2014 NFL Season Thread

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Not a Bears fan, but I really enjoy watching this year's team. Mostly I like watching Jay Cutler continually throw the ball about a millisecond before he gets clobbered. It will be said when he ends up in traction before the end of the season.

[See Red]

Yes, because there was no outrage when Demaryius Thomas went 80 yards against Pittsburgh in the very first game to use the current overtime format. None at all.

That's because it was Timmy Tebow on the throwing end of the pass and he was the NFL's media darling that season.

That was sarcasm... what I was getting at was that there were arguments made against the rule after the very first game of it (in fact, Lights Out was probably one of the rule's haters at the time given that Denver benefited from it). It's not necessarily a Manning thing. It's the fact that after leading one of the most impressive drives in recent memory (40 seconds and no timeouts against the best defense in football in that stadium), he was relegated to watching overtime play out from the sideline, without getting a shot. From a purely football standpoint (bias aside), the overtime period was a huge letdown. But Denver's offense vs Seattles defense one more time after how that fourth quarter ended would've been something to watch. That's my beef, really. I don't think the loss really hurts Denver that much and I came out of that game feeling pretty good about their chances in a potential rematch, which considering how they looked for stretches of the first two weeks, was what the I was really hoping for.

[Lights Out]

I honestly don't remember what I thought of the new rule when it was first implemented, but given the relative rarity of the team that gets the ball first scoring a touchdown on their first drive, as well as the fact that it might be the only remaining aspect of NFL football where clutch defense is emphasized, it's turned out to be a pretty good rule.

Like my view on the NHL shootout, though, I don't see the problem with simply having more ties in the regular season. Casual fans wouldn't like it, but you'd sidestep most of the controversy about overtime rules.

[FiddySicks]

Not a Bears fan, but I really enjoy watching this year's team. Mostly I like watching Jay Cutler continually throw the ball about a millisecond before he gets clobbered. It will be said when he ends up in traction before the end of the season.

I was talking to a co-worker tonight and said pretty much the same thing. That recieving core they have rivals pretty much everyone else in the league, and Jay Cutler makes some pretty impressive throws. I'm almost hesitant to say this, but he reminds a bit of Brett Favre. The defense has it's problems and the secondary is a full out MASH unit already, but that makes them even more fun.

It's cool to see Will Sutton and even Ka'Deem Carey get playing time, too.

[AnythingChicago]

CS85, where art thou?

I guess I'll have to fill in...

By the end of the game, the Bears secondary was equivalent to that of an intramural flag football team for recovering alcoholics, but luckily Rex Ryan calls plays like he'd taken several dosages of narcotics and been repeatedly hit in the head with a pickaxe.

Cutler played well, though.

[OnWis97]

I honestly don't remember what I thought of the new rule when it was first implemented, but given the relative rarity of the team that gets the ball first scoring a touchdown on their first drive, as well as the fact that it might be the only remaining aspect of NFL football where clutch defense is emphasized, it's turned out to be a pretty good rule.

Like my view on the NHL shootout, though, I don't see the problem with simply having more ties in the regular season. Casual fans wouldn't like it, but you'd sidestep most of the controversy about overtime rules.

I agree. I'd rather have ties than key standings points decided on shootouts. It seems like we became so averse to ties after the 2002 All Star Game.

In the NHL and NFL, regular season ties are OK. In hockey, because 1) there is no need for 6-hour regular season marathons and 2) therefore the alternative is a skills competition. In football, we've discovered that there is no overtime that really fills all needs (fairness, playing the "full" game including special teams, not playing forever and killing the players, etc.).

Of course, the NFL (and, now, college) has no choice but to address this for the post season. So unfortunately, they have to do something less-than perfect.

As for the rule--I don't think you can please everyone. Football is at a huge disadvantage vs. the other sports. It's pretty easy to throw some time on the clock in basketball, play sudden death in hockey, or have full innings until the game ends in baseball. I think the current rule does OK regarding making the coin flip less important while avoiding the college OT that everyone hates.

As for the silly notion that "Minnesota crying" gets OT and tiebreaker rules changed...yeah. It's awesome cheering for the teams that everyone loves and wants to see on the big stage every year. I think we all know that the NFL change was about Favre; not the Vikings. The Twins/Sox thing was probably the correct change (They tied for the AL Central lead and the Sox hosted based on coin flip; the Twins won the season series) and would probably have happened regardless of whoever that scenario happened to.

[Sport]

I honestly don't remember what I thought of the new rule when it was first implemented, but given the relative rarity of the team that gets the ball first scoring a touchdown on their first drive, as well as the fact that it might be the only remaining aspect of NFL football where clutch defense is emphasized, it's turned out to be a pretty good rule.

Like my view on the NHL shootout, though, I don't see the problem with simply having more ties in the regular season. Casual fans wouldn't like it, but you'd sidestep most of the controversy about overtime rules.

I agree. I'd rather have ties than key standings points decided on shootouts. It seems like we became so averse to ties after the 2002 All Star Game.

In the NHL and NFL, regular season ties are OK. In hockey, because 1) there is no need for 6-hour regular season marathons and 2) therefore the alternative is a skills competition. In football, we've discovered that there is no overtime that really fills all needs (fairness, playing the "full" game including special teams, not playing forever and killing the players, etc.).

Of course, the NFL (and, now, college) has no choice but to address this for the post season. So unfortunately, they have to do something less-than perfect.

As for the rule--I don't think you can please everyone. Football is at a huge disadvantage vs. the other sports. It's pretty easy to throw some time on the clock in basketball, play sudden death in hockey, or have full innings until the game ends in baseball. I think the current rule does OK regarding making the coin flip less important while avoiding the college OT that everyone hates.

As for the silly notion that "Minnesota crying" gets OT and tiebreaker rules changed...yeah. It's awesome cheering for the teams that everyone loves and wants to see on the big stage every year. I think we all know that the NFL change was about Favre; not the Vikings. The Twins/Sox thing was probably the correct change (They tied for the AL Central lead and the Sox hosted based on coin flip; the Twins won the season series) and would probably have happened regardless of whoever that scenario happened to.

I like organic one game playoffs in baseball as much as anybody, but it's never made sense to me to not use head-to-head as the tie-breaker. A multiple game season series is way more fair in determining the best team than a random one game playoff that is very heavily dependent on luck.

The 1999 Reds beat the Mets 5 times out of 9 in the regular season, but we had to play a one game playoff for the right to play in the LDS. The Mets were able to pitch Al Leiter, the Reds had to pitch Steve Paris. That's bull$h!t.

[TheOldRoman]

As for the silly notion that "Minnesota crying" gets OT and tiebreaker rules changed...yeah. It's awesome cheering for the teams that everyone loves and wants to see on the big stage every year. I think we all know that the NFL change was about Favre; not the Vikings. The Twins/Sox thing was probably the correct change (They tied for the AL Central lead and the Sox hosted based on coin flip; the Twins won the season series) and would probably have happened regardless of whoever that scenario happened to.

I was mostly joking about that. I remember Justin Morneau's bitch-ass whining about that before the game, almost portending a loss. The Twins were 8-1 at home vs. the Sox, and the Sox were 7-2 at home against them. I think it's pretty much a toss-up at that point. I didn't have an issue with the coin flip, but also understand them going with head-to-head record. Still, it was funny to see crying from the Twins at the fact that they wouldn't be able to turn the fans on to help their offense in the tiebreaker game. And they needed them! In summary, the rule change is fine (unlike football's), but Justin Morneau is a dick.

Also on that note, I miss the Twins being good and playing in such a awful stadium. I mean, now they're just a crappy team in a really nice stadium. Joe Mauer barely even exists anymore. Morneau, Cuddyer, Span, and Carlos Gomez have all moved on. Gardenhire is probably drinking during games at this point. As much as I wanted the Twins to face-plant all those years, I miss hating them. You can't hate a last-place team.

[TheOldRoman]

Anyway, back to football. Last night's win was ugly as hell for the Bears. Cutler wasn't great, but I guess he held things together pretty decently. The Bears absolutely refused to run the ball, and the offensive line wasn't picking up blitzes. Jay took some sacks and threw the ball away when necessary, but at least he was able to take the three-and-outs rather than forcing something and getting picked-off.

[Dalcowboyfan92]

Anyway, back to football. Last night's win was ugly as hell for the Bears. Cutler wasn't great, but I guess he held things together pretty decently. The Bears absolutely refused to run the ball, and the offensive line wasn't picking up blitzes. Jay took some sacks and threw the ball away when necessary, but at least he was able to take the three-and-outs rather than forcing something and getting picked-off.

Chicago may not have played cleanly, but what mattered was they played better then their opponents and won the game.

[dbadefense1990]

CS85, where art thou?

I guess he's actively picketing the NFL (Ice_Cap also, among others) for all the bats#it, off-the-field drama unfolding right now.

[OnWis97]

As for the silly notion that "Minnesota crying" gets OT and tiebreaker rules changed...yeah. It's awesome cheering for the teams that everyone loves and wants to see on the big stage every year. I think we all know that the NFL change was about Favre; not the Vikings. The Twins/Sox thing was probably the correct change (They tied for the AL Central lead and the Sox hosted based on coin flip; the Twins won the season series) and would probably have happened regardless of whoever that scenario happened to.

I was mostly joking about that. I remember Justin Morneau's bitch-ass whining about that before the game, almost portending a loss. The Twins were 8-1 at home vs. the Sox, and the Sox were 7-2 at home against them. I think it's pretty much a toss-up at that point. I didn't have an issue with the coin flip, but also understand them going with head-to-head record. Still, it was funny to see crying from the Twins at the fact that they wouldn't be able to turn the fans on to help their offense in the tiebreaker game. And they needed them! In summary, the rule change is fine (unlike football's), but Justin Morneau is a dick.

Also on that note, I miss the Twins being good and playing in such a awful stadium. I mean, now they're just a crappy team in a really nice stadium. Joe Mauer barely even exists anymore. Morneau, Cuddyer, Span, and Carlos Gomez have all moved on. Gardenhire is probably drinking during games at this point. As much as I wanted the Twins to face-plant all those years, I miss hating them. You can't hate a last-place team.

I had no idea anyone, even fans of division rivals hated the Twins. Gardenhire is not drinking during games because he has naked photos of the Pohlad's and will never be fired; he'll be following his formulas (nobody throws pitch #101 for example) for years to come!

(Sorry, I know it's the NFL thread)

[WSU151]

I honestly don't remember what I thought of the new rule when it was first implemented, but given the relative rarity of the team that gets the ball first scoring a touchdown on their first drive, as well as the fact that it might be the only remaining aspect of NFL football where clutch defense is emphasized, it's turned out to be a pretty good rule.

Like my view on the NHL shootout, though, I don't see the problem with simply having more ties in the regular season. Casual fans wouldn't like it, but you'd sidestep most of the controversy about overtime rules.

I agree. I'd rather have ties than key standings points decided on shootouts. It seems like we became so averse to ties after the 2002 All Star Game.

In the NHL and NFL, regular season ties are OK. In hockey, because 1) there is no need for 6-hour regular season marathons and 2) therefore the alternative is a skills competition. In football, we've discovered that there is no overtime that really fills all needs (fairness, playing the "full" game including special teams, not playing forever and killing the players, etc.).

Of course, the NFL (and, now, college) has no choice but to address this for the post season. So unfortunately, they have to do something less-than perfect.

As for the rule--I don't think you can please everyone. Football is at a huge disadvantage vs. the other sports. It's pretty easy to throw some time on the clock in basketball, play sudden death in hockey, or have full innings until the game ends in baseball. I think the current rule does OK regarding making the coin flip less important while avoiding the college OT that everyone hates.

As for the silly notion that "Minnesota crying" gets OT and tiebreaker rules changed...yeah. It's awesome cheering for the teams that everyone loves and wants to see on the big stage every year. I think we all know that the NFL change was about Favre; not the Vikings. The Twins/Sox thing was probably the correct change (They tied for the AL Central lead and the Sox hosted based on coin flip; the Twins won the season series) and would probably have happened regardless of whoever that scenario happened to.

I like organic one game playoffs in baseball as much as anybody, but it's never made sense to me to not use head-to-head as the tie-breaker. A multiple game season series is way more fair in determining the best team than a random one game playoff that is very heavily dependent on luck.

The 1999 Reds beat the Mets 5 times out of 9 in the regular season, but we had to play a one game playoff for the right to play in the LDS. The Mets were able to pitch Al Leiter, the Reds had to pitch Steve Paris. That's bull$h!t.

It's not like the Mets and Reds played nine consecutive games against each other. What was the pitching matchup in the 5th Reds win? Sounds like that game could have come down to luck, too.

If the Reds had won all 9 games against the Mets, yet still finished with the same record, I'm not sure you can say the Reds are more deserving to advance at season's end; in that case, the Mets had a better record the other 153 games.

The one-game playoff is a pretty solid way to go for baseball.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Yeah - the Reds had 162 opportunities to win; same as the Mets. That it took 163 and the matchups weren't in Cincinnati's favor means they should have won am earlier game to avoid the playoff. There's plenty of opportunity in the baseball schedule to distinguish yourself.

[kewp80]

So do we need to change the name of this thread to "2014 MLB Alternate thread" or "Postseason Tiebreaker B*tching"

[Sport]

I honestly don't remember what I thought of the new rule when it was first implemented, but given the relative rarity of the team that gets the ball first scoring a touchdown on their first drive, as well as the fact that it might be the only remaining aspect of NFL football where clutch defense is emphasized, it's turned out to be a pretty good rule.

Like my view on the NHL shootout, though, I don't see the problem with simply having more ties in the regular season. Casual fans wouldn't like it, but you'd sidestep most of the controversy about overtime rules.

I agree. I'd rather have ties than key standings points decided on shootouts. It seems like we became so averse to ties after the 2002 All Star Game.

In the NHL and NFL, regular season ties are OK. In hockey, because 1) there is no need for 6-hour regular season marathons and 2) therefore the alternative is a skills competition. In football, we've discovered that there is no overtime that really fills all needs (fairness, playing the "full" game including special teams, not playing forever and killing the players, etc.).

Of course, the NFL (and, now, college) has no choice but to address this for the post season. So unfortunately, they have to do something less-than perfect.

As for the rule--I don't think you can please everyone. Football is at a huge disadvantage vs. the other sports. It's pretty easy to throw some time on the clock in basketball, play sudden death in hockey, or have full innings until the game ends in baseball. I think the current rule does OK regarding making the coin flip less important while avoiding the college OT that everyone hates.

As for the silly notion that "Minnesota crying" gets OT and tiebreaker rules changed...yeah. It's awesome cheering for the teams that everyone loves and wants to see on the big stage every year. I think we all know that the NFL change was about Favre; not the Vikings. The Twins/Sox thing was probably the correct change (They tied for the AL Central lead and the Sox hosted based on coin flip; the Twins won the season series) and would probably have happened regardless of whoever that scenario happened to.

I like organic one game playoffs in baseball as much as anybody, but it's never made sense to me to not use head-to-head as the tie-breaker. A multiple game season series is way more fair in determining the best team than a random one game playoff that is very heavily dependent on luck.

The 1999 Reds beat the Mets 5 times out of 9 in the regular season, but we had to play a one game playoff for the right to play in the LDS. The Mets were able to pitch Al Leiter, the Reds had to pitch Steve Paris. That's bull$h!t.

It's not like the Mets and Reds played nine consecutive games against each other. What was the pitching matchup in the 5th Reds win? Sounds like that game could have come down to luck, too.

If the Reds had won all 9 games against the Mets, yet still finished with the same record, I'm not sure you can say the Reds are more deserving to advance at season's end; in that case, the Mets had a better record the other 153 games.

The one-game playoff is a pretty solid way to go for baseball.

That year? It was probably Pete Harnisch or Ron Villone. There's no perfect way to break ties, but a 9 game series is a far more fair assessment than one game.

And your suggesting that the team that wins the head-to-head record is a worse team is a bad argument. Team A and Team B are two NFL teams in the same division and both finish 11-5. Team A went 2-0 against Team B. By your logic Team B should win the division because they were 11-3 against the rest of the NFL while Team A the winner of the season series was only 9-5. Where that falls apart is the entire point of regular season match ups is to determine who's better on the field against each other for playoff positioning. Team A beat team B twice so they are the better team. As long as they have the same or better record it doesn't matter what happens against the rest of the field.

Yeah - the Reds had 162 opportunities to win; same as the Mets. That it took 163 and the matchups weren't in Cincinnati's favor means they should have won am earlier game to avoid the playoff. There's plenty of opportunity in the baseball schedule to distinguish yourself.

They did distinguish themselves. They both won 96 games in a 162 game season and the Reds had the better head-to-head record out of 9 games. I think that's far more fair than a one game playoff.

[Cosmic]

Regular season ties are awful in the NFL; with so few games and so few ties, a tie is basically a loss for both teams. They're just rare enough that it's not worth "fixing" so they don't happen.

[Dalcowboyfan92]

Regular season ties are awful in the NFL; with so few games and so few ties, a tie is basically a loss for both teams. They're just rare enough that it's not worth "fixing" so they don't happen.

Honestly, if your team can't win a game in 75 minutes of game time, then you don't deserve to win. So yes, I agree with the fact ties are pretty much losses.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Kirk Cousins has an annoying voice. FedEx Field is terrible. There are too many flags this game. Washington has obnoxious fans. Every Washington game is a referendum on the team not, whether it's said aloud or not.

That franchise is the pits and I wish it would be different than it is.

[ninersdd]

Life comes at you fast Kirk Cousins. Eli has more TDs in a game this year then his bro, and the Gmen are stomping the Skins.