2009-10 NFL off season thread

[HedleyLamarr]

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.

Using baseball is a stupid argument. Anyone that uses it is a stupid person for doing so.

In baseball, the fielding team absolutely CANNOT score. In football, while it doesn't happen very often, the defensive team CAN score points. The defensive team can shut a team down for 3-4 downs, they can force a fumble, and can make an interception.

[The_Admiral]

When the defense scores points, they've become the offense by virtue of possessing the ball, sooooo...

[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.

Using baseball is a stupid argument. Anyone that uses it is a stupid person for doing so.

In baseball, the fielding team absolutely CANNOT score. In football, while it doesn't happen very often, the defensive team CAN score points. The defensive team can shut a team down for 3-4 downs, they can force a fumble, and can make an interception.

Well I'm glad I did not see this at bedtime or I'd have lost a ton of sleep.

I almost even acknowledged the basics of how apples and oranges it is...

But to remain stupid, basketball fits your above criteria.

[BlueSky]

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.

1. I wasn't clear. I meant that the NFL commissioner and owners weren't wetting themselves over it. In fact, they've been steadfastly against making any changes to OT until now.

2. Of course it is. JK, but you missed my point. I didn't say it was about the Saints, I said it was about St. Brett not getting his shot. The opponent could have been anyone.

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".

That's a fine idea but with the current trend towards protecting players it would never happen. I'm all for reasonable measures, like blowing the play dead if the ballcarrier loses his helmet, and in fairness, I've never been hit by an NFL defender, but they seem to be going off the deep end with some of the new rules. Get ready for lots of penalties.

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."

Could they be any more arrogant?

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

[Saintsfan]

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.

There is an obvious extent that defense is perhaps less important than it was 10 or 20 years ago, to the extent that a team like the Saints can roll to the playoffs without a great defense. (Though defensive based teams like the Jets didn't pretty well in the playoffs as well). But its still true that the best NFL teams can play defense when it counts. The Saints won the Superbowl because of defensive stops at crucial moments, as well as having a great offense, and clever strategy. So yes stopping the opposition offense, even if it is 1 or 2 times a game, is still crucial.

[Mac the Knife]

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

Unfair. Anything that gives one team an advantage over another (which sudden death OT does) is patently unfair. Admittedly though, I don't like the NFL's solution; I'd much prefer a "win by five" system in which both teams play until (1) the 15-minute overtime period ends, or (2) one team leads the game by 5 or more points (via touchdown, field goal plus safety, etc.) Granted it leaves the possibility for a team to get the ball, drive downfield and score a touchdown, but it's still more fair than what the NFL's used since the 1950's.

[BlueSky]

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

Unfair. Anything that gives one team an advantage over another (which sudden death OT does) is patently unfair. Admittedly though, I don't like the NFL's solution; I'd much prefer a "win by five" system in which both teams play until (1) the 15-minute overtime period ends, or (2) one team leads the game by 5 or more points (via touchdown, field goal plus safety, etc.) Granted it leaves the possibility for a team to get the ball, drive downfield and score a touchdown, but it's still more fair than what the NFL's used since the 1950's.

N/A in the playoffs of course. They play till someone wins. But I agree that simply saying win by 5 would have been a lot easier.

[OnWis97]

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

I am not sure about your word "only". I think 35% is a lot. 1/3 of the time only one team gets the ball. The cadence from my mouth saying "35% of the time on the first possession" would be far different from yours.

(PS, I am a Viking fan, but have felt this way for many many years)

[OnWis97]

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

Unfair. Anything that gives one team an advantage over another (which sudden death OT does) is patently unfair. Admittedly though, I don't like the NFL's solution; I'd much prefer a "win by five" system in which both teams play until (1) the 15-minute overtime period ends, or (2) one team leads the game by 5 or more points (via touchdown, field goal plus safety, etc.) Granted it leaves the possibility for a team to get the ball, drive downfield and score a touchdown, but it's still more fair than what the NFL's used since the 1950's.

Make it 4. I like the slim possibility of a team winning with two safeties.

[Sport]

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

Unfair. Anything that gives one team an advantage over another (which sudden death OT does) is patently unfair. Admittedly though, I don't like the NFL's solution; I'd much prefer a "win by five" system in which both teams play until (1) the 15-minute overtime period ends, or (2) one team leads the game by 5 or more points (via touchdown, field goal plus safety, etc.) Granted it leaves the possibility for a team to get the ball, drive downfield and score a touchdown, but it's still more fair than what the NFL's used since the 1950's.

I think this is a fantastic idea. Though are you proposing that in order to win the overtime a team must win by 5 points or that in order to win the overtime a team must be the first to score 5 points?

I'd prefer the first to score 5.

[Seadragon76]

I can't be the only one who thinks this new ruling stinks.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, didn't the Vikings have a possession in Overtime during that game? Only reason Minnesota lost is because they had turnover issues, which bit them in the ass when Farve threw the final pick and had to watch New Orleans march down the field to kick the game winning field goal.

To me, this is backwards thinking. Instead of this, why not adopt the college football overtime but with your own tweaks. Here's what I mean:

-After the coin flip and the teams decide who receives and who kicks, the receiving team has possession of the ball and will have the usual four downs to get a first down.

-There is no game clock, only the play clock

-Should a team score a field goal, the opposing team will get the kickoff with a chance to either tie the game with a field goal or win with a touchdown

-For the regular season, there will be a three overtime limit. In the third overtime, the offense takes over at the 35 and has four downs to get a first down. A field goal can only be attempted if you are past the 20 yard line. If they score, the other team has a chance to either tie or win. If the game remains tied after the third OT, the game ends in a tie.

[OnWis97]

I can't be the only one who thinks this new ruling stinks.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, didn't the Vikings have a possession in Overtime during that game? Only reason Minnesota lost is because they had turnover issues, which bit them in the ass when Farve threw the final pick and had to watch New Orleans march down the field to kick the game winning field goal.

To me, this is backwards thinking. Instead of this, why not adopt the college football overtime but with your own tweaks. Here's what I mean:

-After the coin flip and the teams decide who receives and who kicks, the receiving team has possession of the ball and will have the usual four downs to get a first down.

-There is no game clock, only the play clock

-Should a team score a field goal, the opposing team will get the kickoff with a chance to either tie the game with a field goal or win with a touchdown

-For the regular season, there will be a three overtime limit. In the third overtime, the offense takes over at the 35 and has four downs to get a first down. A field goal can only be attempted if you are past the 20 yard line. If they score, the other team has a chance to either tie or win. If the game remains tied after the third OT, the game ends in a tie.

The vikes did not have the ball in OT. Putting the ball on the turf is why I am only upset with the Vikes (and not the rule) for that particular game, but that does not make the rule OK.

Your OT solution sounds nice, but has far too much potential to last forever. Three OT in the NFL would be far more wearing on players than three OT in college. It's fair and resembles football (more than college), but not practical.

[BlueSky]

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

I am not sure about your word "only". I think 35% is a lot. 1/3 of the time only one team gets the ball. The cadence from my mouth saying "35% of the time on the first possession" would be far different from yours.

(PS, I am a Viking fan, but have felt this way for many many years)

If it was the start of the game, sure. It's not. Both teams have had the entire game to win it. As a tie-breaker, those are reasonably fair odds.

I'm telling you, the only reason this rule change was even considered is because St. Brett didn't get a chance to throw another soul-crushing pick in overtime. If Tarvaris had been the one cooling his heels we wouldn't be having this conversation. I think the bogus PI call figured into it too. That was a bad break for Minnesota. I know that because had that call gone against the Saints, I'd have been livid.

The media keeps saying, "The league wants to avoid these situations where you get a good kick return, a couple of first downs, a penalty, and then kick a field goal." Well, that's not the whole story. The Vikes had at least two solid shots: when that pass bounced up out of Colston's hands right to a DB, who dropped it, and when they didn't stop the 4th and 1. So the NFL can cry me a river.

[OnWis97]

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

I am not sure about your word "only". I think 35% is a lot. 1/3 of the time only one team gets the ball. The cadence from my mouth saying "35% of the time on the first possession" would be far different from yours.

(PS, I am a Viking fan, but have felt this way for many many years)

If it was the start of the game, sure. It's not. Both teams have had the entire game to win it. As a tie-breaker, those are reasonably fair odds.

I'm telling you, the only reason this rule change was even considered is because St. Brett didn't get a chance to throw another soul-crushing pick in overtime. If Tarvaris had been the one cooling his heels we wouldn't be having this conversation. I think the bogus PI call figured into it too. That was a bad break for Minnesota. I know that because had that call gone against the Saints, I'd have been livid.

The media keeps saying, "The league wants to avoid these situations where you get a good kick return, a couple of first downs, a penalty, and then kick a field goal." Well, that's not the whole story. The Vikes had at least two solid shots: when that pass bounced up out of Colston's hands right to a DB, who dropped it, and when they didn't stop the 4th and 1. So the NFL can cry me a river.

I don't dispute that the NFL is doing this because of Favre. And while that may be the wrong reason and serve as fodder for cynicism, it does not mean the choice is not the right one and should not have been made years before Favre did not get on the field. Any team that loses in OT probably had a chance to win it. As I said, the fumbles alone have me blaming the team...but that does not make the rule good.

I honestly don't remember the Colston play or even the bad PI call. But I do remember 4th and 1. Pierre Thomas. And they did not stop him...officially. (But that's beyond the scope of what we are talking about).

[BlueSky]

Now for the bottom line on OT. The coin-flip winner has historically only won 35% of the time on the first possession. So in 65% of OT games, both teams get at least one possession. Fair or unfair?

I am not sure about your word "only". I think 35% is a lot. 1/3 of the time only one team gets the ball. The cadence from my mouth saying "35% of the time on the first possession" would be far different from yours.

(PS, I am a Viking fan, but have felt this way for many many years)

If it was the start of the game, sure. It's not. Both teams have had the entire game to win it. As a tie-breaker, those are reasonably fair odds.

I'm telling you, the only reason this rule change was even considered is because St. Brett didn't get a chance to throw another soul-crushing pick in overtime. If Tarvaris had been the one cooling his heels we wouldn't be having this conversation. I think the bogus PI call figured into it too. That was a bad break for Minnesota. I know that because had that call gone against the Saints, I'd have been livid.

The media keeps saying, "The league wants to avoid these situations where you get a good kick return, a couple of first downs, a penalty, and then kick a field goal." Well, that's not the whole story. The Vikes had at least two solid shots: when that pass bounced up out of Colston's hands right to a DB, who dropped it, and when they didn't stop the 4th and 1. So the NFL can cry me a river.

I don't dispute that the NFL is doing this because of Favre. And while that may be the wrong reason and serve as fodder for cynicism, it does not mean the choice is not the right one and should not have been made years before Favre did not get on the field. Any team that loses in OT probably had a chance to win it. As I said, the fumbles alone have me blaming the team...but that does not make the rule good.

I honestly don't remember the Colston play or even the bad PI call. But I do remember 4th and 1. Pierre Thomas. And they did not stop him...officially. (But that's beyond the scope of what we are talking about).

Well, since you opened that door...I've been curious about the rule. How I saw it was that he clearly got the first down on forward progress. But a Viking helmet jarred the ball and he kind of bobbled it as he was being knocked backwards. I know the rule if you bobble a pass, 'cause it was the focus of that whole Patriots-Colts 4th down deal. But does it matter in regard to forward progress if the ballcarrier bobbles the ball? I wouldn't think so if he keeps possession. Anybody know?

Now if your argument is that he never got past the first down marker at all, let's just agree to disagree now.

[OnWis97]

Now if your argument is that he never got past the first down marker at all, let's just agree to disagree now.

Done and done.

[dfwabel]

Adding something else, NFL GMs Talk About Prevalence of Pot Users in Draft

From the story:

There's a widespread belief within the NFL that the 2010 draft represents one of the deepest and most promising pools of collegiate talent in years. But in addition to the vast potential of this year's draft class, numerous NFL personnel evaluators told SI.com they are concerned about the increased number of prospects who have a history of marijuana use in their background, with players often acknowledging a failed drug test for pot in college in interviews with team executives.

"Marijuana use is almost epidemic, with more guys having tested positive for marijuana at some point in their college background than I can ever remember,'' said a longtime team personnel man. "It's almost as if we are having to figure out a new way to evaluate it as part of the character and background report, because it's so prevalent. There're enough instances of it that it's hard to know how to set your board. You can't throw out that many guys. You have to go case-by-case and do your homework on them.''

One NFL head coach told me this week that in this era of some states decriminalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, he has interviewed potential draft picks who didn't even seem to recognize their marijuana smoking constituted drug use in the eyes of the NFL.

"It's pretty significant as a trend,'' the head coach said. "But if you knocked everyone off your board who has experimented with weed, you'd lose about 20 percent of your board, not to mention disqualify a few recent presidents. A third sounds a little high to me, but it's not a rare occurrence to have a player with some pot use in his background. You have to make a judgment on each individual guy.''

[BaltimoreFan]

I like the new OT rules. Forget about the fairness/play defense arguements for a second and think about the fan perspective. I personally hate watching a good close game go to OT only to see one team play for the field goal. It really feels like a crappy way to end what was a great game to watch. This new rule won't elminate that problem entirely, but it will at least extend overtime so that it not over in a couple minutes.

[quantum]

I favor the new OT rule, since it is much like what I proposed before. I also think the new rule downing a ball where the ball carrier loses his helmet is a good idea.

[FiddySicks]

So apparently Oakland is willing to trade Asomnugha for McNabb. If the Eagles don't jump on this move, they're idiots. I wanted to as well call the Raiders idiots for even considering this move, but why should it surprise anyone that the Raiders would deal a hometown guy who actually enjoys playing with them, who as well is one of if not the very best CBs in the league, for a guy that one team seem desperate to ditch?