OnWis97 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 On 3/28/2012 at 11:00 AM, the admiral said: Not allowing both offenses on the field in a league where the game is ever-increasingly engineered to favor the offense is more and more like ending a baseball game in the top of the tenth inning. If defenses were relevant to the modern NFL beyond getting popped for taking bounty money from a felon, then maybe I could see the merit of sudden death, but they aren't, and such is life, so bring on the in-my-day-nineteen-dickety-garble-garble that BlueSky seems to drive a veritable dump truck full of. This risks getting off-topic, but I guess we've kind of "evolved" into "changes better or not better for the game". I've always hated the NFL OT. Sure, the game is won on the first possession 40% of the time, but football is a game of field position. So you get a kickoff return the 40, get to the opposition's 40 and pin 'em deep on a punt; they start at the 12. Winning the coin flip has the potential to set the field position tone for several possessions. Just because the receiving team wins on its second possession does not mean they were not at a huge advantage winning that coin flip...they always have an "extra" possession and there are potentially other ancillary benefits. (Though I totally agree that having a different rule for postseason is terrible. Most coaches will first run into the new rule in their 10th season or something. I wish they'd do the ol' "blue ribbon panel" for like three years and come up with a new OT that has staying power). EDIT: I just found out that the playoff OT rules will be effective for regular season...at least it's consistent, if not exactly how I'd like to see it. I totally agree with you all that some of the QB protection rules are silly. Didn't the NFL institute some rule about "reaching in a forward motion" after Carson Palmer was out for the year? That was horrible and knee-jerk. I don't think it's as much about "wussification" as it is about "million dollar faces of the franchise". But still...you don't want defenders afraid to even hit anyone. But it's just flat out in poor taste (at best and flat out dangerous at worst) to allow for the bounties. The penalties can be debated, but I'm surprised to hear anyone defend the practice. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It's also true that you can't really complain about losing in OT when you haven't won in regulation.Why is that true? "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 If you're gonna haul dickety and garble-garble, do it in style. Or just add a " " every now and then so we know you're just tweaking his nose and not intending to be actually insulting. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It's also true that you can't really complain about losing in OT when you haven't won in regulation.Why is that true?Because you had 60 minutes to win the game and failed to. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltere Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Using your logic they also had 60 minutes to lose the game, and didn't. 1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said: sorry sweetie, but I don't suck minor-league d CCSLC Post of the day September 3rd 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Where's Donovan McNabb when you need him? *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 They'll inscribe that one on his Hall of Fame plaque. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Using your logic they also had 60 minutes to lose the game, and didn't.Well noone goes out to lose a game. (And if they do they get found out usually!) I just struggle with teams complaining about overtime loses, when they had a chance to win in normal time. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 If you're gonna haul dickety and garble-garble, do it in style. Or just add a " " every now and then so we know you're just tweaking his nose and not intending to be actually insulting.Him or me? Well, just in case. :P Where's Donovan McNabb when you need him?Outstanding, Buc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltere Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Not saying that teams are trying to lose. Just that someone has to, especially in the playoffs.You say they shouldn't complain because they didn't manage to win, but they also managed to not lose in regulation either. 1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said: sorry sweetie, but I don't suck minor-league d CCSLC Post of the day September 3rd 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 My point in the whole OT argument is the same as the one made about Brady and the protection rules. If the losing QB in the '09 NFC Championship had been anyone but Favre, or had the Vikings won the toss and won on a first-possession FG, there would have been no rule change and probably not even any discussion thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I disagree... there was a ton of talk about the NFL overtime for years before that game... To say it was that one event that sparked the change is absurd. Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Not saying that teams are trying to lose. Just that someone has to, especially in the playoffs.You say they shouldn't complain because they didn't manage to win, but they also managed to not lose in regulation either.But, in my opinion, you can't bitch about not getting a chance to win, if you've had 60 minutes worth of chance. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltere Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Defense exists for a reason 1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said: sorry sweetie, but I don't suck minor-league d CCSLC Post of the day September 3rd 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 If Bill Polian and the current competition committee continue toit have their way, it won't for much longer... *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Well noone goes out to lose a game. The Rams do. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I disagree... there was a ton of talk about the NFL overtime for years before that game... To say it was that one event that sparked the change is absurd.Don't really remember a ton of talk about it. Are you talking about mainstream media? Even if there was occasional discussion, that game clearly "sparked the change" because had there been no OT, had the Vikes won on first possession or otherwise, or had the Saints won but not on the first possession, the rule wouldn't have been changed.Anybody who blames the OT rule for that Vikings loss just wasn't paying attention. Shame on the Saints for the fact that Minnesota was in the game much less in position to win after committing about 14 turnovers, and shame on the Vikings for laying the ball on the turf and throwing picks all night if they wanted to go to the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I disagree... there was a ton of talk about the NFL overtime for years before that game... To say it was that one event that sparked the change is absurd.Don't really remember a ton of talk about it. Are you talking about mainstream media? Even if there was occasional discussion, that game clearly "sparked the change" because had there been no OT, had the Vikes won on first possession or otherwise, or had the Saints won but not on the first possession, the rule wouldn't have been changed.Anybody who blames the OT rule for that Vikings loss just wasn't paying attention. Shame on the Saints for the fact that Minnesota was in the game much less in position to win after committing about 14 turnovers, and shame on the Vikings for laying the ball on the turf and throwing picks all night if they wanted to go to the Super Bowl.I think it came up in league discussions every few years. They always shot it down fairly quickly. So your original assertion was that they even brought it up because St. Brett did not get on the field and with that I disagree, since it was brought up from time to time. The league always recognized that it was not perfect, so they wrestled with it from time to time...of course it's not basketball or baseball...it's harder in football.Your bold part is speculation. It's speculation that my "gut" tends to agree with, but speculation nonetheless. It is conceivable that the league may have still made the change had the Vikes won on the first possession. It's forgotten when it happens in week 7, but a conference title game is a bigger deal. I could speculate that way.As a Vikings fan, I never dwell on losing the coin flip or the way OT was conducted (which I hated LONG before that game). It's putting the ball on the turf. The vikes had a takeaway very late in the first half; they got the ball on about the Saints 10. I told my wife "Put in Chester Taylor". "Why?" "We cannot afford a turnover right now." A play or two later, Peterson coughed it up and cost them 7 at the end of the the half. That (and all the other times) is why they lost. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I"m not sure I agree with the notion that the rule wouldn't have changed if it went against the Saints. There's no way to say that with any certainty, especially since, as OnWis said, the subject of an OT rule change had already been floating out there for years.It's certainly possible that any high-profile game that ended in OT with a dynamic QB denied a single snap could have brought the issue to a head. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I"m not sure I agree with the notion that the rule wouldn't have changed if it went against the Saints. There's no way to say that with any certainty, especially since, as OnWis said, the subject of an OT rule change had already been floating out there for years.It's certainly possible that any high-profile game that ended in OT with a dynamic QB denied a single snap could have brought the issue to a head.Of course that situation is still possible, though not on a field goal. I have two central problems with the new OT rules, one is complexity. It is relatively easy for football fans to understand, but how easy is it for the casual football watcher to follow? The other issue is its still a compromise, and you don't often fix the problems caused by one compromise with another compromise. Eventually some problem will come to light with the new OT rules, some team will feel slighted by a happening it causes. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.