Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NFL Overtime Rulechange(?)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    It's not fair how much the coin flip decides the outcome. To be fair they should challenge each teams offense, defense, kick coverage, and kick return.

    Thanks to BK for the sig

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by njx9
      sure, and there ARE shoot outs. however, the cardinals didn't allow a score in the first quarter, and green bay only allowed one in the fourth. clearly both teams COULD play defense.
      Don't forget the missed game winning chip shot from Rackers.

      that's not what happened and arguing conjecture is pointless. green bay was passing and allowed a sack on 3rd down, even ignoring the fumble and ensuing return. if rodgers had just gone down, they were punting from their 17 yard line, and would've given the cardinals the ball at their own 40 (based on their 41 ypp average) or, at the 46, given breaston's 6 ypr average in that game. when a good team plays the kickoff and then plays defense, they do good things for their offense. if they can't do that when it counts, they have no business winning.
      Ugh Breaston is probably the least dynamic punt returner in the game :(

      millions of dollars support them all season. i'm perfectly willing to listen to any argument (and could even change my mind) that doesn't involve any discussion of 'fair'. fair is not an objective standard, and is thus worthless in the discussion.
      I feel that the current overtime system loses out on some of the potential drama/entertainment. At the moment teams are rewarded for playing conservatively and going for a field goal, at least under the new proposals teams have an incentive for trying for the TD. I know it's not the strongest arguement but it always annoys me when a team gets to the halfway line and then goes into it's shell playing for the field goal.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Stranger View Post
        To be honest I think the whole issue is overblown and would be in favour of getting rid of overtime in the regular season altoghether.



        I am not really vested in them changing the rules but will play devils advocate here.

        I have never liked the "defense is part of the game too" argument. Why should only one sides defense have to perform then?

        Plus it's not like teams are designed with their offense and defense being of equal ability, why punish teams that are built around their offense. Look at the Colts, they have a defense designed to limit the big play, force opponents go on long drives and needs to play with a lead to function at it's best (obviously not the case in overtime). I don't really see them as a group that can force a big stop when it's needed especially if the the opposing offense only needs to get 30-40 yards. Alot of offensive teams follow a similar defensive philosophy as well.

        Still with that said I support an offensive team that has lost the overtime coin toss twice in the last two years and has won both games without our offense touching the ball.
        Then build a better team! Are you seriously whining about the NFL not being fair?

        Originally posted by BeerBaron View Post
        Give each team an offensive possession and everyone is happy. The way it is now is entirely ********. Appeal to Tradition much?
        Why? Teams would be more willing the game in regulation to avoid overtime so sudden death doesn't occur. You don't want to have that handicap then put a beatdown on your opponent in regulation. Simple.

        Originally posted by B-Dawk View Post
        i don't understand why in the playoffs its sudden death, it should just be an extra quarter
        Because football games are long as it is. Players are exhausted after three hours. An extra quarter could also go end up in a tie by the end of regulation. Three hours for a football game is more than enough.

        Originally posted by BaLLiN72 View Post
        Alright i never said what i said was true, i guessed on the % and its most likely wrong. But you cannot argue that a game of higher importance (playoffs) should not rely on any factor other than the ones presented by the teams. A coin is a factor of chance that should have no part in deciding the game.

        Lets say both teams have ****** defenses and the coin toss gave it to one team and they brought it down the field and won with ease. The same thing couldve happened if the other team won the toss.
        So the NFL is supposed to feel sorry for teams that have shyt defense?
        Last edited by Ness; 03-01-2010, 02:12 AM.

        "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
        -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
        Originally posted by Borat
        Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Ness View Post
          Then build a better team! Are you seriously whining about the NFL not being fair?


          Not at all. I don't think the current system is unfair I just have never liked 'well then play defense' argument so decided to explain why.

          I am not really vested in them changing the rules but will play devils advocate here.
          a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position he or she does not agree with for the sake of argument.
          Last edited by Stranger; 03-06-2010, 12:23 AM. Reason: I suck at spelling argument

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Stranger View Post
            Not at all. I don't think the current system is unfair I just have never liked 'well then play defense' arguement so decided to explain why.
            Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. As a team you have four quarters to shut down the other team so overtime is not forced and you aren't put in a situation where you could possibly lose by a field goal. If as a team you are forced to go to overtime then that is entirely on that team's shoulders and there isn't anything "unfair" about it.

            Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

            "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
            -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
            Originally posted by Borat
            Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Ness View Post
              Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. As a team you have four quarters to shut down the other team so overtime is not forced and you aren't put in a situation where you could possibly lose by a field goal. If as a team you are forced to go to overtime then that is entirely on that team's shoulders and there isn't anything "unfair" about it.
              Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
              I get it. That is why I am in favour of getting rid of overtime in the regular season, if neither team was good enough to win in regulation why force a result? From my first post.

              To be honest I think the whole issue is overblown and would be in favour of getting rid of overtime in the regular season altoghether.
              Also the post you quoted I actually state that I don't think the current system is unfair. I think the statistics show something like 57% winning percentage for the team that wins the toss and 30% winning on the first drive. Those percentages don't seem unreasonable to me.

              The point of my first post was to present an argument against 'the defense is part of the game too' position since that has always gotten to me. When I see that I think isn't that an argument for two possesions, since both teams have a defense. Now I am sure you can argue against my reasoning but that is always what pops into my mind when I see it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Again, Why should a defense fail after limiting a team to a field goal? I can understand that if it happens in regulation, because both teams recieve the ball once each at the beginning of a half.

                And since the offense that does not recieve doesn't go onto the field, the same opportunity is not presented and the defense making a stop for a field goal being a failure rather than a triumph, it is not fair at all.

                Originally posted by Dictonary.com
                Fair implies the treating of all sides alike, justly and equitably

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by njx9
                  and i'd always thought he was a great return man... is it just kickoffs?
                  LSH took over the kickoff return duties this year. On punt returns he is reliable and will get you a few yards every time but his big returns are few and far between. He averaged 6.7 last year and 7.2 the year before.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    ah that i can agree with completely. Teams playing conservatively is worse than teams playing and being crappy. At least there is a potential excitement, a risk (although i dont think such a risk should be in playoffs still) so that fans dont turn off the TV as soon as the coin toss is done right njx? ;)

                    I was hoping you would give me a more general definition so i had something to work with but nevertheless, neither team was outmatched; which is why the score is the same. The coin toss is a 50/50 chance, thats fair, a variable both face. However only one team recieves the ball in this period. Leaving the game to chance is a gamble that is unfair to players, teams, owners, fans...etc.

                    I could give you a great explanation of defense countering my opinion (Giants vs Seattle where Jay Feely missed 3 field goals, 2 in overtime i believe, before finally seattle made one), but how many games turn out like that? Making the offense score a touchdown IMO is the only way to solve this.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Stranger View Post
                      I get it. That is why I am in favour of getting rid of overtime in the regular season, if neither team was good enough to win in regulation why force a result? From my first post.
                      Because ties make things way too confusing. Especially for fans. It's complicated enough as it is for teams that are on fighting for wild card spot with a bunch of scenarios determining if they'll get in. Not to mention that it's a lot more exciting to see a team "win" than to have a bunch of tied games. People want to see a victor. It's just that it shouldn't take four hours to do so.

                      "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
                      -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
                      Originally posted by Borat
                      Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Well its official, per NFL.com, It is approved

                        EDIT: And by it, meaning rulechange for OT in Postseason.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by BaLLiN72 View Post
                          Well its official, per NFL.com, It is approved

                          EDIT: And by it, meaning rulechange for OT in Postseason.
                          this is one of the dumbest things I've seen from the NFL

                          apparently defense is no longer part of the game.

                          Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I don't think overtime needed to be changed, but this is the proposal I've hated the least so far.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Ness View Post
                              Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. As a team you have four quarters to shut down the other team so overtime is not forced and you aren't put in a situation where you could possibly lose by a field goal. If as a team you are forced to go to overtime then that is entirely on that team's shoulders and there isn't anything "unfair" about it.

                              Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
                              Yes, but if you lose a coin toss and you are an offense oriented team then it is definitely unfair.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by WinslowBodden View Post
                                Yes, but if you lose a coin toss and you are an offense oriented team then it is definitely unfair.
                                I really hope you're being sarcastic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information