|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:27 am
What's with all the quote towers... =_= Seriously... You don't need to quote everything... You're answering the post directly above it... Even if you didn't, we would still know what you were talking about. =/
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:11 pm
Looks like the Playoff modified OT rule has been passed 28-4. Awesome. It makes for better football.
I will say this to all you who love the old system or stick with it because it's tradition.
Just because it's tradition doesn't mean it's right. Make it better and more awesome! Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:42 pm
I don't really hate the new overtime rules, because they're not too different. But I'd still prefer the older ones...
Any one play should be able to win or lose the game. Makes is more exciting and competitive. You should be able to win with offense, defense, or special teams. If you construct an amazing drive down the field for a FG after being pinned deep in your own territory, then you should be able to win. There should be no margin of error in sudden death overtime football. But now, it's okay if you give up a long pass/run/return and hold the opponents to a FG. It can turn into a bend-don't-break philosophy on defense, as long as a FG is given up. And now coaches have crazy decisions by maybe going for it on fourth down for a TD, over a FG...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:40 pm
Ahh... The beauty of the new rule. Bend but don't break happens every time during regulation. Why not during overtime? Except... If after the first possession, you're not allowed to break anymore let alone bend.
And, someday, you might see an onside kick recovered for the win after a field goal. Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:00 pm
Dude-LAP I don't really hate the new overtime rules, because they're not too different. But I'd still prefer the older ones... Any one play should be able to win or lose the game. Makes is more exciting and competitive. You should be able to win with offense, defense, or special teams. If you construct an amazing drive down the field for a FG after being pinned deep in your own territory, then you should be able to win. There should be no margin of error in sudden death overtime football. But now, it's okay if you give up a long pass/run/return and hold the opponents to a FG. It can turn into a bend-don't-break philosophy on defense, as long as a FG is given up. And now coaches have crazy decisions by maybe going for it on fourth down for a TD, over a FG... I'm with him. It would change OT a little more than what we prefer, Plus it's the Kicker's job to win the game at the end with a clutch kick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:00 pm
I wanted them to keep the overtime rule as is. Personally I don't see a problem with it.
It is true that the statistics show that since 1994, the team that wins the coin toss in overtime wins 60% of the time, but that statistic is misleading. For when the team that wins the opening coin toss in overtime, win only 34% of the time on their opening possesion.
If the percentage was heavily in the favor or the team winning in OT on their opening drive, like 75% of the time, then I would probably be in favor of changing the rules, but if they only win on their opening drive 34% of the time which is the case, then I don't see how anyone can use statistics in opposition to the current overtime rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:03 pm
Gnome Beast I wanted them to keep the overtime rule as is. Personally I don't see a problem with it.
It is true that the statistics show that since 1994, the team that wins the coin toss in overtime wins 60% of the time, but that statistic is misleading. For when the team that wins the opening coin toss in overtime, win only 34% of the time on their opening possesion.
If the percentage was heavily in the favor or the team winning in OT on their opening drive, like 75% of the time, then I would probably be in favor of changing the rules, but if they only win on their opening drive 34% of the time which is the case, then I don't see how anyone can use statistics in opposition to the current overtime rule. Plus, I thought that if the NFL was going to change the rule, they would have done it differently. I thought they were going to guarantee each team at least one possession in overtime. A touchdown still automatically wins the game under the new system. I thought that if they were going to end sudden death, they should have at least let the second team with the ball be able to match the touchdown...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:57 am
If they end sudden death, the games would last far too long.
And I like the new rule change. While not perfect, who wants to watch the Super Bowl end on a cheap OT field goal. This makes you have to win it! Yeah!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:44 pm
Nyu-kun If they end sudden death, the games would last far too long. And I like the new rule change. While not perfect, who wants to watch the Super Bowl end on a cheap OT field goal. This makes you have to win it! Yeah! Well I'd think the NFL would either keep sudden death in overtime, or completely do away with it. But they're now running on a semi sudden death, which doesn't make much sense. Pick one or the other. And I don't see anything wrong with winning a game by an overtime field goal. It's part of the game, and a field goal puts points on the scoreboard just like a touchdown. If a team's offense drives 60 yards or something in overtime, and wins it on a short field goal, then I think that's earning it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:25 am
I think thi is a fair rule. I know all sides of the teams should do their jobs but that's just it. What if all sides of both teams have a chance to play in overtime and see which is the better team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:27 am
Dude-LAP Nyu-kun If they end sudden death, the games would last far too long. And I like the new rule change. While not perfect, who wants to watch the Super Bowl end on a cheap OT field goal. This makes you have to win it! Yeah! Well I'd think the NFL would either keep sudden death in overtime, or completely do away with it. But they're now running on a semi sudden death, which doesn't make much sense. Pick one or the other. And I don't see anything wrong with winning a game by an overtime field goal. It's part of the game, and a field goal puts points on the scoreboard just like a touchdown. If a team's offense drives 60 yards or something in overtime, and wins it on a short field goal, then I think that's earning it... Don't you think it's only fair that the other team gets an opportunity? I want both sides of the team to work, not reliaing on just the offense and the defense but both the offense and the deffense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:28 am
I'm with Nyu-Kun, I like the new rule :]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:56 pm
rio_kid Dude-LAP Nyu-kun If they end sudden death, the games would last far too long. And I like the new rule change. While not perfect, who wants to watch the Super Bowl end on a cheap OT field goal. This makes you have to win it! Yeah! Well I'd think the NFL would either keep sudden death in overtime, or completely do away with it. But they're now running on a semi sudden death, which doesn't make much sense. Pick one or the other. And I don't see anything wrong with winning a game by an overtime field goal. It's part of the game, and a field goal puts points on the scoreboard just like a touchdown. If a team's offense drives 60 yards or something in overtime, and wins it on a short field goal, then I think that's earning it... Don't you think it's only fair that the other team gets an opportunity? I want both sides of the team to work, not reliaing on just the offense and the defense but both the offense and the deffense. An NFL franchise will likely play quite a few overtimes in its existence. If they lose an overtime game on poor defense, they may end up winning one on offense again. The new overtime method just drags out the game more, lessens the excitement, and gives a professional team more margin for error in the most crucial time of the game...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:10 pm
Dude-LAP rio_kid Dude-LAP Nyu-kun If they end sudden death, the games would last far too long. And I like the new rule change. While not perfect, who wants to watch the Super Bowl end on a cheap OT field goal. This makes you have to win it! Yeah! Well I'd think the NFL would either keep sudden death in overtime, or completely do away with it. But they're now running on a semi sudden death, which doesn't make much sense. Pick one or the other. And I don't see anything wrong with winning a game by an overtime field goal. It's part of the game, and a field goal puts points on the scoreboard just like a touchdown. If a team's offense drives 60 yards or something in overtime, and wins it on a short field goal, then I think that's earning it... Don't you think it's only fair that the other team gets an opportunity? I want both sides of the team to work, not reliaing on just the offense and the defense but both the offense and the deffense. An NFL franchise will likely play quite a few overtimes in its existence. If they lose an overtime game on poor defense, they may end up winning one on offense again. The new overtime method just drags out the game more, lessens the excitement, and gives a professional team more margin for error in the most crucial time of the game... I disagree...you say it'll drag the game but that's just another way of saying it's gonna be extended...Overtimes is another quarter, of course it's gonna 'drag'. Also, I think it'll be more exciting. See both sides of the team go all out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:55 pm
rio_kid Dude-LAP rio_kid Dude-LAP Nyu-kun If they end sudden death, the games would last far too long. And I like the new rule change. While not perfect, who wants to watch the Super Bowl end on a cheap OT field goal. This makes you have to win it! Yeah! Well I'd think the NFL would either keep sudden death in overtime, or completely do away with it. But they're now running on a semi sudden death, which doesn't make much sense. Pick one or the other. And I don't see anything wrong with winning a game by an overtime field goal. It's part of the game, and a field goal puts points on the scoreboard just like a touchdown. If a team's offense drives 60 yards or something in overtime, and wins it on a short field goal, then I think that's earning it... Don't you think it's only fair that the other team gets an opportunity? I want both sides of the team to work, not reliaing on just the offense and the defense but both the offense and the deffense. An NFL franchise will likely play quite a few overtimes in its existence. If they lose an overtime game on poor defense, they may end up winning one on offense again. The new overtime method just drags out the game more, lessens the excitement, and gives a professional team more margin for error in the most crucial time of the game... I disagree...you say it'll drag the game but that's just another way of saying it's gonna be extended...Overtimes is another quarter, of course it's gonna 'drag'. Also, I think it'll be more exciting. See both sides of the team go all out. Well look at it from his point of view. You get a larger margin of error than with a TD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
