You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

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.

Notification

Icon
Error

6 Pages«<456
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Stevetarded  
#76 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:52:34 PM(UTC)
Stevetarded

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,348
Joined: 9/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 63

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.
blank
Online mi_keys  
#77 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:37:05 PM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,311
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 140
Applause Received: 216

Originally Posted by: wpr 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.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Offline wpr  
#78 Posted : Thursday, July 14, 2011 8:37:06 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,866
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,405
Applause Received: 1,192

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 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.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Online mi_keys  
#79 Posted : Friday, July 15, 2011 4:28:31 AM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,311
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 140
Applause Received: 216

Originally Posted by: wpr 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.

Edited by user Friday, July 15, 2011 4:44:27 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Born and bred a cheesehead
Offline wpr  
#80 Posted : Friday, July 15, 2011 5:11:27 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,866
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,405
Applause Received: 1,192

*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.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline Stevetarded  
#81 Posted : Friday, July 15, 2011 5:46:42 AM(UTC)
Stevetarded

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,348
Joined: 9/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 63

Actually I'm pretty sure the circumstances of that game would be exactly the same with the new rules. I think that if the first team with possession scores a TD they win. The other team only gets the ball in the case of a FG being kicked by the first team.
blank
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#82 Posted : Friday, July 15, 2011 12:20:53 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,691
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 365
Applause Received: 263

So we leave a system in place that grants the team winning a chance event a statistically huge advantage, purely on the outside chance that somewhere between 0.5% and 2% of games will have thrilling finishes? That logic completely eludes me. It's the functional equivalent of deciding overtime by lottery.

My opinion of the sudden-death system is not affected by who is playing or by who wins. When I am watching two teams I care nothing about, I am just as dissatisfied when one of the teams drives down the field for a field goal to end the game as I am disappointed when the Packers lose in similar fashion. Similarly, when the Packers kick a field goal win in overtime, I am rarely thrilled at the finish -- I find planned field goals boring and anticlimactic. I'm more just relieved they managed to pull it off and didn't get screwed by some quirk in the game. I want to feel like the team who won actually outplayed their opponent, not that they happened to profit from a lucky flip of the coin.

I don't get much, if any, pleasure out of watching overtime in the NFL. Mostly I am just a nervous wreck, wincing at every aggressive play that might go wrong, and totally wrung out (and more often than not, feeling let down) when it ends.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#83 Posted : Monday, December 2, 2013 8:45:30 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,223
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,740
Applause Received: 1,790

Just don't end any game in a TIE!!!

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages«<456
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.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.165 seconds.