Green Bay Packers Forum

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
9 Pages«<34567>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#41 Posted : Saturday, July 9, 2011 11:22:26 PM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

United States
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany
Applause Given: 389
Applause Received: 263
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
The teams that are screwed in overtime are the teams that buckle under pressure.

The problem with this argument is that it is fuzzy and nebulous. As a benchmark for evaluating the fairness of the overtime system, it suffers from a lack of falsifiability, which is the hallmark of any scientific hypothesis. What is your definition of a team that buckles under pressure? All one has to do is define that term as a team that happens not to be able to prevent an offense from "driving 50 yards to setup a 47-yard field goal" in an overtime situation and voilá, you win the argument by default. For that reason, it is about as useful as ranking quarterbacks by their "intangibles." It can be whatever you want it to be.

It seems to me that most of the people making the argument for a sudden-death system in football have never taken a basic statistics course. Statistically speaking, the advantage that accrues to the team winning the coinflip is huge and the correlations are undeniable. The stubborn clinging to a status quo that was chosen purely for reasons of expedience in the modern TV era must be rooted in a sort of purist philosophy, but I don't understand why it is to that particular status quo that the purists have chosen to cling. It reminds me of the way conservatives point to the "traditional family values" of the 1950s, an era that was a brief snapshot in American history, and not a very representative one at that.
Offline porky88  
#42 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:26:23 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2015

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 250
Applause Received: 506
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
The problem with this argument is that it is fuzzy and nebulous. As a benchmark for evaluating the fairness of the overtime system, it suffers from a lack of falsifiability, which is the hallmark of any scientific hypothesis. What is your definition of a team that buckles under pressure? All one has to do is define that term as a team that happens not to be able to prevent an offense from "driving 50 yards to setup a 47-yard field goal" in an overtime situation and voilá, you win the argument by default. For that reason, it is about as useful as ranking quarterbacks by their "intangibles." It can be whatever you want it to be.

It seems to me that most of the people making the argument for a sudden-death system in football have never taken a basic statistics course. Statistically speaking, the advantage that accrues to the team winning the coinflip is huge and the correlations are undeniable. The stubborn clinging to a status quo that was chosen purely for reasons of expedience in the modern TV era must be rooted in a sort of purist philosophy, but I don't understand why it is to that particular status quo that the purists have chosen to cling. It reminds me of the way conservatives point to the "traditional family values" of the 1950s, an era that was a brief snapshot in American history, and not a very representative one at that.

You overlooked the complete point of my post. The argument isn't that OT is perfect the way it is. I'm not denying that there is an advantage to winning a coin toss. Frankly, I'm not against tweaks, though I think the current postseason OT system is not the way to go. The argument is a coin toss does not decide a game. In fact, not one thing EVER decides a football game. It's as simple as that. In every scenario presented, players still decide the outcome.

The same way a coin toss doesn't decide a football game can be applied to the Aaron Rodgers fumble against the Cardinals. Rodgers isn't to blame for losing the game in that scenario. Certainly, he buckled under pressure Flapper, but you can point to other factors that played a role in the outcome of the game as well.
Offline wpr  
#43 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 6:10:39 AM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2014FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 3,505
Applause Received: 1,765
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post


It seems to me that most of the people making the argument for a sudden-death system in football have never taken a basic statistics course.



Well I was going to remain silent as no one is going to change the other person's mind. For the most part we keep discussing two separate issues. You seem to think the NFL created the current OT to make the game fair. The did so to break a tie. They didn't care who won or how they won. America demanded an end to tie games and they gave it to us. I am ok with that. You and others are not. I am fine with that too.

As for statistic classes- I have had several. I understand the concept. (Did very well in the classes too.) That has no bearing on the discussion as you are not quantifying the sample size properly. From my perspective. You know and I know and many others know we can tweak the data to come up with any conclusion we want. As porky was saying make the pool larger. Add in to the OT games additional data. Tell us how many times the losing team fumbled the ball in the regulation period. Tell us how many Ints they gave up. Tell us how many dropped passes they had. Tell us how many pick 6's their DB let slip through their fingers.

All we are saying is there is a lot more to the game than the coin flip. You ignore all the rest of it and are fixated on that one portion. Sure it is a sample size. Relevant to you. Not relevant to me.

For now the NFL is going to leave the rule as is. I am fine with that. You are not. Oh well. Then who says life is fair? If they change it you will be happy I will see it as needless. Consider it more meddling which the NFL is so good at and accept it. Truth of the matter they will prob change it. Bit they are going to wait a few years and see how the new spot of the KO impacts the game and OT before they make any change. So just relax and wait 3-4 years.
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#44 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 7:10:07 AM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

United States
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany
Applause Given: 389
Applause Received: 263
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
The same way a coin toss doesn't decide a football game can be applied to the Aaron Rodgers fumble against the Cardinals.

I am not sure how useful it is to cite this game in this context, however, as that game is a prime example of a situation in which both teams touched the ball. True, it supports your contention that the defense should be able to make a play to stop the offense, but in this case, Rodgers had already lost the ball before contact was made, and he furthered the damage of what was in many ways a freak play by subsequently kicking a ball that should have been dead the moment it hit the ground, thereby prolonging the play and giving the defender a chance to retrieve it. So while it was an opportunistic play on the part of the defender, it was also primarily a failure on the part of the offense -- specifically, the quarterback.

Of course, had Aaron Rodgers managed to connect with Greg Jennings earlier in the drive, this game would probably have been yet another classic case of a game in which the opposing team never got to touch the ball. \:d/

" said: Go to Quoted Post
You seem to think the NFL created the current OT to make the game fair.

No, I most certainly do not. I wrote in my post above that the current OT format was chosen out of expedience given the constraints of the modern TV era. In other words, it was chosen not to be fair, but to end games more quickly. And given that fairness is usually a prized attribute of sporting competition, I expressed surprise that a lot of the purists cling to such a system that is self-consciously not based on principles of fairness.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
Add in to the OT games additional data.

Leaving out the fact that some of your suggestions (dropped INTs by DBs, for example) are inherently subjective, what would the introduction of these additional data points prove?

" said: Go to Quoted Post
If they change it you will be happy I will see it as needless.

Again, you miss my point. I have stated repeatedly in the past that I consider the current system "needless," as you put it. I do not understand why the league and fans are so dead-set on ensuring that ties do not happen. I personally would not be at all bothered if the old system were brought back and we saw more ties in the standings. I personally think it would be more interesting.

Like you, I get tired of the incessant rule changes in football. One of the nice things about baseball is that one can make pretty relevant comparisons between eras, because for all practical purposes, the rules and the schedule format have been static for over 100 years. It is impossible to do that with professional football. For one thing, the length of the season has steadily increased over the decades; for another, the rules change every single year; for yet another, the postseason format has continued to evolve. Season and career records are not just all that meaningful in the NFL when compared to a sport like baseball.
Offline wpr  
#45 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 7:44:58 AM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2014FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 3,505
Applause Received: 1,765
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post

Again, you miss my point. I have stated repeatedly in the past that I consider the current system "needless," as you put it. I do not understand why the league and fans are so dead-set on ensuring that ties do not happen. I personally would not be at all bothered if the old system were brought back and we saw more ties in the standings. I personally think it would be more interesting.


The ties you cherish in other sports (Olympic hockey world cup soccer for the most part) I find terrible and boring. There is nothing worse than watch a pool match in which one team is content to merely tie in order to advance to the next round. Boring BORING BORING. Don't get me wrong if I was the coach I would do the same thing.

I have been thinking about why I like the current OT system. What was it in the past that made me feel this way.

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.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#46 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 8:22:22 AM(UTC)
Rank: Premier Member

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2015Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,323
Applause Received: 3,584
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.
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#47 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 8:51:21 AM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

United States
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany
Applause Given: 389
Applause Received: 263
It is a pretty big overstatement to say that I "cherish" ties. I said seeing ties in the standings would be interesting; that is, it would make the playoff scenarios more intriguing.

By the way, anyone who finds sports that involve ties boring has never watched, for example, rugby union, which allows for ties but includes incentives to avoid them. Postseason standings are seeded by the accumulation of tournament points. In SuperRugby, for example, teams accrue 4 tournament points for each regular season victory, 2 points for each tie, 1 point for scoring at least four tries (the rugby equivalent of a touchdown) in one game, and 1 point for losing by less than 7 points.

So there is very little incentive to settle for a tie, and teams typically try their hardest to score as time expires. For this reason, the last quarter of most games tends to be far the most exciting. In fact, I see a lot more last-second scoring in rugby union than I ever do in the NFL -- and none of that silly settling for field goals, either. They go for tries.
Offline vikesrule  
#48 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 8:51:48 AM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/4/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 193
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
... 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.


Agreed

Classic epic failure....

Quote:
NFL's Worst All-Time Coaching Decisions
3. Dennis Green Gets Waaaay Too Conservative

UserPostedImage

The Falcons and Vikings were tied at 27 in the all-dome matchup of the '99 NFC championship with 30 seconds left. The Vikings had two timeouts left, and also had the most prolific offense to date in the history of the NFL. No wind to worry about. No snow. Forty yards would have been enough to get Gary Andersen (perfect in the regular season) into field-goal range.
But Green left the fate of his entire season to the overtime coin flip by having QB Randall Cunningham take a knee.
Atlanta won the toss, showed they are who Green THOUGHT they were, and promptly won the game without the Vikes ever seeing the ball again. Most humiliating for Green (pictured below, being consoled by Falcons coach Dan Reeves)? Being replaced by draft-day guru Mike Tice three years later.


Offline Zero2Cool  
#49 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:51:42 AM(UTC)
Rank: Premier Member

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2015Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,323
Applause Received: 3,584
vikesrule said: Go to Quoted Post
Agreed

Classic epic failure....




Hey, does this look familiar to you?
Offline vikesrule  
#50 Posted : Sunday, July 10, 2011 10:04:16 AM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/4/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 193
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
Hey, does this look familiar to you?


Ya know Z2C, if I had $10 for every time that I've called you an asshole...I could retire to a life of luxury on a Caribbean island.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
9 Pages«<34567>»
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
Cheesey (25-Jul): Me neither. He did virtually nothing after he left the Packers.
Zero2Cool (25-Jul): WR Greg Jennings retires. I think I should be surprised, but I'm not.
Cheesey (23-Jul): It's sad, he was young.
wpr (22-Jul): Sorry to hear about Dennis passing away.
Zero2Cool (22-Jul): Hopefully people respect his passing without trying to make jokes.
Zero2Cool (22-Jul): Damn, Dennis Green passed away.
Zero2Cool (22-Jul): Bahahahah
Smokey (16-Jul): Playing 2016 Fantasy Football ? NO ? Contact me to join the Tailgaters Fantasy Football League !
wpr (15-Jul): Happy birthday since69
Zero2Cool (15-Jul): Whoa!Today's Birthdays: Since69 (51)
Zero2Cool (15-Jul): No sir. But at work we had our A/C go out, not fun lol
Smokey (14-Jul): Did recent bad weather affect you Zero ? ie: loss of electricity ?
Zero2Cool (14-Jul): stay cool bud ... thats some hot crap there
Smokey (14-Jul): Heat Index 104* : Richmond , VA.
Zero2Cool (14-Jul): Richard Rodgers and Aaron Rodgers win ESPY for play of year!! Wohooo
Smokey (14-Jul): A.Rodgers wins ESPY for Hail Mary Play .
Smokey (14-Jul): The ESPY's are ON !
Cheesey (13-Jul): Yeah...stinky cheese, for sure!
yooperfan (12-Jul): Happy belated birthday Cheesey, may you have many more!
Zero2Cool (11-Jul): That be some old cheese yo!! lol
Cheesey (10-Jul): Porforis, I won't live THAT long!
Porforis (10-Jul): You'll live just long enough for the Vikings to win a super bowl. Thankfully, I think you're going to outlive all of us!
wpr (10-Jul): Hey Alanhope you have a great day.
Cheesey (10-Jul): Thanks guys. I'm 59 today. Never thought I'd live this long.
Smokey (9-Jul): MAY THE PACK BE WITH YOU !
Smokey (9-Jul): I did not know Cheesey , HAPPY BIRTHDAY !! \_/
Cheesey (9-Jul): Guess I'll have to wish myself a happy birthday.
wpr (1-Jul): Hey grabacr hope you had a fantastic day
Zero2Cool (30-Jun): Today's Birthdays: Grabacr (28)
wpr (30-Jun): Be nice Zero. She was here on the 15th. She stops in but doesn't post.
Zero2Cool (29-Jun): Last I remember of her is complaining about the back alley, rather than just AVOIDING IT. Annoying.
Cheesey (29-Jun): I agree. Happy B-day "Illy Jules!"Wish you were still here!
Wade (28-Jun): Happy birthday, Julie, wherever you are.
Zero2Cool (28-Jun): Today's Birthdays: 4PackGirl (47)
Zero2Cool (24-Jun): ;-)
Please sign in to use Fan Shout

Road To Super Bowl LI
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 @ 12:00 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 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions

Think About It
Think About It

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

3h / Around The NFL / Cheesey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackerTraxx

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

25-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool


Packers Headlines