Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seahawks (and OT rules) strike again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by ChupaThingy View Post
    What a cruel, cruel mistress the football season has been this year. A year after that devastating Super Bowl loss at the hands of Seattle, they're right back in it against New England. Truth be told, I can't live in a world where Tom Brady is considered the hands down greatest of all time, I just can't. I work with a lot of people all over the country and fans from the Boston are some of the worst. They cannot be allowed to hang their hats on that for the rest of time. As much as it pains me to say it, I'm hoping Seattle not only wins, but blows them out > 43-8. Then if Brady loses, you could say "he was good, but he was .500 in the Super Bowl so I'm taking X QB on my fantasy team."

    RE-PETE RE-PETE RE-PETE
    I think the .500 in the SB argument would still be pretty weak. I mean, making it to a SB and losing is still more impressive than not making it at all. He would still have 3 SB wins and would have made it there 6 times. However, at least if he loses you can still argue montana is better. If he wins..............well, lets just hope it never gets to that point.

    Comment


    • #32
      I for one am not really sure why everyone keeps thinking regulation has anything to do with it. You guys are all looking at the game from one perspective.

      For everyone saying Seatlle played the game a full 60 minutes and Green Bay did not are completely lying to themselves. Both teams played a full 60 minutes. Otherwise it would not have gone to OT. Seattle would've won in regulation if they were the only ones who played 60 minutes. So ya'll need to get that notion out of your head. You guys forget that vaunted Seattle defense powered by the "12th man" let Green Bay go 50+ yards in 1 minute without even using a timeout to set up the game tying fg. And if Green Bay wasn't playing the full 60 minutes they wouldn't have had the heart to pull that off. So please just stop with this 60 minutes nonesense.

      Second off the choke plays in regulation are reasons for why Green Bay didn't win yes. Don't blow those plays in regulation and you are never in that spot to lose. But that doesn't change the fact that the OT rules are not fair.

      I also think that all those (media included) that defend the rules by saying oh defense is part of the game too, get a stop are using a complete cop out. You are saying oh defense is part of the game too but you aren't letting both teams use both units. In both the Denver and Green Bay game we never saw the strength of both teams go at it. We only saw Seattles weaker unit prevail against Denver and Green Bays weaker units. But what about those vaunted offenses against that vaunted D? How do you declare a game without putting both units on the field?

      THIS IS THE ONLY SPORT THAT ALLOWS ONE TEAM TO WIN THE GAME WITHOUT ALLOWING BOTH TEAMS TO TOUCH THE BALL. Soccer has a sudden death but at least both teams get to touch the ball. Even college football doesn't use these insane rules.

      And yes when we won on the DT pass I was super stoked but I'm not going to lie. A bit of me felt guilty and not right about it the entire next week. I didn't think it was right even under the new format then and I don't now.Is it better than first drive wins on a fg? yes. But it's still a bad system.

      I think no matter what happens first drive should occur for both teams and after that you can go sudden death all you want. That still keeps the players from playing a 5 hour game.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jermz79 View Post
        This FTW!!! I have never understood how the NFL gives 15 yards from the spot of the foul for PI, it basically means that any QB can chuck it up far down field, and hope for a PI call and potentially be right in scoring range ... but as you said ... another gripe, another day!
        Huh?... (the bolded part)... I've been watching the NFL since before John Kennedy was assassinated and it's never been 15 yards from the spot of the foul for defensive PI.
        "Mike Harden, meet Steve Largent." KA-BOOM!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by onanygivensunda View Post
          Huh?... (the bolded part)... I've been watching the NFL since before John Kennedy was assassinated and it's never been 15 yards from the spot of the foul for defensive PI.
          Yeah I was thinking the same thing earlier when I read that.

          It's a spot foul. That's it.

          Holding is 10 yards from the spot of the foul which makes sense. But not PI.

          And to further the point even without the tack on its a huge offensive strategy to throw up a deep ball and hope for PI. Flacco does it all the time.

          You don't need 15 yards tacked on to throw it 55 yards down field and get in scoring range on a PI call.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #35
            the packers D totally choked, don't blame the OT rules on that one, all they had to do is keep them out of the end zone. its not like the packers were not shutting down that offense all damn day or anything.

            that was a horrendous choke of epic proportions.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by onanygivensunda View Post
              Seattle played the full 60 minutes and Green Bay did not.

              Reminded me somewhat of our week 3 game where Denver came back in the final minutes to tie the game and send it into O/T.

              And the O/T rules are just fine. Green Bay had their chance on defense to stop Seattle from marching the full length of the field and score a TD.

              They didn't and Seattle deserved the victory.
              One could correctly argue that the Seahawks O played far from the full 60 minutes, maybe the last 5 plus OT?

              Comment


              • #37
                Packers deserved to win? We didn't deserve to win a McDonald's apple pie. Mike McCarthy did what he always does...slow done and play not to lose. The defense which was amazing in the first 3 qrts, got lazy and seemingly played with no care and was already popping bottles. The play calling was bad, even Rodgers didnt agree with the play calling. Seattle won because they didnt give up just because the time wasnt on their side.

                Yes the OT rules need to be redone to where both teams get a chance. If the first team scores the second should get a shot. But the Packers deserved to lose for letting the Punkhawks comeback.
                sigpic
                Adopted Broncos:
                EmmanuelSanders

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Awesomo 2000 View Post
                  They had 4 or 5 turnovers gifted to them by the Seahawks. If they can't win with that kind of help, then they don't deserve it any more than the Seahawks do.
                  Bingo.

                  People keep talking about how the Packers gave the game to the Seahawks and the Seahawks not deserving to win, but the Packers lost a game despite a team giving them 5 turnovers(I think it was 5). It's not like SEA didn't commit any errors, but they capitalized on GB's errors more.

                  It's like that CHI-AZ game back in 2006. It did seem like AZ gave the game to CHI to me(and probably to many), and IMO without key errors by AZ AZ probably wins by at least 2 scores. However, CHI had 6 turnovers. If you lose a game when the other team commits 6 turnovers, it seems to me like you lost a game where the other team gave you a lot of gifts.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I agree that the OT rules are not fair. People who make the 'play defense' argument I think are misguided if they think that is fair. The problem there for me is, only one team has to play defense. I think both teams should get a chance to score, and if we do keep 'sudden death' then which team gets the ball first should at least be based on something they did based on skill, strategy or etc as opposed to guessing where a coin will land.

                    Because I don't think it's fair to ask players to play a super long game and get worn down just because teams are evenly matched, I think I have a good compromise.

                    How about we keep sudden death, however make which team gets the ball first based on some 'skills challenge' both teams can compete for. I think that would be fun to watch, and I have a few ideas of what it could be

                    1. Have each team have a back and a tackler-have them go 1 on 1. Which ever back gets further before they hit the ground, their team gets the ball in OT first. If both run for 100 yards before they are tackled, do it again until there is a winner.
                    2. Have each team's QB throw the ball as far as they can, which ever QB gets the ball the furthest, their team gets the ball in OT first.
                    3. Have each team pick a guy, and have the 2 run a 40 yard dash. Whoever wins the race, their team gets the ball in OT first.

                    Those are 3 ideas as to what it could be. Maybe one could be picked to be used in every game, maybe it could be something where both teams agree on what the challenge will be before the game. Maybe it could be whichever team has more total yards gets to pick.

                    I think it may be a good thing to use for which team gets to decide whether they want to receiver or defer at the beginning of the game also, although for that the latter option for which challenge is chosen wouldn't work. Maybe it could be 'whoever won the last meeting gets to pick'.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X