has the better tools, and is considered the better prospect by virtually every evaluator for a reason.