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
Barfarn (8h) : Bart's not on injury report, he's startin'
Smokey (8h) : I hope that means that he (Bart Starr) is in better health these days .
Zero2Cool (8h) : Bart Starr returning to Lambeau Field for Packers-Saints game Sunday
Porforis (19-Oct) : Glad to have King back. And House. Packers need 'em.
Zero2Cool (19-Oct) : Good! smack some posts in the forum right?!? :-) can't wait to read it
uffda udfa (18-Oct) : No more clutter.
Cheesey (18-Oct) : Go get him Uncle Ted!!
Zero2Cool (18-Oct) : Former Packers pass-rusher Datone Jones is back on the market.
Zero2Cool (18-Oct) : Good news for #Packers secondary: rookie CB Kevin King and vet CB Davon House (quad) both practiced. King has cleared concussion protocol.
Zero2Cool (18-Oct) : Vince Biegel back on practice field!!
Zero2Cool (18-Oct) : Maybe this little shout has no value if people gonna use it instead of the forum.
Zero2Cool (18-Oct) : He's not writing. He's shouting, and its making the shout kind of without point with the clutter.
buckeyepackfan (18-Oct) : Just like last year at 4-6. The guy is just too funny!
buckeyepackfan (18-Oct) : GOOD news Uffda is already all but writing The Packers off for 2017!
uffda udfa (18-Oct) : Masturbation talk from Barfan? Nothing could make me COME back, quicker.
wpr (18-Oct) : Maybe the shout box needs to take a timeout. People keep using it. ;)
Zero2Cool (18-Oct) : Why do this is in shout? So frustrating. Post in forums. Thanks
Barfarn (18-Oct) : Masterbation will relieve some of that nervous tension!
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : Now, a guy they really liked and have groomed for 3 years is the guy. Tons of toys on O. Let's see how it runs with a great coach, now.
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : The Flynn Patriots game has been used to say that he is. Seneca and Scott showed otherwise.
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : Hundley is going to settle the debate once and for all in whether Mike McCarthy is a great coach, or not.
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : Doesn't speak well to the talent acquired by the org, does it? Easy to say talent is great until Rodgers is gone and you have to see it wit
Porforis (17-Oct) : Could Sam Bradford come into the Packers and post a winning record from here on out? Are there any non-starters in the NFL that could?
Zero2Cool (17-Oct) : Teddy is replaceable. Aaron is not. Vikings have a really good defense. We do not. Understand??
Zero2Cool (17-Oct) : You are wise enough to know the difference. Right?
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : Here's one for you, Z. Vikes lose Teddy B. and go out and aggressively get Bradford. Packers lose 12 and go out and get a UDFA.
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : :) Evans had a pre-draft visit with Packers.
Zero2Cool (17-Oct) : Put it in a topic. My lord why so difficult lol
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/jerod-evans?id=2558099
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/former-virginia-tech-qb-jerod-evans-issues-warning-after-going-undrafted-043017
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : Oh, Jerod Evans formerly of Va Tech is our Hokie QB plan
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : Was previously on Eagles PS
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : Tweeted the below due to huge chip on his shoulder for going undrafted after leaving early.
uffda udfa (17-Oct) : Packers add Jerod Evans to PS. He went undrafted: https://twitter.com/rodfor6_/status/858382534274682884
Smokey (17-Oct) : NO a 6 point favorite to beat the Packers in GB .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
41m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

19-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

18-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / isocleas2

18-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Oct / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

17-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / gotarace

17-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

17-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

Headlines