Green Bay Packers Forum
2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline 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?
Sponsor
Offline 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
Offline 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.
Offline 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?..
Offline 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.
Offline 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. Very Happy

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.
Offline 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!
Offline 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.
Offline 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.
Offline 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.
Offline 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
Offline 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.
Offline blueleopard  
#13 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 7:49:05 PM(UTC)
They should've called Tails.

Plain and simple.
Offline bozz_2006  
#14 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2008 7:50:54 PM(UTC)
tails never fails. what were they thinking?
Offline 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 Rambo Face:
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
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


Recent Topics
59m / Green Bay Packers Talk / OlHoss1884

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT


Tweeter