2009-10 NFL off season thread

[HedleyLamarr]

On Sirius they quoted the owners as saying "the stats" really convinced them to change the OT rules. What stats? That 60% of the time the coin-toss winner wins the game? That sounds convincing, doesn't it, that a change is needed? But it turns out that the coin-toss winner only wins on the first possession 35% of the time. How is that unfair and why would it need to be changed?

Nobody wanted a change after the Cardinals beat the Packers. Nobody wanted a change after the famous Seahawks-Packers "We want the ball and we're gonna score" game, or after The Great Brett Favre threw the Giants a pick a couple of years ago or after any other heartbreaking OT loss in the history of the NFL. But let St. Brett sit on the sideline one time while the other team wins and suddenly the NFL is running around bleating like a bunch of old women whose bridge game has been canceled.

You also have to wonder what happens if the teams trade field goals and then the defenses settle in and four quarters later it's still tied when it would have been over under the old rules. Unlikely, but it could happen.

This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to one game that pissed off the powers that be who wanted a Favre-Manning Super Bowl. My dream scenario is for the Saints and Vikes to meet again in the playoffs this season, go to OT, and for the Saints to win again. I will L...M...A...O.

For what it's worth, Minnesota voted against this rule change.

A question for those who support this new OT format: Say both teams score a FG on their first possession. Then the team that scored first scores another FG on their second series and wins. How is this ANY different from the current sudden-death rules? One team got one more possession than the other in overtime, just as sudden-death allows.

[rams80]

Andy Reid has acknowledged for the first time ever that they're "listening" to offers for all of their QBs, including McNabb. The common response may be "well, duh", but this is a big deal for the fatass to actually admit it, since the two are essentially joined at the hip.

Word on the street is that the Eagles are lowering their asking price for McNabb to a second rounder plus additional, as opposed to a first plus.

Do those picks have to be for this year's draft?

[OnWis97]

For what it's worth, Minnesota voted against this rule change.

A question for those who support this new OT format: Say both teams score a FG on their first possession. Then the team that scored first scores another FG on their second series and wins. How is this ANY different from the current sudden-death rules? One team got one more possession than the other in overtime, just as sudden-death allows.

And New Orleans voted for it...

The difference? Well football is not in the position to make it essentially totally fair like in hoops or baseball (without doing something like college, which almost nobody likes).

So in your above scenario, it's still advantageous to the coin-flip winner. But after the FG, the second team has a chance not only for a FG of their own, but to win the game with a TD. After tying it up with an FG, at the very least, they had their shot. With kickoffs from the 30 yard line, sometimes a team only needs to drive 30 yards to kick the FG. This stops one such drive from winning the game.

Is it totally equally fair? No. Is it closer? Yes. Now a team can't just get two first downs and kick a FG on 3rd down and win it.

The irony is that the improved "fairness" is being decried as part of the "don't keep score" culture. The inherent unfairness it seems is appreciated as reflective of what a decent society should be. (now getting to the irony) I find it ironic that there are complaints of this being unfair to the coinflip winner. Because the second team will always be in 4-down territory, while out of FG range. Ha Ha. I don't think this will push too many teams to elect to kick.

[OnWis97]

I propose a new baseball overtime. Tied after 9 innings...go sudden death. Coin flip winner decides whether they bat first or second. If someone scores in the top-half, they win. Not fair? The solution: pitch well and play good defense.

[BBTV]

Andy Reid has acknowledged for the first time ever that they're "listening" to offers for all of their QBs, including McNabb. The common response may be "well, duh", but this is a big deal for the fatass to actually admit it, since the two are essentially joined at the hip.

Word on the street is that the Eagles are lowering their asking price for McNabb to a second rounder plus additional, as opposed to a first plus.

Do those picks have to be for this year's draft?

I have no idea. I'd imagine so, but who knows what they're thinking.

Also, the point of any sport is NOT to "play good defense" and shut out the opponent. It's to win by scoring more points / runs / goals than your opponent in a pre-determined time frame. Sudden death changes that dynamic in all cases, no matter how exciting it may be (NHL for example.) Unless as an absolute last resort, IMO Sudden Death should be avoided as a way to determine any game.

[The_Admiral]

Nobody wanted a change after the Cardinals beat the Packers. Nobody wanted a change after the famous Seahawks-Packers "We want the ball and we're gonna score" game, or after The Great Brett Favre threw the Giants a pick a couple of years ago or after any other heartbreaking OT loss in the history of the NFL. But let St. Brett sit on the sideline one time while the other team wins and suddenly the NFL is running around bleating like a bunch of old women whose bridge game has been canceled.

This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to one game that pissed off the powers that be who wanted a Favre-Manning Super Bowl. My dream scenario is for the Saints and Vikes to meet again in the playoffs this season, go to OT, and for the Saints to win again. I will L...M...A...O.

No, you're wrong. I remember people being seriously annoyed with overtime in 2006, when the Broncos won a game or two by marching just far enough down the field for Elam to kick a FG and win. I'm sure the discontent goes back before that, too. Everything is not about the Saints. Enough already.

[DDR]

but touchback/chuck it/touchdown cheats the opponents out of a possession just as much as a field goal drive does, even if it's flashier. Both teams need to touch the ball.

Solution to that: play defense.

Not sure how many more times it has to be said that the league is being steered toward a passing game by rule changes and very liberal interpretations of pass interference, but keep on saying that it's totally fair for half a team to never take the field in overtime.

I don't know how many times it's going to get brought up, but the whole "play defense" or "you shoulda won in regulation" thing just doesn't make any sense at all. You're telling one team "tough luck, play defense" when you're not asking the other team to do the same thing. You're saying to the team that lost in OT "well, you shoulda won in regulation" when the other team didn't win in regulation either.

You can't punish one team for "not playing good D" when the other team isn't even required to field their defensive unit at all. You can't punish one team for "not winning in regulation" and then be totally cool that the other team that didn't win in regulation gets the overtime win.

[The_Admiral]

Would you end a game in the top of the 10th inning? "Shouldn't have given up a homer, or won it in the 9th."

[rams80]

Mad at random chance?

Just do what the XFL did in lieu of coin flips. That's as good an indicator as any of "who wants it more".

[BBTV]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5024325

Goodell also mentioned scheduling only intradivision games on the final weekend of the season, and placing many such games in Week 16, as well. He said at the end of last season he was concerned about teams not playing their regulars after clinching titles, and is hopeful such scheduling would help avoid that.

Hmmm... where have I heard this before?...........

[DDR]

Would you end a game in the top of the 10th inning? "Shouldn't have given up a homer, or won it in the 9th."

Exactly.

[BBTV]

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/McNabb_Resolve_This_Quickly.html

McNabb: "Resolve this quickly" ... "No matter what happens, I've already begun preparing to have an outstanding season in 2010."

I have to question his definition of "outstanding". If he thinks he's been "outstanding" the past few years, then that might be the issue.

[dfwabel]

Nobody wanted a change after the Cardinals beat the Packers. Nobody wanted a change after the famous Seahawks-Packers "We want the ball and we're gonna score" game, or after The Great Brett Favre threw the Giants a pick a couple of years ago or after any other heartbreaking OT loss in the history of the NFL. But let St. Brett sit on the sideline one time while the other team wins and suddenly the NFL is running around bleating like a bunch of old women whose bridge game has been canceled.

This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to one game that pissed off the powers that be who wanted a Favre-Manning Super Bowl. My dream scenario is for the Saints and Vikes to meet again in the playoffs this season, go to OT, and for the Saints to win again. I will L...M...A...O.

No, you're wrong. I remember people being seriously annoyed with overtime in 2006, when the Broncos won a game or two by marching just far enough down the field for Elam to kick a FG and win. I'm sure the discontent goes back before that, too. Everything is not about the Saints. Enough already.

Coaches were under the impression that this vote was going to occur on Wednesday. Apparently, league staff got the owners together while most coaches were playing golf and passes the rule.

Goodell: "This may not come as a news flash, but the owners have the vote. ... We had a full discussion with the coaches in the room Tuesday morning. The ownership thought that it was good for the game and good for the fans."

[BBTV]

McNabb deal to Rams is on the table?

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/McNabb_to_the_Rams_on_the_table.html

Two credible sources in Phila. are denying that this is iminent, or will even happen at all.

St. Louis is a perfect town for McNabb, just like it was perfect for Scott Rolen once he got booed out of town. No pressure, a team that has nowhere to go but up, and a generally "cheerleader" fan base (assuming Rams fans are similar to Cardinals fans.)

[FiddySicks]

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/McNabb_Resolve_This_Quickly.html

McNabb: "Resolve this quickly" ... "No matter what happens, I've already begun preparing to have an outstanding season in 2010."

I have to question his definition of "outstanding". If he thinks he's been "outstanding" the past few years, then that might be the issue.

I understand that McNabb hasn't brought you the title you've been wanting so bad, but this is just being nitpicky. What did you want him to say?

:censored: you Philly I want out?

I've been absolutely awful and need to make it up to this fan base that's never given me any credit anyway, even when I've at least deserved some of it?

Well, I was planning on taking off the first 8 games and coasting through the second half?

My sympathy for Eagles fans and their plight keeps shrinking every time I hear about how bad they want to ditch McNabb. Sure he's no Joe Montana, but the Bucs won the Super Bowl with Brad Johnson as their QB and the Ravens did it with trent Dilfer. Trent freaking Dilfer. There is not a damn thing about either Dilfer or Johnson in their prime that I would want more than McNabb at any point. The hate for this guy is just mind-boggling.

I mean really, who would Eagles fans rather see behind center then McNabb? Do you want Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Bress? Well, duh. So does everyone else. Do you want Kevin Kolb? Ok, if you want to clearly downgrade at QB for at least two seasons while he gets settled, and you better pray like hell he turns out as great as expected. Vick? Aiain, start praying. Howabout working out a deal with the Niners to get Alex Smith and a draft pick for McNabb? Great, now you can play like the 49ers have been lately. I mean really, I keep hearing all the complaints about McNabb and how you want him gone, but I've yet to see a viable solution that includes ditching McNabb that would actually make Eagles fans happy. Maybe that's not really possible, though.

[Saintsfan]

but touchback/chuck it/touchdown cheats the opponents out of a possession just as much as a field goal drive does, even if it's flashier. Both teams need to touch the ball.

Solution to that: play defense.

Not sure how many more times it has to be said that the league is being steered toward a passing game by rule changes and very liberal interpretations of pass interference, but keep on saying that it's totally fair for half a team to never take the field in overtime.

I don't know how many times it's going to get brought up, but the whole "play defense" or "you shoulda won in regulation" thing just doesn't make any sense at all. You're telling one team "tough luck, play defense" when you're not asking the other team to do the same thing. You're saying to the team that lost in OT "well, you shoulda won in regulation" when the other team didn't win in regulation either.

You can't punish one team for "not playing good D" when the other team isn't even required to field their defensive unit at all. You can't punish one team for "not winning in regulation" and then be totally cool that the other team that didn't win in regulation gets the overtime win.

I guess I have been one of the boards main backers of the 'should have won the game in regulation' arguments. My point at least, is that the team that loses to a field goal in overtime and then bitches about not having the ball in overtime misses the point of overtime. Its there to break a tie. You don't want to lose in those circumstances, don't get into the tie.

Now I can see that the reverse is, to an extent, true, that the team winning maybve doesn't deserve the win if it didn't win in 60 minutes. But thats the way it rolls. Football isn't a game that guarantees each team an even chance, like in baseball. Theoretically a football team could hold the ball for all 60 minutes, at least with enough skill at onside kicking!! A major part of the game is getting your defense to stop the other teams offense. Overall I don;t have too much of a problem with the new post season OT rules. My only concern might be if actually the eventual result is to turn at least the odd game into a kicking contest, after OT is played out, a field goal a piece. You think losing to a field goal on the first possession of OT is bad? Wait till your team loses in a kicking contest!!

[Saintsfan]

McNabb deal to Rams is on the table?

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/McNabb_to_the_Rams_on_the_table.html

Two credible sources in Phila. are denying that this is iminent, or will even happen at all.

St. Louis is a perfect town for McNabb, just like it was perfect for Scott Rolen once he got booed out of town. No pressure, a team that has nowhere to go but up, and a generally "cheerleader" fan base (assuming Rams fans are similar to Cardinals fans.)

In fairness, no 33 overall is probably good value for McNabb, as far as the Eagles are concerned. Especially with one year left on his contract. I am not sure that the Rams are getting a good deal really. 2 or 3 years out of McNabb, are the Rams really that close to contending that having McNabb under center for 3 years has any value to them? That being said, Warner took the Rams to winning a Superbowl and maybe McNabb could engineer a similar type of turnaround?

[BBTV]

http://www.philly.co...is_Quickly.html

McNabb: "Resolve this quickly" ... "No matter what happens, I've already begun preparing to have an outstanding season in 2010."

I have to question his definition of "outstanding". If he thinks he's been "outstanding" the past few years, then that might be the issue.

I understand that McNabb hasn't brought you the title you've been wanting so bad, but this is just being nitpicky. What did you want him to say? :censored: you Philly I want out? I've been absolutely awful and need to make it up to this fan base that's never given me any credit anyway, even when I've at least deserved some of it? Well, I was planning on taking off the first 8 games and coasting through the second half? My sympathy for Eagles fans and their plight keeps shrinking every time I hear about how bad they want to ditch McNabb. Sure he's no Joe Montana, but the Bucs won the Super Bowl with Brad Johnson as their QB and the Ravens did it with trent Dilfer. Trent freaking Dilfer. There is not a damn thing about either Dilfer or Johnson in their prime that I would want more than McNabb at any point. The hate for this guy is just mind-boggling.

You're extremely off base here. Of course that's what he has to say. I'd say the same thing if I was him. I don't think anyone expects that he should say anything any different. If anything, he's handled this thing pretty darn well, if not perfectly.

Also, your comparisons are pretty bad. The Eagles don't have nearly the defense that the Ravens did, and IMHO, the main reason Brad Johnson is a super bowl winning quarterback is because McNabb sucks. The defense let Joe Jeravicious (sp) run through them (due to a terrible linebacker and elderly strong safety) but McNabb bitched up in that game like he has in just about every big game since then. Rhonde Barber should never have happened, nor should have the balls into the Vet stadium turf right next to Duce Staley's feet.

Either way, neither that Ravens team nor that Bucs team were constructed anything like this Eagles team. A QB who can think fast and throw accurately are key to the Eagles offense, because it's based on timing, and they don't have the defense to bail them out of jams like those other teams. Actually, a guy like McNabb could have hurt those teams, because he doesn't know his limitations. Trent Dilfer never tried to imitate Joe Montana. He kinda knew he sucked, and just made sure not to let himself get exposed too much. If only McNabb was that realistic about his abilities.

[rams80]

McNabb deal to Rams is on the table?

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/McNabb_to_the_Rams_on_the_table.html

Two credible sources in Phila. are denying that this is iminent, or will even happen at all.

St. Louis is a perfect town for McNabb, just like it was perfect for Scott Rolen once he got booed out of town. No pressure, a team that has nowhere to go but up, and a generally "cheerleader" fan base (assuming Rams fans are similar to Cardinals fans.)

HA!

The current suspicion is that the Eagles are throwing "offers" out there in order to drive up McNabb's price.

The Rams will likely only move on McNabb if Khan has informed the front office and coaching staff that unless the team wins at least 6 or 7 games a general purge of the front office and coaching staff will happen and/or it finally dawns upon us that Bradford cannot start and succeed from Day 1 with the present Rams roster.

[The_Admiral]

A major part of the game is getting your defense to stop the other teams offense.

Well, see, no, it isn't, factually speaking, and that's pretty much the crux of the biscuit here. The league is engineered to encourage passing, because that's what people want to see, so the NFL makes it so. When seemingly everything but prostrating yourself at the feet of a wide receiver is construed as defensive pass interference, stopping the offense isn't a major part of the game anymore. It helps if you can kinda do it now and then, but it's nothing so important as being able to bomb it or draw the interference calls yourself. This is all basic stuff that you'd pick up from even passively watching NFL games during lunch on a weekly basis. I don't know why we have to belabor the point like this.