SAINTS vs VIKINGS GAMETHREAD

[dave mcbride]

Why not? A team either has to go all the way for a TD, or if they score two field goals, then at least I had the chance to score a TD, and I should have stopped them from scoring one of the field goals.

There are ways to parse this out: the team that gets it first has to win by six (either a TD or two FGs). If they get a TD on the first drive, hats off - they win. If they get a FG, then the opponent gets the ball and they keep playing until the first receiving team goes up by six or the defending team on the opening kick in OT wins by either a FG, two safeties, or of course four points (a TD).

[lets_go_bills]

Congrats New Orleans. Well deserved.

[buckeyemike]

Favre, in his continuing aim to get back at the Green Bay Packers and especially Ted Thompson, had karma strike again.

 

Remember what I said earlier this year: you can always count on the Minnesota Vikings to screw up somewhere along the way. They do have that history.

 

Now we have the Colts vs. the Saints. Peyton Manning vs. his hometown team/team his dad played for.

 

I figure the Colts win rather easily, but I figure that would be true of the Vikings as well. Indianapolis is the best team in the league this year...better than New Orleans. The Saints can win, but they have to play better than they did tonight.

 

Opening line is Indy by 4.

[Simon]

There are ways to parse this out: the team that gets it first has to win by six (either a TD or two FGs). If they get a TD on the first drive, hats off - they win. If they get a FG, then the opponent gets the ball and they keep playing until the first receiving team goes up by six or the defending team on the opening kick in OT wins by either a FG, two safeties, or of course four points (a TD).

I think that's unnecessarily complicated.

Simply stating that both teams must have the opportunity to touch the ball at least once strikes me as an adequate solution to the primary problem, which is one of unbalanced opportunity.

[dave mcbride]

At least there's ONE half-sane individual around here. Half.

I'm not saying I like the NCAA rule. I just think that it has the benefit of being fair. There are ways to tweak the NFL system without going the NCAA route. As it stands, though, as f'ed up as the NCAA system is, it's hands down better than the NFL system.

[FloridaSnow]

Favre, in his continuing aim to get back at the Green Bay Packers and especially Ted Thompson, had karma strike again.

 

Remember what I said earlier this year: you can always count on the Minnesota Vikings to screw up somewhere along the way. They do have that history.

 

Now we have the Colts vs. the Saints. Peyton Manning vs. his hometown team/team his dad played for.

 

I figure the Colts win rather easily, but I figure that would be true of the Vikings as well. Indianapolis is the best team in the league this year...better than New Orleans. The Saints can win, but they have to play better than they did tonight.

 

Opening line is Indy by 4.

 

The NFL will really push and want to culminate the Saints storyline. Don't be surprised if the calls keep it close.

[Simon]

The NFL will really push and want to culminate the Saints storyline. Don't be surprised if the calls keep it close.

I guess it's a good thing Haiti doesn't have a team........

[dave mcbride]

I think that's unnecessarily complicated.

Simply stating that both teams must have the opportunity to touch the ball at least once strikes me as an adequate solution to the primary problem, which is one of unbalanced opportunity.

Fair enough, but I think one of the reasons we all like football is because it's a complicated game. That's not a problem for me.

[SDS]

I think that's unnecessarily complicated.

Simply stating that both teams must have the opportunity to touch the ball at least once strikes me as an adequate solution to the primary problem, which is one of unbalanced opportunity.

 

play a 10 minute quarter. If you win at the end of that you win. If it is tied then play it like the end of the 1st Q (possession continuation) and the next score wins.

[KD in CA]

All I can say is Live by the Favre, Die by the Favre.

 

+1

 

He could have run for 5 yards, slide and given his kicker a clean shot to win the game. Instead he makes a horrible throw.

 

Vikes put the ball all over the turf all game long and people are going to cry about the OT rules? Pull out your tampons ladies.

 

 

Great game. So happy for the Saints. Wish I was on Bourbon Street right now!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Vikes put the ball all over the turf all game long and people are going to cry about the OT rules? Pull out your tampons ladies.

 

KD in CT for the win........

 

[Simon]

play a 10 minute quarter. If you win at the end of that you win. If it is tied then play it like the end of the 1st Q (possession continuation) and the next score wins.

I could live with that; there would be some interesting tactical decisions as the quarter progressed.

But in the self-interests of my own entertainment needs, let's make it a 15 minute quarter!

 

Vikes put the ball all over the turf all game long and people are going to cry about the OT rules? Pull out your tampons ladies.

 

 

Great game. So happy for the Saints. Wish I was on Bourbon Street right now!

 

Except it's not about the Vikes. It's about the best thing for everybody, players and fans.

And I wish you were on Bourbon Street, too.

[dave mcbride]

I could live with that; there would be some interesting tactical decisions as the quarter progressed.

But in the self-interests of my own entertainment needs, let's make it a 15 minute quarter!

 

 

 

Except it's not about the Vikes. It's about the best thing for everybody, players and fans.

And I wish you were on Bourbon Street, too.

Well, to be fair, one can cite the Vikes turnovers, but on the other hand one can cite the Saints relative inability to actually move the ball despite their great offense and the fact that the played at home. There's actually a reason it was tied at the end of regulation.

[Tcali]

There are ways to parse this out: the team that gets it first has to win by six (either a TD or two FGs). If they get a TD on the first drive, hats off - they win. If they get a FG, then the opponent gets the ball and they keep playing until the first receiving team goes up by six or the defending team on the opening kick in OT wins by either a FG, two safeties, or of course four points (a TD).

I think you could simplify that. 1st team with possession scores TD they win--like you said. Otherwise,other team gets one possession . Let it play out from there.

[Just Jack]

What I would do with OT...

 

Still have the coin flip. Winner decides to get the ball or defend. No special "start the ball on the 20" rule, it starts with a kickoff. 1st team with the ball then has to get either a TD or FG, or punt. 2nd team then either has to match what 1st team scored to keep OT going, or beat it if 1st team got a FG/punted for the win. If both teams got a FG/TD/punted, keep playing till the end of the 15 minute OT period. In regular season, game ends in tie. In playoffs, start another OT period.

[KD in CA]

Except it's not about the Vikes. It's about the best thing for everybody, players and fans.

And I wish you were on Bourbon Street, too.

 

The current rules seem to have worked for everyone for over 50 years.

 

 

Well, to be fair, one can cite the Vikes turnovers, but on the other hand one can cite the Saints relative inability to actually move the ball despite their great offense and the fact that the played at home. There's actually a reason it was tied at the end of regulation.

Very true, and that's reason to not make crazy changes to the rules of the game like people are suggesting. No one cares which team has more offensive possessions during regulation, so I don't see why that should suddenly becoming the overriding concern in OT.

[PromoTheRobot]

 

The current rules seem to have worked for everyone for over 50 years.

 

 

 

Very true, and that's reason to not make crazy changes to the rules of the game like people are suggesting. No one cares which team has more offensive possessions during regulation, so I don't see why that should suddenly becoming the overriding concern in OT.

First, OT in the NFL has not been around for 50 years. It was added in the 80's I think. Second the reason there is no problem over equal possessions in regulation is that in a one hour game both teams will touch the ball enough to have a reasonable chance to score. Hey, if you are happy deciding championships with a coin flip then be thrilled. All I know is every team that wins the coin flip takes the ball.

 

PTR

[KD in CA]

First, OT in the NFL has not been around for 50 years. It was added in the 80's I think.

The 80s?

So how did they settle the 1958 championship between the Colts and Giants? Punt, pass and kick contest?

 

Second the reason there is no problem over equal possessions in regulation is that in a one hour game both teams will touch the ball enough to have a reasonable chance to score.

Oh. So using today's game as an example, both teams had a reasonable chance to score enough in 60 minutes, but both teams didn't have a reasonable chance to score enough in 66 minutes. Makes perfect sense.

 

You can continue your incessant whine about deciding games on a coin flip (didn't you make this case a few weeks ago when the defense score the winning points?), but it's simply so.

[bbb]

The 80s?

So how did they settle the 1958 championship between the Colts and Giants? Punt, pass and kick contest?

 

I don't know if that was the first OT game ever, but I remember thinking even in the 80s that no team would go all the way to the end zone. They would have kicked a safe field goal way before that.

[bbb]

Just thought of what the Vikings new song could be:

 

Ball on the ground, ball on the ground, looking like a fool, putting the ball on the ground.