nfl offseason transactions, fired coaches, general nonsense 2012

how is not liking ties immature? or am I reading you wrong

well, maybe i could've chosen a better word

to reverse it, i guess, what is the problem with ties? is a third type of result just too much to have to bother with? does it make things too nuanced if it's not just 'we win' or 'we lose'? why is a tie less valid that a win or loss? it is a no less meaningful (or arbitrary) account of the game that took place

not to totally sidetrack on what is clearly a bugbear for me. let's just say that ppl feel like they have to tell me they don't like ties a lot.

yes the problem is that the whole point of a competition is having a winner and a loser, seems pretty obvious

is that the whole point?

let me answer for you: there is a lot to appreciate about a sporting contest outside of "having a winner and a loser". and this is talking about one game, no one is suggesting 2 teams finish with the year with half a trophy.

IMO soccer's biggest problem isn't the existence of ties. It's that it creates game states in which one team basically has no real incentive to try to score. Ties only make the problem worse.

If you think ties make things too nuanced...have you ever tried to figure out football wildcard tiebreakers? The game is incredibly nuanced. It's just a bad narrative. Shows like Sunday Night Football get millions of viewers, many of whom aren't a fan of either team. It becomes like a movie. If the movie ends in a tie, why do you watch it? I get that just watching the game is fun in itself, and maybe in the end you don't care who wins. It's still a letdown.

Also, lets say that two teams are 10-5 and play either other on Week 17. 10-6 could miss the playoffs, but 10-5-1 is guaranteed in. What's the strategy then? Can they intentionally draw? Or would it turn into some shitty "prisoners dilemma" style game that would be unwatchable?

there is a lot to appreciate about a sporting contest outside of "having a winner and a loser"

you can still appreciate these things when there is a winner and a loser

this is a silly conversation

Two words: PENALTY BOX
/klosterman

I think it would be a far more worthwhile exercise for ILNFL to come up with 3 ways to improve Chuck Klosterman and /or his writing.

1: When your #1 point has four immediate counterarguments that you acknowledge and cannot answer, it's time to write a new article.

but I have no idea how you could think "25-yard field goals should only be worth 2 points" for more than 10 seconds without realizing, "wait, that is the dumbest idea in the history of pro sports"

^why. i dont have much of a problem with this idea. Or you could do something like automatically place all missed field goals at the 40 on change in possession. I'd like to see the reliance on field goals minimized.

okay, let's say a team's down by 3. they get to 1st-and-goal and pound it to the 2 making it 3rd-and-goal. what do you do here? try to pound it in again, or drop back 20 yards and kneel, then take the 3 points?

if you're on defense and up by 2 on 3rd down, do you wrap up the offensive player, haul him to the "2 point" line, then drop him?

reliance on field goals doesn't need to be minimized. mathematically, this is already incorrect. it's not the game's fault that coaches misplay this situation/get run out of town when they go for it and fail

amazed that when asked to reimagine the NFL, Klosterman goes to "no regular season overtime" instead of anything that could improve player safety but you know PRIORITIES

i didn't quite catch why he didn't like college sudden death rules?

Frogsb, those scenarios obviously depend on the time left in the half/game. and your second hypothetical is ridiculous.

And what in the hell does this mean:

"reliance on field goals doesn't need to be minimized. mathematically, this is already incorrect. it's not the game's fault that coaches misplay this situation/get run out of town when they go for it and fail"

Youve been reading too much Easterbrook.

o klosterman, what hast thou wrought

Roberto, pictured here enjoying a Man U vs. Southampton 1-1 match

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I92XbFsm_-c/Tv7tG-u3v0I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/PoKJ7E-Bg-c/s200/Lord-Buddhas-Life.jpg

lol, old photo. so different without the beard

Easterbrook is a hack, and he's hardly the only anti-FG analyst out there. This is just one of the things he happens to be right about. For example, if bunting is boring, we shouldn't change the rules to make teams less likely to do so, because bunting is *already* a bad strategy in general. What I'm saying is that FGs aren't exactly overpowered, game-wise, so why nerf them further?

Either way by using a "2 point" rule, you essentially say that getting closer to the end zone may not always be for the best. I like the occassional "let them score" scenario (such as the end of last year's Super Bowl), but by that point, the game is usually all but decided. A team down by 3 that's at the opponent's 23 yard line suddenly gets into an odd situation where a 4-5 yard gain is worse than a sack.

ok, then how about my idea about putting misses on the 40 (unless it was outside the 40 to begin with)?

Again, I'm not sure why we need to dissuade people taking field goals. If the field goal is from a distance with a high %, the rule won't matter. If it's from a distance with a lower %, the rule will matter, but not much. I'm not sure what you would accomplish with that.

Because i hate automatic field goals. I like how in college there's actually a question whether the kid is going to actually hit it or not once they get inside the 30. With the pros, its essentially once they get there, they are just trying for a marginal 4 points.

Because i hate automatic field goals.

;_;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvLmG5Ls-kw

How are 4 points marginal? Why not just eliminate field goals all together?

this whole idea is dumb just leave it the same

^^^

yup

yeah, the most witless part of the FG stuff is it's a 'solution' to a problem that doesn't exist.

HERE IS AN IDEA FOR A PROBLEM THAT does EXIST sort of, that is EASILY ON A PAR or even worse than KLOSTERFUCK'S. games can get out of hand quickly. three scores down after Q1? most of the time there's no point watching. what if we devise a system by which the value of a TD is increased by 1 POINT for every man you voluntarily exclude from your 11 on offense for the entire length of that drive?! you get possession 9 points down with 2 mins to play?? SHIT. but hold on there andy reid, sorry to hear about your son, but this will get you smiling. field just 5 O linemen, 1 TE, 1 RB, 2 WR and your QB on this last drive, and a TD is worth 7! then hilariously fail the 2pt conversion, that's not our lookout. OR OR OR you are 15 points down when the opposition fumble a punt on their own 5! You line up with just tim tebow on the field for a potential 16 point TD! omg the drama. the tension is killing me. tebow vs 11 for the game. this is the pure dream that vince lombardi couldn't quite realize when he invented american football at risd back in 1872.

;_;

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvLmG5Ls-kw&feature=player_embedded

― Jandek at the Disco (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:32 PM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark

http://i46.tinypic.com/118m2jp.gif

you cut me Hungry4Ass, you cut me deep

looool

http://i.imgur.com/kj7IT.jpg

hahaha

ha!

... and Greg McElroy threw it

with, of course, disclaimers about the valuelessness of preseason games, it is still pretty lol to note that the afc east went a combined 1-15

I didnt realize that Gary Anderson missed an 87 yard field goal in '98. That's the length he's attempting in that video game clip.

With the pros, its essentially once they get inside the thirty, they are just trying for a marginal 4 points.
― One Way Ticket on the 1277 Express (Bill Magill)

I just don't see overtime as a problem in football. I think the only other thing they could do is just allow the other team to get a kick off after a field goal in the regular system.

I think shutting down contact with recievers after the Pats manhandling of Marvin Harrison a few years ago really is the reason the passing stats went bonkers.

This cheaping and easing of throwing the ball has led to the running game being not worth the work, it's just too easy to just run a short passing game. Pass blocking is also easier to coach than the running game, as the linemen don't have to do near the complex movements, they pretty much block what's in front of them or just slide left or right. For all the pass game trigonometry, it's basically all pass patterns and doesn't take near the team coordinated movement as running the old Packer sweep. Even Parcells when he was at the Cowboys, who liked to run that Packer sweep when with the Giants said it was impossible to do in the modern game as you have too much turnover on the lines and running that type of game takes pretty fine coordination to do.

And the fact that every club basically does the west coast passing game where you are throwing often to short zones on timing along with that contact change is partially a reason why you getting more killer hits on recievers. All of those linebackers and DBs have been watching the same video and know where you are throwing the ball and since I can't touch the reciever to keep you from catching the ball, I'm just going to wait until you get to that same zone where the ball is being thrown and I'm going to launch myself like a cruise missle at you when you have no defense to break up the play.

I seriously think if they want to fix some of the concussion big hit play, you got to get the game balenced back and let the run game come back. Not that injuries don't happen in the running game, but a back or lineman in general is prepared from contact and often the person taking the brunt of the punishment in the run game is the defender. Either way, it isn't some guy up in the air back turned to some safety or linebacker in a passive position basically waiting to be destroyed.

I've said it before, but I think that is one place I would try to change the game.

I think OT would be better if it was just "first to 6 wins"; you need a TD or two field goals. Even though the result of the coin flip doesn't matter as much as you'd think, it's still too much variance to decide a winner.

xp what is the fix? allow more contact on receivers again?

with, of course, disclaimers about the valuelessness of preseason games, it is still pretty lol to note that the afc east went a combined 1-15

― Roberto Spiralli, Friday, August 31, 2012 8:09 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

the AFC east is going to be so, so bad this year. patriots prob gonna go 13-3 again.

I almost feel the Jets have to surpass expectations, they seem so set up to fail this year, every game they win is going to be a shock

the jets maybe will win 6 games

I'd take the over on that (I think Vegas has them at 8 which sounds about right, still the under looks like a good bet there)

i had no idea that vegas was in the interest of giving away money