Wut is more proof Yuki doesn't know anything about football.

 

-----signature-----

Seems pretty self-evident to me. The more common injuries are, the less likely they are going to be to disrupt the natural outcome of the season because things are more likely to even out over a single season and because teams will be forced to plan for them more thoroughly. If you only have a 5% chance of losing a key player to injury you may take the risk, but if you've got a 50% chance you're going to have backup plans, and the opposition is also more likely to have injuries of their own to deal with.


Unless of course you operate in a league where failure has no real consequences so you have no reason to plan for the worst in the first place.

you can have a contingency plan in place, but you still wont recover from Payton Manning going down

 

-----signature-----

You can't replace Leo Messi or Robin Van Persie either but neither Arsenal nor Barca would be in any danger of relegation even if they both got run over by a bus tomorrow just like Real Madrid's trophy.

Injuries have an impact in any sport. There's no magical reason they're going to matter dramatically more in football, except if they happen to your QB. And even then any decent team ought to have at least 2-3 secondstringers who can do a competent if not spectacular job.

Yuki really is hilariously clueless.

 

-----signature-----

I think the NFL teams bring some of this crap on themselves. The Colts are a good example. They have Manning and their back up totally blows. The problem with the NFL is they don't want to pay the kind of money they have to for good back up players. When you can lose one player and it takes you from first to worst, there is something wrong.

Quarterback is one of those of those positions that command a lot of money and it isn't financially advantageous to keep an excellent, and a good quarterback on the same roster. So you get one excellent and two POS QBs.

 

-----signature-----

You haven't done a very good job of explaining why. I'm happy to admit I don't know much about football. But your reasons don't make any sense. Injuries being more common should lessen the chance of any one injury being decisive, not increase it. You don't need to know anything about football to figure out the reasons you're giving are totally backwards.


If I were to try to make your argument for you I might speculate that football is a long collection of set pieces and set pieces allow for more control over the game and thus perhaps allow for the magnification of minor differences more than in an open game like soccer where you can't micromanage things as easily. But I can't see that account for more than a small difference.

Yeah but that's becuase of how the system is set up. Failure in the NFL has no consequences so of course you arn't going to bother to spend a lot of money on a replacement who will sit on the bench 80% of the time just to have him in that crunch situation. If failing has no consequences why would you do that? Better to spend money on first-teamers so that you can win when everything aligns because you have no reason not to gamble that way.

Other than income at every level? Owners, players, venue......You bleat about how it's all about the money and then spout stupid crap like this. Dude...you are as ignorant of the NFL as I am of Soccer.

The only things I know about Soccer is that it looks like grass hockey and the fans are tougher than the players.

You seem to know even less about the NFL.

 

-----signature-----

Why are Americans so insecure about their sports?

 

-----signature-----