Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Since69  
#1 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 3:22:04 PM(UTC)
I hate seeing any team lose an overtime game without ever getting the chance to touch the ball in the extra period - moreso when it happens to our beloved Packers. Ridiculous that two teams play each other to a standstill for 60 minutes only to have the game decided by a coin toss. Without getting too college-like, I think I can make overtime a little more fair.

Currently existing overtime rules would still apply, but after one team scores, the other team gets one (and only one) possession to try and win. They can't tie - say, by responding to a field goal with one of their own - they have to win.

Assume that Team A is the first to score in overtime:
- If Team A settled for a field goal, Team B can win with a touchdown.
- If Team A scored a touchdown and kicked an extra point, then Team B would need a TD of their own and a successful 2-point conversion.
- If Team A scored a TD and converted a 2-pointer, the game would end immediately, because there's no chance that Team B could score more points with only one possession.

How much more crucial did offensive overtime decisions just get? How much more interesting (and fair) did overtime itself just get?

Whaddya think?
longtimefan  
#2 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 3:27:37 PM(UTC)
your idea is good, but you still have the issue of team B not being able to try to come back with your last option of A with a Td and 2 pointer

that is not different then what we have now, a coin toss is the fate of Team B
McPack  
#3 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 3:54:03 PM(UTC)
I'd prefer just about anything over what we have now...a college style overtime, a 5 minute quarter, a jousting match between the coaches. Both teams deserve an equal shot. It shouldn't be decided by the luck of the coin toss.
El3ment12  
#4 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 3:54:27 PM(UTC)
I say make it like college. Its retarded how the packers had no chance on offense. Think About it. If they get a return to about the 30, then all they have to do is go about 40 yards. Thats it, then they win. Real fair eh?..
flep  
#5 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 4:14:55 PM(UTC)
Sorry to put a dampener on this but it's the rules.

If we had won the toss, driven down field and scored would this thread exist.?

We couldn't have cared less for Tennessee.

We had the chance to win in last years NFC Championship and lost despite having the ball first.

We played a great game last night and but for 2 - 3 dropped interceptions the game would have been out and site and won before the 4th quarter.
Since69  
#6 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 4:59:35 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Sorry to put a dampener on this but it's the rules.

If we had won the toss, driven down field and scored would this thread exist.?

We couldn't have cared less for Tennessee.


No. Of course not. :D

But I think the current system could be inproved by adding a little more competition to the game.

And BTW, I hate the college system - taking turns on a short field over and over for as long as necessary. 21-21 after 4 quarters and someone winds up winning 73-70. Besides, the networks would hate games that dragged on that long. My way avoids that, mostly.
bigfog  
#7 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 5:06:58 PM(UTC)
I'm all for adopting the NCAA's version of overtime. It's fair, it's exciting and dammit - people like it!
flep  
#8 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 5:11:28 PM(UTC)
The only other way is to do it like soccer.

In a cup competion (like the World Cup), knock out games where winner goes though, has an extra time period of 30 minutes (2 periods of 15 minutes each) if the score is tied (drawn) after the initial period of 90 minutes. All 30 minutes is played regardless of whether a team scores or not. For instance if the game finished 1 - 1 and team A scores after 5 minutes of extra time the game would still continue. If team B scores it is then 2 - 2 and the game continues. If however team B does not score team A wins at the end of extra time.

They experimented in having a "Golden Goal" i.e first team to score wins, but for some reason in soccer it was a bit of a downer suddenly ending the game when a team scord so this idea was dropped after a few seasons.

So what I am saying is play the whole 15 minutes and whoever is leading at the end of the 15 is the winner. It would probably be a lot more strategic.

To be honest though I think it isn't broke as it is now so don't fix it.
bigfog  
#9 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 5:57:26 PM(UTC)
Expanding on Since 69's idea - you could have an overtime that was basically a 10 minute quarter. It wouldn't end when someone scored, only when time was up.

Allow FGs, but for touchdowns, eliminate the PAT and require that teams go for two.

At least there's a fair chance that both teams would get the ball. Still might have ties, but at least both teams get a shot.
TengoJuego  
#10 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 6:01:21 PM(UTC)
I just want the college OT rules, BUT a little different, I want a kickoff, that team getting their one possession, if they score(doesn't matter how) then the other team gets their chance to best that. And if neither score, it goes back and forth until one team scores.
agopackgo4  
#11 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 6:36:37 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Sorry to put a dampener on this but it's the rules.

If we had won the toss, driven down field and scored would this thread exist.?

We couldn't have cared less for Tennessee.

We had the chance to win in last years NFC Championship and lost despite having the ball first.

We played a great game last night and but for 2 - 3 dropped interceptions the game would have been out and site and won before the 4th quarter.


It would exist on a Titans forum
bozz_2006  
#12 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 7:37:51 PM(UTC)
Rock. Paper. Scissors. That would play right into our team's strengths too. I've heard whispers that John Kuhn is the most feared rock, paper, scissors competitor in the entire league. He's fierce.
blueleopard  
#13 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 7:49:05 PM(UTC)
They should've called Tails.

Plain and simple.
bozz_2006  
#14 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 7:50:54 PM(UTC)
tails never fails. what were they thinking?
gbpfan  
#15 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 7:56:29 PM(UTC)
i think both teams should have a chance but it is what it is :ramboface:
bozz_2006  
#16 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 8:00:29 PM(UTC)
both teams have a chance with rock paper scissors.
Since69  
#17 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 8:20:44 PM(UTC)
I understand that Scissors can beat Paper, and I get how Rock can beat Scissors, but there's no way in hell Paper can beat Rock! Is Paper supposed to magically "wrap around" Rock, rendering it immobile and ineffective? Why the hell couldn't Paper do this to Scissors?

And screw Scissors; why can't Paper do this to people? Why aren't sheets of notebook paper constantly suffocating students as they attempt to take notes in class?

I'll tell you why - because paper can't beat anything!

When I play Rock/Paper/Scissors, I always choose Rock. Then when somebody claims to have beaten me with their Paper, I can punch them in the face with my already-clenched fist and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. I thought your Paper would protect you, you shithead."
Zero2Cool  
#18 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 8:51:34 PM(UTC)
I am still, pissed.
bozz_2006  
#19 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 9:10:47 PM(UTC)
hahaha. "shithead!"
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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
uffda udfa (15h) : Packers re-sign Christine Michael
Smokey (16h) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (17h) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (17h) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (17h) : ;-)
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : Packers wanted D. Ware in 2005. Thank you Cowboys!
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : lol Rourke
Nonstopdrivel (21-Mar) : I HATE HATE HATE the way all threads get marked as read after viewing a few of them in one session. It's obnoxious.
Smokey (21-Mar) : Check out this site, NFLdraftscout.com , a great resource site.
Smokey (20-Mar) : Jared Cook signs with Raiders .
Smokey (20-Mar) : I did watch SB 45 on YouTube the other night, very eye opening .
Smokey (20-Mar) : Watching Spring Training Baseball, Nationals vs Yankees, very interesting .
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : B1G making some noise in that bracket
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : The more join, the more talk, the better. including John
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : no forum should need one person, we have others, speak up!
gbguy20 (19-Mar) : slow forum needs more uffda
Smokey (19-Mar) : There's always next year .
Smokey (18-Mar) : Virginia is still in it !
Smokey (18-Mar) : On Wisconsin
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Down goes Villanova!! Badgers!!!
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Might have went into your SPAM or JUNK folder??
yooperfan (18-Mar) : Funny I never got the invite
wpr (17-Mar) : Ignoring the Signing Bonus, Jones' base is only $725K above the vet min
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Not many seem interested, but I did invite those from last year.
dhazer (16-Mar) : no bracket challenge Kevin?
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Blame twitter on the /home page here lol
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Datone Jones Vikings deal $3.75M, $1.6M signing bonus, $1.5M salary, $31,250 per game active, $150K workout bonus, $1.25M sacks-pt incentive
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Nope. I don't care to read up on Vikings players. :-)
Bnoble (15-Mar) : Anyone see any numbers on Jones deal?
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Datone to Minnesota.
musccy (14-Mar) : A more $ than I'd prefer, but still glad Elliott is back
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Jayrone back on a one year 1.6 deal.
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Martellus Bennett Contract Details: New Packers TE has just $3.85M cap hit in 2017
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Packers have $28 under cap yet
hardrocker950 (13-Mar) : Walden would be a nice pickup...
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
1m / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

1h / Announcements / Zero2Cool

2h / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / blueleopard

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

13h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

17-Mar / Around The NFL / Smokey

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

Headlines