Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
5 Pages«<2345>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Formo  
#61 Posted : Monday, July 11, 2011 2:04:40 PM(UTC)
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
You guys have put the emphasis on offense. In today's culture, everything is offense, offense, and more offense. In actuality, defense plays a role too. Packer fans should know that because their last two postseason losses occurred because of plays made on defense.


We put emphasis on the offense because the league and it's rules heavily favors the offense. This is why I want the rule's to change.

That being said, I'll survive keeping them as is. I like college ball better anyway.
wpr  
#62 Posted : Monday, July 11, 2011 2:18:44 PM(UTC)
Formo said: Go to Quoted Post
I like college ball better anyway.



DUH. It goes without saying. After all you ARE a Vikings fan.
Pack93z  
#63 Posted : Monday, July 11, 2011 4:39:09 PM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
DUH. It goes without saying. After all you ARE a Vikings fan.



Have you seen the Gophers play football? LOL.. only those a gluten for punishment would resort to the Gophers for their football. :)
wpr  
#64 Posted : Monday, July 11, 2011 4:41:41 PM(UTC)
Pack93z said: Go to Quoted Post




Have you seen the Gophers play football? LOL.. only those a gluten for punishment would resort to the Gophers for their football. :)



Yep I have. Just being a smart donkey.
mi_keys  
#65 Posted : Monday, July 11, 2011 6:29:13 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
If talking to yourself is a sign of impending insanity, then what is quoting yourself a sign of? [duh]


In my case, probably the same.
Greg C.  
#66 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 4:53:07 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I like the argument that both teams had an opportunity for four quarters, therefore don't NEED to have their offense touch the ball once in over time. I think if the rules were to say that both teams offense would get the ball, we'd see less urgency closing out games, thus less exciting finishes.

I'm against changing the rules in overtime. I love an exciting finish and I strongly feel that there will be a sense of urgency missing if the teams both know they'll get the ball in over time.


So maybe the unfairness of the coin toss causes teams to play with more urgency at the end of a game. It's an interesting idea, but I don't buy it. Even if true, they are certainly going to play with urgency during the overtime period. In college, both teams get the ball in overtime, and there seems to be no shortage of urgency. So whatever urgency you might lose at the end of regulation is gained in overtime.

Really what it comes down to is that a lot of us think it's cheap when a team wins the coin toss, picks up a few first downs, and wins the game with a field goal.
wpr  
#67 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:14:18 AM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
I decided the genesis was the Thanksgiving Day game between Chicago and Detroit Nov 27, 1980. Detroit (7-5) was the favored over Chicago (4-8). The Lions kind of bumbled along most of the game and never put away the Bears. That made for a pretty boring game. Yet with no time left on the clock the Bears scored to tie the game. They then took the kick 95 yards to win in OT. Even though I am for the most part anti Bears, I and everyone in the room, had to admit that was one heck of a fun game to watch.

Now people try and tell me that it was not fair that Detroit did not get yet another chance to win the game. I don't feel the same way. Some have even advocated doing away with the kick off all together and want to set the ball on the 20 yard line instead. I hope it never happens.



I am still waiting to hear why my post several days ago on page 3 is wrong. By your combined silence I assume you all agree with me. [roflmao]
Formo  
#68 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:58:43 PM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
I am still waiting to hear why my post several days ago on page 3 is wrong. By your combined silence I assume you all agree with me. [roflmao]


Picking ONE game out of how many to prove your point doesn't make it valid/invalid.

Greg C. nailed it on the head.
wpr  
#69 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:08:50 PM(UTC)
Formo said: Go to Quoted Post
Picking ONE game out of how many to prove your point doesn't make it valid/invalid.

Greg C. nailed it on the head.



sure it does. It may be only one game but it could happen in any OT game. And it was perhaps the best finish to an OT game (at least on Thanksgiving) ever.

But given the sissy way of lining the ball up at the 20 or sharing the ball concept denies the opportunity from ever happening again.
You are trying to deny my rights. Where is the ACLU when you need them? Or the NAACP or the SPCA or one of those darn groups? Laugh
Formo  
#70 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:24:46 PM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
sure it does. It may be only one game but it could happen in any OT game. And it was perhaps the best finish to an OT game (at least on Thanksgiving) ever.

But given the sissy way of lining the ball up at the 20 or sharing the ball concept denies the opportunity from ever happening again.
You are trying to deny my rights. Where is the ACLU when you need them? Or the NAACP or the SPCA or one of those darn groups? Laugh


To each their own, I guess.

While that game MAY have been an awesome OT.. I think the anxiety being a college OT game is much more relevant, thus making it more exciting. I use the OT game PSU at Minnesota that ended on a phantom PI call.. Never was I more wound up over an OT in any sport than I was at that game. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that I was at the game, but even the OT games the Vikings were in during the 98 and 09 NFC Championship games I wasn't as wound up.
Greg C.  
#71 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:27:15 PM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
I am still waiting to hear why my post several days ago on page 3 is wrong. By your combined silence I assume you all agree with me. [roflmao]


Silence does not mean that everyone agrees with you. Sometimes it just means that people forgot to write about it. I remember that game. It was an awesome finish. It was also highly exceptional. It did not feel cheap because returning a kickoff for a TD is a hard thing to do. Picking up a few first downs and kicking a field goal is not that hard to do, especially after 60 minutes of play when the defenses are often gassed.
wpr  
#72 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:29:36 PM(UTC)
For the sake of "fairness" let's just require teams to play everyone on the roster for at least 1 quarter.
wpr  
#73 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:31:13 PM(UTC)
Greg C. said: Go to Quoted Post
Silence does not mean that everyone agrees with you. Sometimes it just means that people forgot to write about it.



Greg I know that. Just rattling a few chains.
Nonstopdrivel  
#74 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:57:44 PM(UTC)
My chains are too heavy to rattle. They clank.
wpr  
#75 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:25:31 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
My chains are too heavy to rattle. They clank.


that works too.
Stevetarded  
#76 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:52:34 PM(UTC)
The problem I have with people who argue that "well the defense should just make a stop" in OT is that even if they do make a stop their team still doesn't win which is where it becomes unfair. The team that loses the coin flip has to make a stop defensively AND drive down the field for a score. The team that wins the coin toss just has to drive down the field for the score. It would be ok with me if they moved their new OT rules to the regular season as well as the playoffs.
mi_keys  
#77 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:37:05 PM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
sure it does. It may be only one game but it could happen in any OT game. And it was perhaps the best finish to an OT game (at least on Thanksgiving) ever.Laugh


It may well have been one of the most exciting finishes to a game ever (it was 8 years before my time so I can't speak from experience but from what you've described it sure as hell does sound exciting). However, it's anecdotal evidence so no, it doesn't prove or really validly support any argument. I don't even know what exactly you were trying to argue with that case but it is very much a statistical outlier regardless. That's probably the reason no one bothered to respond to it.
wpr  
#78 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 8:37:06 PM(UTC)
mi_keys said: Go to Quoted Post
It may well have been one of the most exciting finishes to a game ever (it was 8 years before my time so I can't speak from experience but from what you've described it sure as hell does sound exciting). However, it's anecdotal evidence so no, it doesn't prove or really validly support any argument. I don't even know what exactly you were trying to argue with that case but it is very much a statistical outlier regardless. That's probably the reason no one bothered to respond to it.



Just because you disagree does not mean it is anecdotal. It reaffirms what I have been saying all along. It shows that OT games where both teams are not required to have the ball on offense can result in memorable, exciting games. Just because you are too young to have experienced it does not make it so. And I will repeat, if both teams are required to have the ball there will never ever be these types of games again. That they don't happen all the time makes it all the better.
mi_keys  
#79 Posted : Friday, July 15, 2011 4:28:31 AM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
Just because you disagree does not mean it is anecdotal. It reaffirms what I have been saying all along. It shows that OT games where both teams are not required to have the ball on offense can result in memorable, exciting games. Just because you are too young to have experienced it does not make it so. And I will repeat, if both teams are required to have the ball there will never ever be these types of games again. That they don't happen all the time makes it all the better.


Never be these types of games again? What about returns at the very end of the game (like what happened in the Giants and Eagles game last year)? That happened regardless of what playoff system was in place. What about in the current playoff system if the first team scored a field goal (or didn't score at all for that matter) and the second team returned the next kickoff/punt for a touchdown to win?

Me disagreeing with you on overtime is not what makes it anecdotal. I called it such as it is a rare exception and not representative of what usually happens in the current over time system. As I said, it's an outlier. I also never said it wasn't exciting (to the contrary, I said I believed you). I agree overtime games can be memorable and exciting and I find they usually are given their inherent closeness. I don't think anyone here has tried to claim they can't be memorable and exciting. Unless all you are trying to do is point out an exception, picking out one game from a sample of hundreds does not really tell you anything about how the system works overall. Which is what you seem to have been doing (pointing out an exception). So if so, my mistake.
wpr  
#80 Posted : Friday, July 15, 2011 5:11:27 AM(UTC)
*sigh* my point was/is that changing the OT rules takes away this kind of a finish.
I am sorry I have not watched every single OT and nor do I have total recall on the ones I have watched. I am sure there were other OT games that were equally as exciting. My mentioning the Detroit-Bears game was not to twist the conversation into an unfair advantage. I was trying to explain where my love of the current rule structure came from. And why I don't want to see it messed with. If there is a chance for an exciting ending like that again I want to leave the rule alone. There is not a single fan that doesn't hope their team does the same thing when the ball is kicked to them to begin the OT period. There is not a single (knowledgeable) fan on the kicking team that hopes it doesn't happen to them. By leaving the current system in place it creates the possibility of that exact same ending every single game. Whether nor not it comes to pass is not the issue. That it can happen and has happened in the past is. And that hope/excitement is there for every single OT kickoff.

The exciting end of regulation games has nothing to do with OT and the coin flip.


That said I really wish I had stuck to my comment I made a few days ago and stopped arguing. Nothing is going to change and I am tired of it. I am disappointed in myself for getting drawn back into all of this. As I said before I am content with the current rules. Many of yo are not. The powers that be are not going to make any changes for at least 3-4 years. They will watch and see if the rule change of moving the ball up to the 35 yard line decreases the number of times the receiving team wins on the opening drive. They will watch to see how many times the team wins via a FG. After that they will decide if they want to make any other changes to the OT rules.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages«<2345>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Smokey (2h) : Packers sign OG Justin McCray, 321 lbs out of C.Florida .
Cheesey (6h) : She wanted people to recognize who it was, and that was the only way anyone would!LOL!
Porforis (13h) : Sorry, BEAR ass.
Porforis (13h) : Jay Cutler's bare ass photographed by wife, put on social media.
Zero2Cool (14h) : I shouldn't be shocked there, but I am.
Zero2Cool (14h) : MM: Cook played very well for us, give him ton of credit for coming back, he almost went on IR
Zero2Cool (17h) : And it is now "Just Sin, Baby"
Zero2Cool (17h) : They won't sat, they will sit.
Smokey (20h) : Yes The Raiders will be moving to Las Vegas, will they still sat "Just Win Baby" ?
Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : Marschawn Lynch at 2.20
Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : Eddie Lacy has averaged 2.15 yards per rush after contact since entering the NFL in 2013. The only back to average more in that time: Marsh
Smokey (28-Mar) : not so , Miami voted no .
Nonstopdrivel (27-Mar) : The twist? The only team to vote against the move was Oakland.
Smokey (27-Mar) : NFL Owner's vote 31 - 1 for the Raiders to move to Las Vegas in 2020 .
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Mark Murphy: Teams paid 'more than we thought was reasonable' for Packers' free agents
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Seahawks backup quarterback arrested for marijuana possession after car he was riding in drives into a bar
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : I see JT, you should tell JT to post.
hardrocker950 (27-Mar) : Nice to see that Dorleant got arrested just a few miles from here...
Cheesey (26-Mar) : Sanchez with the Bears....LOLOLOL!!!!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : We should hope it does not happen.
hardrocker950 (25-Mar) : I doubt that happens...
Smokey (24-Mar) : GB needs to trade up in the draft to get THE Ohio State CB - Marshon Lattimore !
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : QB Mark Sanchez joining the Bears.
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : double it up
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : I'm kidding, relax....
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : and now he has been cut
uffda udfa (23-Mar) : Per Schefter: Former Skins DT Ricky Jean Francois signed a one-year, $3M deal with Packers, per source.
uffda udfa (23-Mar) : Per Schefter: FormerSkins DT Ricky Jean Francois signed a one-year, $3M deal with Packers, per source.
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : lol by .01 not what i thought
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : he's faster than Montgomery
uffda udfa (22-Mar) : Packers re-sign Christine Michael
Smokey (22-Mar) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : ;-)
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / RaiderPride

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

7h / Around The NFL / Cheesey

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

28-Mar / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / RainX

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

Headlines