Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 109
  1. #21
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    NodakPaul wrote:
    I hate that special teams, and pretty much special teams alone, dictate who wins in overtime.
    Hammers my point home doesn't it. Why do you hate this? Cause its only a FG? Because if this happens it means your defense stinks? Because your offense didn't get a chance?

    That isn't correct all, and I am starting to wonder if you have read the articles...
    Of course I've read the articles. In fact I could post about 10 other links to articles that I've read on this.

    Regardless of what article I read, I am still coming away with one opinion on this and that opinion is that it is nothing more than a rule to put the final outcome of a game in the offenses hands to settle the outcome.

    Not a great play by ST's, not a great play by the defense to stop the other team if they get the ball first. Nope, lets just hope our defense can hold them to 3 so our offense can come on and win it.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #22
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    Marrdro wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    I hate that special teams, and pretty much special teams alone, dictate who wins in overtime.
    Hammers my point home doesn't it. Why do you hate this? Cause its only a FG? Because if this happens it means your defense stinks? Because your offense didn't get a chance?

    That isn't correct all, and I am starting to wonder if you have read the articles...
    Of course I've read the articles. In fact I could post about 10 other links to articles that I've read on this.

    Regardless of what article I read, I am still coming away with one opinion on this and that opinion is that it is nothing more than a rule to put the final outcome of a game in the offenses hands to settle the outcome.

    Not a great play by ST's, not a great play by the defense to stop the other team if they get the ball first. Nope, lets just hope our defense can hold them to 3 so our offense can come on and win it.
    Why do I hate it? Because it eliminates 2 out of the 3 aspects of the game - the offense and the defense.

    The new system would mean that a team would have to succeed in more than just special teams to win. They also need their defense or their offense to contribute. A team also couldn't win with just defense. They would need their offense or special teams to contribute. A team could win with just offense, assuming that they got the ball first. But that is no different that the current system. So I don't get why you don't like it.

    Of course, this may be the reason.
    Regardless of what article I read, I am still coming away with one opinion on this and that opinion is that it is nothing more than a rule to put the final outcome of a game in the offenses hands to settle the outcome.
    If you've already made up your mind on something, discussion is kind of moot, huh?
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  3. #23
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    Maybe this will make more sense Marrdro-

    Current System:
    If you get the ball first, you only need to make it to the 35 or so for a legitimate chance at winning. A good special team runback, or just some average offense can set that up. Moving the ball between the 20's is considerably easier than putting it in the endzone.
    If you don't get the ball first, you have to have some very good defense or very good kick off coverage to stop them and get a chance, and if you do get that chance, the odds are that you will have difficult field position.
    Advantage: Team that wins the coin flip because you only have to play "OK" to win, as opposed to the team the loses the coin flip and has to play GREAT to win.

    Proposed system:
    If you win the coin flip, great play by either the offense or ST can still win the game. OK play will not - it will give the other team a chance to win.
    If you lose the coin flip, great play by either the defense can still win the game. OK play will not, but it will give you a chance to win still.

    I don't like seeing teams play OK and win ball games. I like to see some effort, and some great play.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  4. #24
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    I hate that special teams, and pretty much special teams alone, dictate who wins in overtime.
    Hammers my point home doesn't it. Why do you hate this? Cause its only a FG? Because if this happens it means your defense stinks? Because your offense didn't get a chance?

    That isn't correct all, and I am starting to wonder if you have read the articles...
    Of course I've read the articles. In fact I could post about 10 other links to articles that I've read on this.

    Regardless of what article I read, I am still coming away with one opinion on this and that opinion is that it is nothing more than a rule to put the final outcome of a game in the offenses hands to settle the outcome.

    Not a great play by ST's, not a great play by the defense to stop the other team if they get the ball first. Nope, lets just hope our defense can hold them to 3 so our offense can come on and win it.
    Why do I hate it? Because it eliminates 2 out of the 3 aspects of the game - the offense and the defense.

    The new system would mean that a team would have to succeed in more than just special teams to win. They also need their defense or their offense to contribute. A team also couldn't win with just defense. They would need their offense or special teams to contribute. A team could win with just offense, assuming that they got the ball first. But that is no different that the current system. So I don't get why you don't like it.

    Of course, this may be the reason.
    Regardless of what article I read, I am still coming away with one opinion on this and that opinion is that it is nothing more than a rule to put the final outcome of a game in the offenses hands to settle the outcome.
    If you've already made up your mind on something, discussion is kind of moot, huh?
    I actually can be swayed if the discussion points drive me to change.

    Heck, I'm almost a Hicks fan and am starting to like Tebow.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #25
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Maybe this will make more sense Marrdro-
    I'm listening....

    I don't like seeing teams play OK and win ball games. I like to see some effort, and some great play.
    Current System:
    If you get the ball first, you only need to make it to the 35 or so for a legitimate chance at winning. A good special team runback, or just some average offense can set that up.
    Not sure about you, but that sounds like a damn great play by the ST's that would basically be nullified if in fact, the end result was a FG right?

    Moving the ball between the 20's is considerably easier than putting it in the endzone.
    Only if you commit penalties.

    OT
    Minnesota - 15:00
    MIN kicked off, P. Thomas returned kickoff for 40 yards
    Better ST's coverage would have stopped the dude and given the defense a chance at holding them. Instead, they got a nice play out of thier ST's and kicked a FG.

    Under your scenario, the Saints should now be punished for executing (when the Vikes didn't) so that our Offense can have a shot at it.

    So far....ST's nullified. Don't mean anything.

    New Orleans - 14:52
    1st-10, NO39 14:52 P. Thomas rushed to the right for 3 yard gain
    2nd-7, NO42 14:13 R. Bush rushed to the right for 1 yard gain
    3rd-6, NO43 13:33 MIN committed 5 yard penalty
    Defense, 3rd and 6th. Should get off the field and give the ball to our Offense. Oooops. Penalty keeps them on.

    1st-10, NO48 13:26 D. Brees incomplete pass to the right
    2nd-10, NO48 13:21 D. Brees incomplete pass down the middle
    3rd-10, NO48 13:12 D. Brees passed to D. Henderson to the right for 9 yard gain
    4th-1, MIN43 12:40 P. Thomas rushed to the left for 2 yard gain
    1st-10, MIN41 11:52 MIN committed 12 yard penalty
    1st-10, MIN29 11:45 R. Bush rushed to the right for 5 yard loss
    2nd-15, MIN34 11:00 D. Brees passed to R. Meachem down the middle for 12 yard gain
    3rd-3, MIN22 10:24 D. Brees incomplete pass to the right
    4th-3, MIN22 10:15 G. Hartley kicked a 40-yard field goal
    Again, the defense had a shot at executing and stopping them. What happened? Penalty.

    Under your scenario, who cares. They kicked a FG and shouldn't be rewarded for it so our offense can have a shot cause they only scored 3.

    If you don't get the ball first, you have to have some very good defense or very good kick off coverage to stop them and get a chance, and if you do get that chance, the odds are that you will have difficult field position.
    It isn't if you have a good defense, its if you can execute. The Vikes, in this scenario have thus far failed to execute on ST's coverage and now on defense twice. Why should they get rewarded for that "Lack of effort" with the ability to let thier offense take the field?

    Advantage: Team that wins the coin flip because you only have to play "OK" to win, as opposed to the team the loses the coin flip and has to play GREAT to win.
    I'm gonna look it up, however, someone posted this someplace or said it on TV, but its actually pretty even who wins/looses when it comes to overtime.

    (60% to 40% See link below)

    Proposed system:
    If you win the coin flip, great play by either the offense or ST can still win the game. OK play will not - it will give the other team a chance to win.
    If you lose the coin flip, great play by either the defense can still win the game. OK play will not, but it will give you a chance to win still.
    Your not really saying anything other than what I am. All I'm sayinjg is that if you don't win the flip, you must rely on the other 2 aspects of your team (ST's/Defense) to get your offense back on the field.

    In the box score I used (Vikes/Saints NFL Championship game) the Vikes had every opportunity to execute in those two aspects. Because they didn't, the Saints won.

    Saints Vikes Box Score

    Under the new scenario, because the Saints executed, but only to the level to get a FG up, they now get penalized to have to stop not only our ST's (returner) but our offense as well.

    Long story short, I'm a simple man. To me its simple, you want to win and you don't get the coin flip, execute and get the ball back.

    Pretty simple.

    From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

    How Important is the Coin Flip in OT?
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  6. #26
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    Marrdro wrote:
    Long story short, I'm a simple man. To me its simple, you want to win and you don't get the coin flip, execute and get the ball back.

    Pretty simple.
    Works for me. Then it shouldn't matter what system, because that it how it works both ways.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  7. #27
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    Marrdro wrote:
    Under the new scenario, because the Saints executed, but only to the level to get a FG up, they now get penalized to have to stop not only our ST's (returner) but our offense as well.
    How are the Saints getting penalized? They executed well enough to get a FG. We executed well enough to limit them to JUST a FG. Under the old system, they are rewarded for OK execution, we are penalized. Under the proposed system, they are rewarded with 3 points and the chance to win it outright. We are rewarded by getting a chance to win as well.

    If the team that wins the flip executes enough to get a TD, they win. If they only execute enough to get a FG, they can still win, but have to execute on defense as well.

    Does it make ST less of a factor in overtime? Yes it does. Instead of ST being 99% of the game in overtime, it would make it about 33% - just like in regulation. I don't like it when overtime rules dramatically change the way the game is played. Similar to shoot outs in soccer and hockey - they are won or lost more because of chance than skill or teamwork. A 60/40 advantage to the team that gets the ball is pretty significant.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  8. #28
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Long story short, I'm a simple man. To me its simple, you want to win and you don't get the coin flip, execute and get the ball back.

    Pretty simple.
    Works for me. Then it shouldn't matter what system, because that it how it works both ways.
    Your a tricky man. Nice how you let me paint myself in a corner.

    In my defense, I was busy mucking with my good friend CmacD in another thread.

    No way I could have a battle of wits with a cat like you at the same time.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  9. #29
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,499

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    Marrdro wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Long story short, I'm a simple man. To me its simple, you want to win and you don't get the coin flip, execute and get the ball back.

    Pretty simple.
    Works for me. Then it shouldn't matter what system, because that it how it works both ways.
    Your a tricky man. Nice how you let me paint myself in a corner.

    In my defense, I was busy mucking with my good friend CmacD in another thread.

    No way I could have a battle of wits with a cat like you at the same time.
    Like getting stuck between a rock and a stubborn a-hole.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  10. #30
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re:NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Under the new scenario, because the Saints executed, but only to the level to get a FG up, they now get penalized to have to stop not only our ST's (returner) but our offense as well.
    How are the Saints getting penalized? They executed well enough to get a FG. We executed well enough to limit them to JUST a FG. Under the old system, they are rewarded for OK execution, we are penalized. Under the proposed system, they are rewarded with 3 points and the chance to win it outright. We are rewarded by getting a chance to win as well.

    If the team that wins the flip executes enough to get a TD, they win. If they only execute enough to get a FG, they can still win, but have to execute on defense as well.

    Does it make ST less of a factor in overtime? Yes it does. Instead of ST being 99% of the game in overtime, it would make it about 33% - just like in regulation. I don't like it when overtime rules dramatically change the way the game is played. Similar to shoot outs in soccer and hockey - they are won or lost more because of chance than skill or teamwork. A 60/40 advantage to the team that gets the ball is pretty significant.
    We choked it up and just barely stopped them for a FG because of poor execution.

    The Saints are being penalized because they now have to face our offense when in fact, the have already won the game, because of a great play on ST's and not screwing the pooch on offense like the defense did.

    Similar to shoot outs in soccer and hockey - they are won or lost more because of chance than skill or teamwork.
    In this case though, it really isn't team work. Back to the Vikes Saints.

    If, under your rules, the Vikes offense now comes on the field and scores a TD, what role did our ST's and Defense play when it comes to Teamwork?

    Not much if you ask me.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NFL overtime
    By Dieter in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 08:39 PM
  2. N.Y. considers $1,000 fine for feeding pigeons
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 08:33 AM
  3. Kentucky Beats LSU in Overtime
    By COJOMAY in forum College Ball
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 01:18 PM
  4. NFL considers 2 games a year outside U.S
    By Vikes_King in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-04-2006, 12:13 AM
  5. An overtime question...
    By supafreak8403 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-20-2006, 02:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •