4 hours ago, mattwill said:

I’m not specifically for it, but I completely (and respectfully) disagree with your second sentence. The number of outstanding players on the 32 Practice Squads is substantial … more than substantial. 32 times 16 is 512 players. That is almost 10 rosters. Sure there are some positions that are less robust on the Practice Squads than others, but overall we have talent in abundance.

To put that concept to the test. Think about the third string players in the Eagles training camp. What would their W-L record be in the SEC if they played there this season?

Except QB. Not one PS QB can start in the NFL. Most back up QBs are only fringe starting QBs, with most only suitable for spot starting. Trouble with expansion is it further dilutes the already diluted most important position in football

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

If they dissolved the Titans and Patriots and redistributed those players to the remaining 30 teams you don’t think each team gets better?

In absolute terms yes, but it is a meaningless improvement because all the teams improve, so the competitiveness between the teams is functionally unchanged. So, in terms of entertainment value, no they don’t get better.

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

If each team gets better, you don’t think that improves quality?

That question is much easier to answer. No, the quality of the entertainment dos not improve.

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The 2024 Eagles would win all 10, comfortably. You explained why in your last sentence.

So the individual player quality has improved, but the entertainment value has regressed.

17 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

Except QB. Not one PS QB can start in the NFL. Most back up QBs are only fringe starting QBs, with most only suitable for spot starting. Trouble with expansion is it further dilutes the already diluted most important position in football

How many NFL teams in 2000 would Tanner McKee start for?

4 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You are comparing 18-22 year olds to grown men.

Most of the players on the Practice Squad (prior to the revised Practice Squad rules) were players in their first or second year in the NFL, so only two years older than college players.

3 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And Daniel Jones is still in the league, maybe claiming a starting role over the top 5 QB pick from 2 years ago. Aaron Rodgers can still write his own ticket. And Russell Wilson has passed to his 3rd team in 3 years. The Browns have 5 QBs on their roster... and still no player for the position.

Where do you see evidence of a rich period?

How many teams in the 2000 NFL would Daniel Jones start for?

6 minutes ago, mattwill said:

How many NFL teams in 2000 would Tanner McKee start for?

I don't understand the question nor it's relevance.

32 minutes ago, mattwill said:

How many NFL teams in 2000 would Tanner McKee start for?

all 2000

24 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

I don't understand the question nor it's relevance.

Scan down the list of year 2000 QBs provided. Which ones would you take over McKee as your starting QB?

42 minutes ago, mattwill said:

In absolute terms yes, but it is a meaningless improvement because all the teams improve, so the competitiveness between the teams is functionally unchanged. So, in terms of entertainment value, no they don’t get better.

That question is much easier to answer. No, the quality of the entertainment dos not improve.

So the individual player quality has improved, but the entertainment value has regressed.

Sigh.

Getting rid of the worst teams and improving the rest makes better quality of play among everyone else. It improves the teams with little to no talent while the teams with exceptional talent just bolster depth. It’s not a straight increase for everyone.

The better the talent = the better the entertainment. What are we even arguing about at this point? There’s a reason postseason games are usually the more entertaining games.

You keep making these straw man comparisons that make no sense. The 1980 Eagles vs the 2024 Eagles has nothing to do with expanding NFL teams. The Eagles PS playing against SEC or Big10 teams has nothing to do with expanding NFL teams. You can enjoy watching an NFL product with Ian Book, Devon Allen and Lew Nichols vs the Eagles. Or Ian Book vs Reid Sinnett and skill players never heard of.

It honestly feels like you are just trolling at this point

20 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Sigh.

Getting rid of the worst teams and improving the rest makes better quality of play among everyone else. It improves the teams with little to no talent while the teams with exceptional talent just bolster depth. It’s not a straight increase for everyone.

The better the talent = the better the entertainment. What are we even arguing about at this point? There’s a reason postseason games are usually the more entertaining games.

You keep making these straw man comparisons that make no sense. The 1980 Eagles vs the 2024 Eagles has nothing to do with expanding NFL teams. The Eagles PS playing against SEC or Big10 teams has nothing to do with expanding NFL teams. You can enjoy watching an NFL product with Ian Book, Devon Allen and Lew Nichols vs the Eagles. Or Ian Book vs Reid Sinnett and skill players never heard of.

It honestly feels like you are just trolling at this point

You are making the argument from the perspective of the knowledgeable fan who is actually capable of level of play quality awareness capable of discerning the incremental improvement of play quality you describe. I would be surprised if as much as 20% of the NFL’s viewership has that capability. They aren’t watching NFL games like scouts. They are watching NFL games for drama on the screen and camaraderie in the group of people they are watching with.

My comments are from the perspective of the average viewer … a viewer who can’t articulate why the NFL Sunday game is any more entertaining than their college Alma Mater’s Saturday game.

I’m simply asking you to walk in Jo Average’s or Josephine Average’s shoes.

The decision to expand is a business decision not an on-field game planning decision.

9 hours ago, mattwill said:

Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Hurts, Stafford, Jackson. Compare those six to the top six of prior eras. I look at richness by assessing the cream rather than the skim milk.

We are discussing expansion. That only makes sense when theres enough cream to go around.

But the 80s/90s had better talent at QB with only 28 teams... Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Fouts, Moon, Cunningham

The 90s followed suit quickly with adding Young, Favre, and Aikman, as Montana and Fouts aged out.

That's richer to me in overall talent and by percentage with fewer teams to need Qbs compared to today.

8 hours ago, mattwill said:

In absolute terms yes, but it is a meaningless improvement because all the teams improve, so the competitiveness between the teams is functionally unchanged. So, in terms of entertainment value, no they don’t get better.

That question is much easier to answer. No, the quality of the entertainment dos not improve.

So the individual player quality has improved, but the entertainment value has regressed.

Oh it's a meaningful difference because then there would be fewer garbage matchups that no one wants to watch on Thursday night.

There's extremely limited entertainment value when two bottom dwellers matchup. And not much when a top team meets a bottom dweller either.

8 hours ago, mattwill said:

Most of the players on the Practice Squad (prior to the revised Practice Squad rules) were players in their first or second year in the NFL, so only two years older than college players.

So we are ignoring the reality of the current situation? And those 2 or so years difference make a big difference in the physical strength of the men playing. But the median ages are much wider than just two years.

10 hours ago, mattwill said:

How does their age affect the entertainment value of the product they deliver?

Ironically you ask this as you also ask who would win more games between 1980 and 2024 iterations of the Eagles... in that post you mention, bigger, stronger, faster... then you ask what relevance the age difference would be to the entertainment value.

The answer is that when two sides matchup and one is significantly bigger, stronger, faster... it's not very entertaining.

8 hours ago, mattwill said:

Scan down the list of year 2000 QBs provided. Which ones would you take over McKee as your starting QB?

Still don't see the connection netween McKee, the 2000 season, and expansion. Not enough good QBs to make expansion compelling. Nonetheless, it will likely happen and it will water down the product. But I'll be dead before I give two hoots.

17 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I think there is some diamond in the rough international talent out there like Jordan Mailata was but not enough to support a new competitive team. And it really boils down to QB's. There's a lot of bad QB play in the NFL as is. I don't think there is any undiscovered generational talent that would be able to pick up the position and develop into a true player at the position if he hasn't grown up doing it like most of the QB's do.

A country like South Africa just spits out these Afrikaaner beasts very regularly. I'm sure some would move from Rugby to the NFL if found early enough. Same as Australia, NZ etc

The issue the NFL has is the real terms investment in those schemes (also needing colleges to partner) and the players may not be something Goodell and his cronies want to do, for an unknown payoff years later. Easier to get paid now for showing a Saturday night game on Xmas on some random streaming service.

As a carry on from the Cowboys and All Pros, Mike McCarthy is well known for being a less than great in game coach. You can have the greatest team on turf, but if the HC is an idiot, the talent can't overcome that. Nor a QB who wilts in big moments.

An interesting case in point for how less talented teams overall can win more with top tier coaching

9 hours ago, Freshmilk said:

Except QB. Not one PS QB can start in the NFL. Most back up QBs are only fringe starting QBs, with most only suitable for spot starting. Trouble with expansion is it further dilutes the already diluted most important position in football

I've seen "starters" on practice squads. Daniel Jones, for example signed to a practice squad last season. Obviously if a former starter ends up on a practice squad, the expectations are lower, but it's not impossible for a guy to eventually start again at a later date. Then there are rare occasions like Kurt Warner that rose all the way up after being a nobody on a PS.

11 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

I've seen "starters" on practice squads. Daniel Jones, for example signed to a practice squad last season. Obviously if a former starter ends up on a practice squad, the expectations are lower, but it's not impossible for a guy to eventually start again at a later date. Then there are rare occasions like Kurt Warner that rose all the way up after being a nobody on a PS.

Yes, my mistake to be so definitive. There are the one or two who buck the odds. But to think that there is enough talent on PS league wide to create multiple new and viable teams is not realistic. Especially at QB.

10:06 everyone have a great day.

9 hours ago, mattwill said:

You are making the argument from the perspective of the knowledgeable fan who is actually capable of level of play quality awareness capable of discerning the incremental improvement of play quality you describe. I would be surprised if as much as 20% of the NFL’s viewership has that capability. They aren’t watching NFL games like scouts. They are watching NFL games for drama on the screen and camaraderie in the group of people they are watching with.

My comments are from the perspective of the average viewer … a viewer who can’t articulate why the NFL Sunday game is any more entertaining than their college Alma Mater’s Saturday game.

I’m simply asking you to walk in Jo Average’s or Josephine Average’s shoes.

The decision to expand is a business decision not an on-field game planning decision.

I think you’re way off on this. The average fan wants to see stars. They want to see the top guys they have heard of either through news, fantasy football or office chatter. They don’t watch the NFL just because and they certainly won’t stick around if the team is bad.

We’ve seen this already. When Phillies went through the stretch of bad, no one watched and the stadium was empty. Once they got more talent and put out a better product, the average fans took over.

Same thing happened with the Eagles back in the day. The team stunk, the stadium couldn’t sell out and they would black it out on tv. Once the product got better, the fan base grew and now it’s near impossible to buy tickets directly from the Eagles.

You are basically arguing for more preseason football. No one watches preseason football because it’s bad.

12 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

I need that

11 hours ago, mattwill said:

How many NFL teams in 2000 would Tanner McKee start for?

Zero, most likely at this point. The NFL has tried several incubators for talent over the years but produced few permanently elevated players from those sources and most of those are fringe roster players. Take two from the Eagles, who have both started in the NFL, Toth and McCollum. You are proposing expansion teams comprised of McCollums and Toths or worse.

Look at how few players migrate from the PS, the UFL or the CFL into starters in the NFL. BGN had an "article” (really a compilation as there is very little real journalism on BGN) listing former Eagles in the NFL, UFL, and CFL. Most are fringe roster players on the 90 man rosters or unlikely to elevate to the NFL again. Take a look at that list, exclude highly paid UFAs and make a team that can win in the NFL. Not sure it can be done. Frankly, only NFL Europe, with lower level of players assigned from teams ever really worked as an incubator.

Colleges as sources of development have dramatically changed over the last decade with the transfer portal, NIL and will change again with the House settlement and the Deloitte clearing house for NIL.

I stand by position that before the NFL considers expansion they first will see expanded rosters for an 18th game. That expansion would increase NFL coffers with less expense than the cost of adding franchises.

5 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Oh it's a meaningful difference because then there would be fewer garbage matchups that no one wants to watch on Thursday night.

There's extremely limited entertainment value when two bottom dwellers matchup. And not much when a top team meets a bottom dweller either.

Good points; however, the TV broadcast of a two bottom dweller game has a very limited geographical reach, but simultaneously has considerable interest in the respective cities of those two teams. As a result, no harm is done to the "other” cities’ viewers, while providing increased interest in the "new” cities regardless of the record of the team.

In a matchup of a top team vs. a bottom dwelling team, again the geographic reach of the broadcast will be limited, and the fans of each of those teams will watch their home team regardless.