nfl offseason transactions, fired coaches, general nonsense 2012

I lost it when my computer crashed :(

"usually the high picks are overrated almost uniformly."

You get into the centers and some of the guards and there are tons of low picks and even undrafted guys that become long term stalwarts.

Jeff Saturday is one that comes to mind.

The Jets are the first team to go without a TD in their first 3 preseason games since 1977

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8314433/nfl-use-replacement-officials-start-regular-season

is this for real?

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said last week that he expects replacement officials to do "a very credible job" and described the league's differences in negotiations with the NFLRA as "philosophical."

I hope this leads to a series of massive week one fuckups

It will. I dont know how a lingerie football reject is gonna handle a situation like the Saints onside kick in the Super Bowl a couple years ago. Remember that? It took about 3 minutes to unravel that pile and see who had the ball. This is gonna be a disaster.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8314725/chuck-klosterman-proposes-three-rule-changes-nfl

ilnfl challenge: would anyone like to take a stab at defending any of these 3 brutally awful ideas to "fix football" from chuck klosterman? i would like to see #2 implemented one time in like a high school game or something, just to see what batshit chaos would arise.

i would like to never have to hear from chuck klosterman ever again in my life

also if roger goodell had a heart attack tomorrow i wouldn't be sad

I guess narrowing the goalposts isn't completely stupid, 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"

this is what happens btw when you've ascended to klosterman's level but are an unrepentant hack -- you can literally just write whatever nonsense you want and as long as it's not blatantly "offensive" it doesn't matter

like would this article be any different if klosterman had said "i think the nfl should be played on a giant mattress"

in some ways that would make it a far more quintessential klosterman article

giant mattress i could make an argument for.

so Klostermann's idea for more exciting football is "less field goals, more ties"

the fact that going for it on 4th down is often mathematically correct should be the thing that convinces coaches to go for it. not "well field goals are worth 2 now, if they're that close; so either drop back 3 steps and kneel, or go for it".

IMO soccer allowing for ties rather than using its awesome penalty kick system is one of its flaws

his ideas don't address the two things that slow down nfl games the most ime 1) commercial breaks (esp before + after kicks) 2) frequent penalty calls

the north american aversion for ending on a tie is really bizarre to me. it is the most popular thing ppl reach for when they have to knock soccer for whatever reason. imo it is a weird immaturity in the sporting consciousness over here that folks should be more ashamed of instead of sounding off about. BUT having said that, if there is one sport where you have to avoid ties, it is the 16 game season one.

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.