Turn Off Ads?
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 115 of 115

Thread: Vikes v. Saints game thread

  1. #106
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    10,164

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    FWIW I think Childress blew the game. I was confused at the time, and still am somewhat confused by the play calling during Minnesota's last possession. Minn was set up with a 50+ yard FG at the time and Childress calls up to ultra conservative running plays. That is fine if you have a 40 yard FG or 35 yd FG, but not a 50 yarder. Then when Minn has 12 men in the huddle your moved back to a 55+ yard FG where you need to pass the ball. Favre knew he needed to make a play and unfortunately for Minn he threw an int.

    As for OT the only change I would make is guarantee the opposite team gets a possession. If both teams touch the ball in OT I have no problem with that.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #107
    Member redsfandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,564

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray View Post
    I agree with your rant and for that reason I just tune out such talk. I also tune out the saying "well, they should never have been in a position where a bad call could cost them the game." Hey, it's the NFL and everyone's got players and competition is stiff. Calls by the officials could easily determine winners/losers.
    I don't think bad calls should be ignored. But I can't agree with blaming the loss on one bad call when there were so many turnovers. Was the bad call a factor in the loss? Sure. Were the turnovers a bigger factor in the loss? Yep.
    "Now that's a real shame when folks be throwin' away a perfectly good white boy like that."

  4. #108
    Be the ball Roy Tucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mason, OH
    Posts
    12,123

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    Read this in Bill Plaschke's column on tie-breakers. It makes a whole lot of sense to me.

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-....column?page=2

    Give both teams the ball.

    If a team that wins the coin toss scores, then that team kicks off to the other team for its one shot. If the team that wins the toss is stopped, the other team simply takes over and they play until someone scores.

    Pay attention to the open sky

  5. #109
    Member NJReds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    5,432

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Tucker View Post
    Read this in Bill Plaschke's column on tie-breakers. It makes a whole lot of sense to me.

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-....column?page=2
    It makes too much sense. I can't see a downside.
    "The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson

  6. #110
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,387

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    I've said this before and I firmly believe that the NFL likes the term "Sudden Death" when it comes to overtime. It makes it sound risky and dangerous. Any other kind of overtime is not sudden death so it takes away some of the excitement of the idea. There's also something to be said for a format where a score could end the game immediately. It keeps viewers glued to their sets because they know that the next play could be the last one. If you have an overtime where each team gets a shot - be it college style or an extra period where each team gets a chance - the drama is lessened somewhat. If one team scores, you know the other team will get a chance and you can turn the channel during a commercial.

    Wikipedia says that overtime for the playoffs started in 1941. They more than likely modeled it after hockey. It makes more sense in hockey where possession changes quite often. I believe the first actual scheduled championship game was in 1933. I wonder what they would have done if there was a tie before 1941? But in the 40s, it wasn't as easy to score as it is now. You didn't play on Field Turf in domes and there weren't field goal kicking specialists who could kick a 40-50 yard field goal with regularity. The ball wasn't as tapered as it is now and offenses weren't built to throw the ball all over the place. Back then, sudden death probably seemed like a good idea because it would have been more likely that each team had the ball at least once. I don't think sudden death is that big of a problem since studies have shown the team that wins the toss only wins less than 50% of the time. Look at the Arizona-New Orleans divisional playoff game. Arizona won the toss and NO won on a turnover on the first series.

    But I think if you really want to make it fair there should be a 10 minute extra period where every element of the game is used. If, at the end of the extra period, go to sudden death in the playoffs. In the regular season, I'd call it a tie after the extra period.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  7. #111
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,547

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    But I think if you really want to make it fair there should be a 10 minute extra period where every element of the game is used. If, at the end of the extra period, go to sudden death in the playoffs. In the regular season, I'd call it a tie after the extra period.

    How makes this idea superior to the one put forth by me and others including Bill Plaschke?

    Your scenario would make the game unnecessarily long.

  8. #112
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,965

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    I'm just thinking aloud here...

    What about giving each team 5 plays from their opponent's 5 yd line. Team who scores the most touchdowns wins, kinda like soccer's format.

  9. #113
    Member hebroncougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bucksfan2 View Post
    FWIW I think Childress blew the game. I was confused at the time, and still am somewhat confused by the play calling during Minnesota's last possession. Minn was set up with a 50+ yard FG at the time and Childress calls up to ultra conservative running plays. That is fine if you have a 40 yard FG or 35 yd FG, but not a 50 yarder. Then when Minn has 12 men in the huddle your moved back to a 55+ yard FG where you need to pass the ball. Favre knew he needed to make a play and unfortunately for Minn he threw an int.

    As for OT the only change I would make is guarantee the opposite team gets a possession. If both teams touch the ball in OT I have no problem with that.
    Well, obviously he shouldn't be calling pass plays in pressure situations, Sir Brett proved that. So, I guess he should have been calling runs......oh wait, they had how many fumbles? Sorry, this loss sure as heck isn't on the coach, he wasn't the one turning the ball over.

  10. #114
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,387

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray View Post
    How makes this idea superior to the one put forth by me and others including Bill Plaschke?

    Your scenario would make the game unnecessarily long.
    See, there you go with reading comprehension again. Did I say it was superior? It's just my opinion and you don't have to like it. And I'm going to say this only once: Stop taking things I and others say out of context. It looks like you are trying to start an argument. I'd rather you just put me on ignore.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  11. #115
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,547

    Re: Vikes v. Saints game thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    See, there you go with reading comprehension again. Did I say it was superior? It's just my opinion and you don't have to like it. And I'm going to say this only once: Stop taking things I and others say out of context. It looks like you are trying to start an argument. I'd rather you just put me on ignore.
    I wasn't trying to start any arguments but I was trying to stimulate discussion. You brought up another idea and my intention was to compare and contrast your idea with others brought up. I was expecting you to explain your suggestion. Isn't that what this board is all about?


    Don't take me personally, Chip. I find agreement quite boring so I generally don't pop in unless I disagree with something. So if you wonder why everytime you hear from me I'm disagreeing with what you've written, that's why. I'm not a rah, rah high five guy.

    I assumed you wouldn't bring up an inferior solution. I don't have a problem with you. You're one of the better posters around here. Given that reality,why should I put you on ignore?


    Perhaps you have an issue with my wording. Here I'll try again, sans the word superior...


    Why do you feel your suggested solution is more "fair" than the one brought up by Bill Plaschke? Of all the suggested options in this thread, would you like to see yours adopted by the NFL?


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25