Very Interesting Stat!

[JP Doyal]

Hey everybody long time since I have posted. This season has been one wild roller coaster ride, but then again what season hasn't? lol Well anyways check this out!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[gatorpack]

Godgers

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Trying to remember the 2 of those 6 that were incomplete, I assume we lost the game(s). I think the 4 completed were:

1. Hail Rodgers against Detroit 2015 (won)
2. & 3. Passes to Janis against Arizona 2015 (Lost)
4. Pass to Jordy against Bears 2016 (won)

While it is nice to think that with AR you always have a chance at the end in a close game, I prefer not having to test that stat and prefer winning the game without it. But, I will admit, it makes for a dramatic, never forget moment when it does happen (and we win).

 

[PackAttack12]

Trying to remember the 2 of those 6 that were incomplete, I assume we lost the game(s). I think the 4 completed were:

1. Hail Rodgers against Detroit 2015 (won)
2. & 3. Passes to Janis against Arizona 2015 (Lost)
4. Pass to Jordy against Bears 2016 (won)

While it is nice to think that with AR you always have a chance at the end in a close game, I prefer not having to test that stat and prefer winning the game without it. But, I will admit, it makes for a dramatic, never forget moment when it does happen (and we win).

I thought that after Rodgers completed that last one to Janis that it was simply meant to be.

Hate that there's a situation where you don't touch the football in OT.

 

[Half Empty]

I thought that after Rodgers completed that last one to Janis that it was simply meant to be.

Hate that there's a situation where you don't touch the football in OT.

I think they make a pretty good case the for change http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=5022064

Understand you don't like sudden-death in any case, but it was that way forever until just recently.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think they make a pretty good case the for change http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=5022064

Understand you don't like sudden-death in any case, but it was that way forever until just recently.

I prefer the "new" rule over the old, but would still prefer 15 minute overtime quarters, especially in the playoffs where someone has to eventually be declared a winner. As we saw against both Seattle and Arizona, with the current format, one defensive break down.....game over.

 

[PikeBadger]

I thought that after Rodgers completed that last one to Janis that it was simply meant to be.

Hate that there's a situation where you don't touch the football in OT.

They had the game in the bag. Go for the 2 from 3 yards and end it right there.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

They had the game in the bag. Go for the 2 from 3 yards and end it right there.

You are correct, in that if they do go for 2, it ends, one way or another right there. But I think that decision has already been debated to death.

 

[PackAttack12]

They had the game in the bag. Go for the 2 from 3 yards and end it right there.

And if we don't convert, McCarthy gets slammed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And if we don't convert, McCarthy gets slammed.

only by those who would have slammed him for not going for it

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I prefer the "new" rule over the old, but would still prefer 15 minute overtime quarters, especially in the playoffs where someone has to eventually be declared a winner. As we saw against both Seattle and Arizona, one defensive break down.....game over.

We have discussed about it before but I would prefer both teams to get an equal amount of offensive possessions in overtime until the game is decided one way or another.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We have discussed about it before but I would prefer both teams to get an equal amount of offensive possessions in overtime until the game is decided one way or another.

Which is why a set time frame (15, 12 minutes, whatever) would balance the possessions out and treat it more like a "real game" situation. Personally, I am not a fan of the way OT is done in college. Hockey is similar to the old Football way, score and you win, but at least that typically allows both teams multiple opportunities to score. Guess I would lean towards what Baseball does, an extra inning....equal opportunities by both teams, which in my mind playing another quarter accomplishes.

 

[gatorpack]

10 min qtr would be good, if still tied in the regular season the game ends a tie. In the playoffs it would go to first team to score after the 10 mins is up wins.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

10 min qtr would be good, if still tied in the regular season the game ends a tie. In the playoffs it would go to first team to score after the 10 mins is up wins.

Agreed on regular season, that you let those end in a tie after one overtime period. In the Playoffs, I would prefer to just keep adding 5 minutes if the score is tied at the end of each "period".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Which is why a set time frame (15, 12 minutes, whatever) would balance the possessions out and treat it more like a "real game" situation.

I don't think setting a time frame necessarily results in an equal amount of possession for both teams.

 

[swhitset]

I don't think setting a time frame necessarily results in an equal amount of possession for both teams.

That may be true, but it does come closer to actual game conditions than anything we have now. It would keep all aspects of the game relevant.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That may be true, but it does come closer to actual game conditions than anything we have now. It would keep all aspects of the game relevant.

I don't understand why there's that much reluctance to give both teams the same number of possessions in overtime.

 

[swhitset]

I don't understand why there's that much reluctance to give both teams the same number of possessions in overtime.

There isn't any on my part lol. I would be fine with that as well. I guess my only issue with that is on how you want it implemented. Do we still have kick offs ? etc...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There isn't any on my part lol. I would be fine with that as well. I guess my only issue with that is on how you want it implemented. Do we still have kick offs ? etc...

I would prefer still having a kickoff to start overtime as well as after a team has scored.

 

[broguy]

I would prefer still having a kickoff to start overtime as well as after a team has scored.

I think think they should just expand the current rules to allow the team that kicks off to get a possession, even if the team that receives the opening kick scores a TD. After that, the next score wins.

Team 1: Receives kickoff and drives for a TD.
Team 2: Gets the ball, and a chance to answer.

If Team 2 scores, they can still elect to go for 2, to try to win (assuming Team 1 did not convert a 2PC after their score).

If Team 2 converts an extra point to tie it, they kick off to Team 1 and the game is now sudden death.

I think at that point, there has been enough equal opportunity for both teams. If Team 2 gives up 10+ points on Team 1's first two possessions of OT, they have themselves to blame as much as anyone else for their loss, regardless of if they may have been able to tie it on another drive. Sometimes the last team with the ball wins in regulation, that's just how the game goes, and the same can apply to OT without it being "unfair".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think at that point, there has been enough equal opportunity for both teams. If Team 2 gives up 10+ points on Team 1's first two possessions of OT, they have themselves to blame as much as anyone else for their loss, regardless of if they may have been able to tie it on another drive. Sometimes the last team with the ball wins in regulation, that's just how the game goes, and the same can apply to OT without it being "unfair".

Under the current rules a team can lose an overtime game by giving up three points on two drives with the offense having only gotten a single chance to score though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't think setting a time frame necessarily results in an equal amount of possession for both teams.

A time setting is no guarantee of equal possessions, but to me it closer mimics a "real game", which is what would interest me the most. If you went on a possession basis, OT could still be over on one "lucky/unlucky" play. For example, The infamous 2003 Playoff game against Seattle. While this wasn't the Seahawks first play, it was close to it. While I love the results as a Packer fan, I wouldn't have as a Seahawk fan. I would have been fine with the game continuing until the end of the OT "quarter".

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A time setting is no guarantee of equal possessions, but to me it closer mimics a "real game", which is what would interest me the most. If you went on a possession basis, OT could still be over on one "lucky/unlucky" play. For example, The infamous 2003 Playoff game against Seattle. While this wasn't the Seahawks first play, it was close to it. While I love the results as a Packer fan, I wouldn't have as a Seahawk fan. I would have been fine with the game continuing until the end of the OT "quarter".

We have to agree to disagree on that. A defensive touchdown should end an overtime game immediately.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I think overtime should consist of each team getting to draft people in the stands by seat number. Obviously this would actually help increase the home field advantage because the home team could put ringers in certain seat numbers that only they knew of. This would help on two fronts. In the playoffs, home field advantage would be HUGE in the event of my new overtime rule and, more importantly, visiting teams would have an enormous incentive to play for the win and not the tie! Plus, since the Super Bowl is a neutral site game consisting of mainly corporate seats, we could have a Super Bowl game featuring corporate CEOs trying to block retired NFL players or elementary students! A win for everyone!

Added bonus, less wear-and-tear on the players!

 

[broguy]

Under the current rules a team can lose an overtime game by giving up three points on two drives with the offense having only gotten a single chance to score though.

But in that case the offense would have had the ball once and not scored. I think a system guaranteeing each team the ball at least once is about as fair as you can make it without dragging the game on for too long. The alternative would be to have alternate OT rules for the playoffs, which I believe they did for the first year of the current rule(?), but I'm not a fan of separate OT rules (outside of not allowing games to end in ties in the playoffs, for obvious reasons).