This made me laugh more than I probably should’ve:
When was the last time both SB teams lost week 1? Pretty sure it’s happened just wondering how common it might be.
1 Like
Watching Packers-Vikings game.
Injured Packers player causes play stoppage, as he gets treatment on the field.
They cut to the stands were yhe fans are cheering (hopefully unaware what is happening on the field) and Kevin Burkhardt & Greg Olsen start talking about the greatness of the Vikings’s fans and how much noise they make. Like yeah, cheering when there is a injured player on the field (after at least 30 seconds) is great crowd. Hopefully they were just idiots.
According to my intern’s research, it’s happened five times.
Source: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/####/week_1.htm
| SB Year | Winning team | Losing team |
|---|---|---|
| 1984 | San Francisco 49ers | Miami Dolphins |
| 1987 | Washington Redskins | Denver Broncos |
| 1995 | Dallas Cowboys | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| 1998 | Denver Broncos | Atlanta Falcons |
| 2021 | Los Angeles Rams | Cincinnati Bengals |
Both teams winning next year’s week 1 has happened 16 times:
| SB Year | Winning team | Losing team |
|---|---|---|
| 1970 | Baltimore Colts | Dallas Cowboys |
| 1971 | Dallas Cowboys | Miami Dolphins |
| 1972 | Miami Dolphins | Washington Redskins |
| 1974 | Pittsburgh Steelers | Minnesota Vikings |
| 1977 | Dallas Cowboys | Denver Broncos |
| 1978 | Pittsburgh Steelers | Dallas Cowboys |
| 1985 | Chicago Bears | New England Patriots |
| 1990 | New York Giants | Buffalo Bills |
| 1996 | Green Bay Packers | New England Patriots |
| 1997 | Denver Broncos | Green Bay Packers |
| 2005 | Pittsburgh Steelers | Seattle Seahawks |
| 2007 | New York Giants | New England Patriots |
| 2013 | Seattle Seahawks | Denver Broncos |
| 2017 | Philadelphia Eagles | New England Patriots |
| 2018 | New England Patriots | Los Angeles Rams |
| 2020 | Tampa Bay Buccaneers | Kansas City Chiefs |
There have been 33 occurrences of win one-lose one, one occurrence of Win-Bye. and one of Tie-Bye. The former is 
. The latter two are somewhat interesting enough to note the teams:
| SB Year | Winning team | Losing team | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1966 | Green Bay Packers | Kansas City Chiefs | T | Bye | |
| 1967 | Green Bay Packers | Oakland Raiders | W | Bye |
1 Like
Reminds me of an MLS play I saw a couple of weeks ago. A player made a dangerous play with cleats to the face of an opponent. Ref called a foul, but should have been a red card to me. At that point the announcers decided to wax poetic about the exceptional leadership skills of the player that committed the foul.
1 Like
Always make an exception for a cheesehead
I’m confused . . . I believe this would’ve been before the merger; but is this looking at games played the same week? (I.e., the AFL started later than the NFL?)
Uh, it was the year after SBI & SBII.
In the 1967 season, week 1, the Packers had a tie & the great googily moogily chefs had a bye. (1967 NFL Week 1 Leaders & Scores | Pro-Football-Reference.com)
In the 1968 season, week 1, the Packers had a win & the Oakland Raiders of Anaheim had a bye. (1968 NFL Week 1 Leaders & Scores | Pro-Football-Reference.com)
So, I think this is a “TIL” for me. The link I provided called 09/17/1967 & 09/14/1968 “Week 1” regardless of what the AFC was doing.
Texans and Colts tied a top the AFC south with 0-0-1 record.
1 Like
That’s just MN. They celebrated injuring Rodgers in 2017 for years.
1 Like
It’s the NFL. Not sure what you’re expecting.
Expected the announcers to not highlight the cheering when a playrt is down.
That is what was more obnoxious than the hopefully clueless cheering.
You’re lucky they had gone to commercial, which is what the networks usually do when someone is down too long. Can’t show just how dangerous the sport is, after all.
Also, you’re watching it live? Mistake Number One. Skip over those ugly injuries and uglier commercials and halftime rounds-up.
Some good news from NFL Football League, about lowering concussions:
Was watching “Hard Knocks: Lions” this summer. Yeah, they look stupid, but I think very few players are thinking, “better to look stupid now than to be stupid for the rest of my life.”
Like this guy:
And, this guy thinks players are all, “Hey, more protection, time to use my head even more!” Which means it would be safer if NO pads or helmets were used, ever, in this game, which might actually be true.
Might consider that Rugby doesn’t use pads or helmets. And there are “collisions” all the time in that sport.
TBH, I think those caps should be worn by rookies (or anyone new to NFL-level play; e.g., someone signed from the Canadian FL) until they’ve been vetted (by an independent evaluator) as “doing it the right way.”
Wait, you think players are NOT thinking this???
I’d think they’d want to be as safe as possible, which I think means that most would AGREE with your quoted thought.
Am I misreading your post or did you miswrite it or do we just disagree?
Anyway, I say keep enforcing the penalties for leading with the head but also adopt the new helmets if it keeps players safer.
Yes. You read it correctly. Because, most of them are already stupid enough to play football in the first place, have at least one undiagnosed concussion in their lifetimes, and simply do not care about their old age because young now.
They are voluntarily playing a dangerous game. That requires a certain mindset, which is quite different from an actuary’s.
They are voluntarily playing a dangerous game with a $705,000 minimum salary. That’s not necessarily an unwise decision. Sure, it requires a different risk tolerance than actuarial work.
I think you’re misunderstanding what the tool being referenced. It’s not a “new helmet” but a “training device” worn during pre-season practice (in lieu of the usual helmets). These aren’t used during an actual game.
And the other two linked articles gives some evidence that the sentiment DTNF is presenting isn’t “off base.” In fact, many are looking at the device and concluding “I can go harder and faster and not worry about technique” because . . . “I’m protected”.
It’s very much akin to Moral Hazard in insurance.