Definition of a "good game"

[i_am_the_swammi]

I've heard a number of posters say that the Green Bay/Arizona game was one of the best they have ever seen....and I heartily disagree. While the offenses certainly were spectacular to watch, the defenses were brutal. The two combined for the most points allowed in any playoff game..ever(96). Similarly, Arizaon set a second record Saturday as they became the team that allowed the most points ever in 2 consecutive playoff games (90).

 

My opinion: a great game is that in which two good/great offenses have to find ways to beat two good/great defenses....which is why I am hoping for a Indy/Minn or Indy/NO Super Bowl. I think we get to see some of the best of both worlds.

 

So which is it? A high-scoring showcase of offensive talent piling up points, or a hard-nosed battle with good defenses stiffling good offenses?

 

For what its worth, the most enjoyable game for me this past weekend was the Jets/Chargers...which, not coincidently, was the one that ended up with with the most drama for a full 60 minutes.

[bpwallace49]

To me a good game is a close game that keeps my attention.

 

best game this last weekend was Jets Chargers, becasue it was CLOSE most of the game, IMO.

 

Cardinals/GB was great because it was so close and athe Pack pulled off a huge comeback. Blowouts like the past weekend arent very exciting, unless your team is the one doing the butt kicking . . . .

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Definition of a good game or great for that matter is the entertainment factor.

 

Much like a Ward / Gatti fight ,,, you have two "B" fighters with no defense but the entertainment value is so high that it gets the whole household involved not just us NFL nuts. That makes for a good game to me. When the wife, kids and next store neighbors are pulling up chairs to watch and saying that they never enjoyed a game like the one they just seen and are truly excited about football ,,, it doesn't get any better.

[Seahawks21]

I think the casual fan would prefer a high scoring game, while the purist may consider a low scoring game to be a "better game". Personally, I prefer a lower scoring game, where a big play here or there can make all the difference in the world. I like to see teams playing at their best, and that should include the defenses. There was some tragically bad defense being played that Zona/GB game. To me that comes across as sloppy and poor play, and I don't find it incredibly intoxicating.

[bpwallace49]

You could also say in a defensive battle that the offense is playing "tragically bad" goes both ways . . .

[Missoula Griz]

For what its worth, the most enjoyable game for me this past weekend was the Jets/Chargers...which, not coincidently, was the one that ended up with with the most drama for a full 60 minutes.

 

 

Yea, I am sure you would of enjoyed if it was a 30-3 game. Come on, the main reason it was enjoyable was because it was a close game, and the underdog won.

[CaptainHook]

Definition of a good game or great for that matter is the entertainment factor.

 

It can be a shoot-out or a defensive struggle. Just as long as it's entertaining. I remember the Rams/Titans Super Bowl was a terrible game for 3+ quarters. Everyone remembers it being a "great game" because of the entertaining ending.

Edited January 18, 2010 by CaptainHook

[i_am_the_swammi]

When the wife, kids and next store neighbors are pulling up chairs to watch and saying that they never enjoyed a game like the one they just seen and are truly excited about football ,,, it doesn't get any better.

 

I get that...but does that mean that a game is termed 'great" when those that don't understand football can sit and enjoy it?

 

I compare a low-scoring defensive football game to a low-scoring game in in baseball. While most passive baseball fans would think a 1-0 game is boring, to me, it the exact opposite. Two great defensive/pitching performances going at it, shutting down the opponent's offense. Heck, a no-hitter is perhaps the most exciting thing to see in baseball. However, most Americans would rather see a bunch of home runs...likely part of the reason most new ballparks are hitter friendly.

 

Soccer gets a bad wrap in the US because most don't understand the sport, and how difficult it is to score. the lack of scoring is why most Americans are turned off. However, a hard-played 1-0 soccer game can be spectacular to watch for those that "get" the sport.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Yea, I am sure you would of enjoyed if it was a 30-3 game. Come on, the main reason it was enjoyable was because it was a close game, and the underdog won.

 

No, I wouldn't have a team that gives up 30, and only scores 3, is not playoff worthy on either side of the ball.

 

A 13-10 game, or 17-14 game, or a 20-17 game, with two defenses playing great, forcing an offense to play spectacularly to score...is what I think football is.

 

Kurt Warner and Aaron Rodgers heaving the ball to WRs being covered by tackling dummies is not what i call "great" football.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

I get that...but does that mean that a game is termed 'great" when those that don't understand football can sit and enjoy it?

 

I compare a low-scoring defensive football game to a low-scoring game in in baseball. While most passive baseball fans would think a 1-0 game is boring, to me, it the exact opposite. Two great defensive/pitching performances going at it, shutting down the opponent's offense. Heck, a no-hitter is perhaps the most exciting thing to see in baseball. However, most Americans would rather see a bunch of home runs...likely part of the reason most new ballparks are hitter friendly.

 

Soccer gets a bad wrap in the US because most don't understand the sport, and how difficult it is to score. the lack of scoring is why most Americans are turned off. However, a hard-played 1-0 soccer game can be spectacular to watch for those that "get" the sport.

 

 

a matter of taste i guess ,, some like it cold and some like it hot

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Also a 10 - 3 game does not make for a good game even if you prefer Def. if the score was low because the offenses sucked and the QB's couldn't throw the ball or the WR's just plain dropped the passes ,, that would be a crappy game regardless of the score.

[BillyBalata]

For what its worth, the most enjoyable game for me this past weekend was the Jets/Chargers...which, not coincidently, was the one that ended up with with the most drama for a full 60 minutes.

 

 

The only reason there was any drama was due to the sloppy field goal kicking by Kaeding.

[i_am_the_swammi]

The only reason there was any drama was due to the sloppy field goal kicking by Kaeding.

 

 

if kaeding had made both kicks, wouldn't it have been 20-17, with the Jets having the ball and a chance to win at the end?

[CaptainHook]

He missed 3 kicks. Just sayin'

[BillyBalata]

 

if kaeding had made both kicks, wouldn't it have been 20-17, with the Jets having the ball and a chance to win at the end?

 

 

As Hook stated, he missed 3 kicks. I'm just sayin', how can you enjoy all that sloppy FG kickin?

 

I agree with you, the AZ/GBay game, when they score at will like that is not good football. But yesterday afternoons game was just plain boring. If Kaeding makes those 3 FGs, it's a different game. Then you'd have Sanchez having to pass the ball to Edwards to make a comeback. Now you're talking some sloppy football.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

As Hook stated, he missed 3 kicks. I'm just sayin', how can you enjoy all that sloppy FG kickin?

 

I agree with you, the AZ/GBay game, when they score at will like that is not good football. But yesterday afternoons game was just plain boring. If Kaeding makes those 3 FGs, it's a different game. Then you'd have Sanchez having to pass the ball to Edwards to make a comeback. Now you're talking some sloppy football.

 

 

but the score was low so it had to be a good game

[i_am_the_swammi]

but the score was low so it had to be a good game

 

the score is irrelevant if its a soundly played game on all sides of the ball

[Shorttynaz]

Good defensive games are good (kind of like 2 stud pitchers facing each other in baseball) but they're actually kind of boring to watch. Scoring and back and forth games are the ones that keep most people (at least me for sure) on the edge of their seat. It's always great to see a game come down to the last drive to be the decisive one.

 

That is - unless it's your favorite team playing and then you want to see a one sided blowout!!

[Hugh 0ne]

A good game is when my team wins.

[Sunday Couch Potatoe]

To me a good game is a close game that keeps my attention.

 

best game this last weekend was Jets Chargers, becasue it was CLOSE most of the game, IMO.

 

Cardinals/GB was great because it was so close and athe Pack pulled off a huge comeback. Blowouts like the past weekend arent very exciting, unless your team is the one doing the butt kicking . . . .

+1 my thoughts exactly

[Cunning Runt]

My definition of a good game has nothing really to do with quality of play, but rather - lots of twists and turns. Plays like when Reed intercepted Manning and Garcon forced the Reed fumble all in the same play. That's a microcosm of what makes a game memorable to me. Lots of ebbs and flows. Kickoff returns for TDs, bombs - just stuff where you sit back and say: holy sh-t, can you believe that?

[Riffraff]

Had 3 blowouts where it was over in a hurry and a game that was close, but riddled with penalties, missed field goals, and sloppy offenses.

 

None of the games this week were "good" to watch IMO.

 

These were the type of games that teams throw out 60% of the game film as it's not good for prep work the following week.

[Furd]

There has to be action. Not necessarily scoring (although scoring helps) but action. The score has to be close, but a close score without action cannot be good.

 

For 3 quarters, the Jets-Chargers game was awful. No action at all. Inept offenses? Good defenses? It doesn't matter. It was a dreadful game to watch.

 

It got interesting in the 4th quarter. Does this mean it was a "good game?" I don't think so. Calling it the best game over the weekend is fair, but that's like being anointed as the tallest midget.

[Chief]

Az/GB was the best to me, had no idea who was going to win, both had a shot at it. D's were bad but it was on the edge of the seat watching. Guess it depends on your defintion, to me it's one you're afraid to go raid the fridge because you might miss a great play. That game was awesome.

[MTSuper7]

There is a difference between a good game to watch and teams playing good football. Two teams can play good football yet the game itself might not be a good one to watch. Conversely, two teams can play poor football but the game might be a great one to watch. A good example of the latter is when you have crappy weather and there are several turnovers in the game. But I think in general a game needs to be contested up to the last moment to be considered "great", no matter how they got there.

 

It's like watching a low scoring baseball game with a bunch of good defensive plays, solid pitching, etc. vs. a high scoring baseball game that goes back and forth as each team seems to hit homers at will. They are both good games in their own right. But a lot of people would fall asleep watching a 2-1 or 1-0 baseball game, whereas they would be on the edge of their seats watching the 10-9 game.

 

Hell, even the terms we use to describe these situations are telling. One game is thought of as a defensive struggle while the other is called an offensive shootout. Which one sounds more appealing: A struggle or a shootout?