What is so American ...

... about American football?


This: the glory goes to the players whose success is most dependent upon the work of the unsung. That is, the quarterbacks and receivers get all the credit. Give a quarterback a bad offensive line, and his arm is wasted. Give a mediocre quarterback a solid front line and he becomes a star.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
... about American football?


This: the glory goes to the players whose success is most dependent upon the work of the unsung. That is, the quarterbacks and receivers get all the credit. Give a quarterback a bad offensive line, and his arm is wasted. Give a mediocre quarterback a solid front line and he becomes a star.

Compare that to our Presidential office. Then you will see.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Compare that to our Presidential office. Then you will see.

the current President, the former, or the structure of the office?

actually - the same could be said for the other kind of football -- the glory goes to the guy who can score lots of goals -- while the unsung heroes (midfielders, defenders, pretty much everyone else on the field who isn't the striker) get much less attention.

people who don't follow a sport too deeply will tend to focus on the guy who scores the points -- but the people who truly care will understand the value of the other players.

my major pet peeve is college football's Heisman Trophy which is supposed to go to the best player - but almost always goes to a quarterback or running back -- nobody else even merits consideration.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
people who don't follow a sport too deeply will tend to focus on the guy who scores the points -- but the people who truly care will understand the value of the other players.

my major pet peeve is college football's Heisman Trophy which is supposed to go to the best player - but almost always goes to a quarterback or running back -- nobody else even merits consideration.

The Heisman and the Superbowl MVP are selected by people whose whole life is the sport, not casual followers.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
actually - the same could be said for the other kind of football -- the glory goes to the guy who can score lots of goals -- while the unsung heroes (midfielders, defenders, pretty much everyone else on the field who isn't the striker) get much less attention.

people who don't follow a sport too deeply will tend to focus on the guy who scores the point ...[text shortened]... almost always goes to a quarterback or running back -- nobody else even merits consideration.

i disagree.

11 soccer player on the field with 3 possible subs it's easy to notice and praise a good performance by a someone who doesn't score. most soccer fans will tell you that a good skriker is the last piece in the jigsaw that a good team needs, a bad goalkeeper or poor defence will result in a lot of goals being scored and a poor midfield will mean it doesn't matter how good the strikers are they won't get the ball to do their job.

i can guarantee you that if you add up the number of MVPs in SB history that weren't given to a WR or QB you would get a number that was a lot less than that of the number players who are rewarded 'man of the match' in the important soccer games who didn't score.

at the moment man utd are on an english record for the number of clean sheets in a row (shutouts) and they've scored about an average of 2 goals per game in that time but it's not the strikers that are getting the praise, of even the goalkeeper. it's one of the defenders, who will be a contender for world player of the year next year without a doubt.

football has a lot more players on the field than soccer and everyone is doing an important role to keep the team ticking. even the guy who holds the ball for the kicker, if you know his name it will be because he made a mistake that cost the kicker the field goal but if he does everything right and the kick is made the kicker gets all the praise.

Originally posted by trev33
i disagree.

11 soccer player on the field with 3 possible subs it's easy to notice and praise a good performance by a someone who doesn't score. most soccer fans will tell you that a good skriker is the last piece in the jigsaw that a good team needs, a bad goalkeeper or poor defence will result in a lot of goals being scored and a poor midfield will mean ...[text shortened]... but if he does everything right and the kick is made the kicker gets all the praise.

Originally posted by trev33
i disagree.

11 soccer player on the field with 3 possible subs it's easy to notice and praise a good performance by a someone who doesn't score. most soccer fans will tell you that a good skriker is the last piece in the jigsaw that a good team needs, a bad goalkeeper or poor defence will result in a lot of goals being scored and a poor midfield will mean it doesn't matter how good the strikers are they won't get the ball to do their job.

a true soccer fan understands this - but the more casual fan is probably going to focus on who scored the big goal -- after that, the goalkeeper may get some attention for making a monster save, or if someone makes an awesome pass to set up a wide open shot. The other players are most likely to be noticed when someone screws up - the bad goalkeeper, the poor defence, the poor midfielders - or if someone gets red-carded.


i can guarantee you that if you add up the number of MVPs in SB history that weren't given to a WR or QB you would get a number that was a lot less than that of the number players who are rewarded 'man of the match' in the important soccer games who didn't score.


I agree with you here - the people who make these selections are not "casual fans" - it should be their job to be aware of what everyone else is doing. It would great if the superbowl MVP was one of the offensive linemen or a cornerback.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
the current President, the former, or the structure of the office?

Structure of the office, of course. How much power does the American president really have compared with how much praise/blame he gets for what happens during his term.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Structure of the office, of course. How much power does the American president really have compared with how much praise/blame he gets for what happens during his term.

Depends on who is doing the blaming / praising.

Most of the credit Reagan received for the alleged economic recovery in 1982 overlooked that his most effective act to influence the recovery was reappointment of Paul Volker to the Fed. Carter, who gets blamed for the malaise, appointed Volker in the first place.

In truth, however, the recovery was mostly an illusion, and the current economic crisis shows that some of the structural defects beginning to come to light in 1973 (The Energy Crisis) were aggravated by Reagan and his minions.

Blame for our current crisis (although global) has highlighted
1. The incompetence of Bush
2. The moral perversion of Cheney (who manipulated Bush)
3. The lack of restraint of Pelosi's Congress
4. Carter's vision of poor families owning their own homes--the cause of the mortgage crisis
5. ...

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Depends on who is doing the blaming / praising.

Most of the credit Reagan received for the alleged economic recovery in 1982 overlooked that his most effective act to influence the recovery was reappointment of Paul Volker to the Fed. Carter, who gets blamed for the malaise, appointed Volker in the first place.

In truth, however, the recovery was mostl ...[text shortened]... ter's vision of poor families owning their own homes--the cause of the mortgage crisis
5. ...

How does that counter my point? The American president is the quarterback of the government. Actual policy is created and executed by a seperate body, a.k.a. Congress, a.k.a. the rest of the team. However, Americans need a quarterback, which is why "American" football is so popular in America.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
How does that counter my point?

I think I was agreeing with you.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I think I was agreeing with you.

Good! 😛

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Good! 😛

I've learned that a disagreement between a dog and a snake can go very badly for the snake. 😉

Originally posted by Wulebgr
... about American football?


This: the glory goes to the players whose success is most dependent upon the work of the unsung. That is, the quarterbacks and receivers get all the credit. Give a quarterback a bad offensive line, and his arm is wasted. Give a mediocre quarterback a solid front line and he becomes a star.

I agree, American football is just a perverted form of rugby, just as American Baseball if just a perverted form of cricket. I say the Brit's had it right to begin with!

Originally posted by bill718
I agree, American football is just a perverted form of rugby, just as American Baseball if just a perverted form of cricket. I say the Brit's had it right to begin with!

Further to that, American "english" is just a perverted form of British english, or Bringlish. And American people are just a perverted form of British people! Much, much more perverted.

Freshen ye drink, guv'nah?
Dur, y'want fries withat?