hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 20, 2010 22:56:54 GMT -5
Saints luck out a win. Whew!!!
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Sept 20, 2010 23:18:52 GMT -5
How come a kicker never misses the first and makes the second? Is that necessarily less likely than making the first and missing the second?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 21, 2010 0:22:07 GMT -5
Actually, didn't someone miss the first last season, only to be bailed out by an opposing coach's time out? I could be wrong ...
Actually, I want to say that the guy I'm thinking about missed both, but his team ultimately won in overtime. I could certainly be wrong though. But I definitely remember a guy missing the kick but "after" the fact, getting bailed out by a TO from the opposing sidelines.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 21, 2010 1:12:06 GMT -5
kc, it's football, not politics.
The game has rules about where you can touch a quarterback and when, where you can put your hands, how many feet you have to get in, when you can challenge, how to wear your uniform, when you can get in and out of the huddle, how many guys have to line up on the line of scrimmage (exactly) and how far back they can cheat before getting caught, how many people can move at once, etc.
This isn't about freedom. It's about a boring and annoying action. I think we should take about half the time outs out of basketball as well.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 21, 2010 1:13:14 GMT -5
How come a kicker never misses the first and makes the second? Is that necessarily less likely than making the first and missing the second? I don't know. I don't know fi there's a big enough sample to really see if icing really works. That said, I dislike not because it is unfair, but because it adds a commercial break I'd rather not see.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 21, 2010 9:33:31 GMT -5
This isn't about freedom. It's about a boring and annoying action. I think we should take about half the time outs out of basketball as well. Agreed. Timeouts are stupid in general, especially considering the huge amounts of time football has between plays anyways. They also suck in basketball because coaches often use them to stop another team's momentum, which by definition means that they're often used to stop an exciting game for the purpose of making it less exciting. I also hate how the last 2 minutes of any basketball game seem to drag on for an hour. I prefer hockey's take on timeouts - you only get one. Not one per period, not one per half, but one per game.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 21, 2010 11:00:13 GMT -5
kc, it's football, not politics. The game has rules about where you can touch a quarterback and when, where you can put your hands, how many feet you have to get in, when you can challenge, how to wear your uniform, when you can get in and out of the huddle, how many guys have to line up on the line of scrimmage (exactly) and how far back they can cheat before getting caught, how many people can move at once, etc. This isn't about freedom. It's about a boring and annoying action. I think we should take about half the time outs out of basketball as well. No, it's not politics. It's not witchcraft either. My point was this is a minor problem that happens to pop up once or twice a year, at most. And it's a problem only to the extent that it bother some people. I don't think you need to swat this fly with a bazooka. The Calvin Johnson rule needs to be addressed. This, not so much.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 21, 2010 11:21:32 GMT -5
This isn't about freedom. It's about a boring and annoying action. I think we should take about half the time outs out of basketball as well. Agreed. Timeouts are stupid in general, especially considering the huge amounts of time football has between plays anyways. They also suck in basketball because coaches often use them to stop another team's momentum, which by definition means that they're often used to stop an exciting game for the purpose of making it less exciting. I also hate how the last 2 minutes of any basketball game seem to drag on for an hour. I prefer hockey's take on timeouts - you only get one. Not one per period, not one per half, but one per game. But that would KILL the most exciting moments in NFL games.. those end of game 2 minute drives to win games. Guys like Montana, Elway, Manning, Brady and others have excelled. They built their reputations on drives like that.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 21, 2010 11:54:05 GMT -5
I like the college rule better (of course they also get three timeouts, which is a bit much). I'd be happy with one timeout in NFL games if, in the last two minutes of either half, you get a clock stoppage with each first down. Unless your name is Drew Brees, in which case, you don't nneed no stinkin' timeouts!
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 21, 2010 12:38:30 GMT -5
Agreed. Timeouts are stupid in general, especially considering the huge amounts of time football has between plays anyways. They also suck in basketball because coaches often use them to stop another team's momentum, which by definition means that they're often used to stop an exciting game for the purpose of making it less exciting. I also hate how the last 2 minutes of any basketball game seem to drag on for an hour. I prefer hockey's take on timeouts - you only get one. Not one per period, not one per half, but one per game. But that would KILL the most exciting moments in NFL games.. those end of game 2 minute drives to win games. Guys like Montana, Elway, Manning, Brady and others have excelled. They built their reputations on drives like that. Last game we saw not 1 but 2 drives down the entire field in the last 2 minutes of a game, neither of which really needed a timeout. Going out of bounds, spiking the ball, and Boz's wise idea to stop the clock on first downs give teams plenty of ways to stop the clock without the long interruption of a timeout.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,259
|
Post by prhoya on Sept 21, 2010 13:45:42 GMT -5
I like the college rule better (of course they also get three timeouts, which is a bit much). I'd be happy with one timeout in NFL games if, in the last two minutes of either half, you get a clock stoppage with each first down. Unless your name is Drew Brees, in which case, you don't nneed no stinkin' timeouts! And Ben R. Although come to think of it, you give Ben a time-out opportunity and he'll find a way to get in trouble.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 21, 2010 14:01:09 GMT -5
Last game we saw not 1 but 2 drives down the entire field in the last 2 minutes of a game, neither of which really needed a timeout. Going out of bounds, spiking the ball, and Boz's wise idea to stop the clock on first downs give teams plenty of ways to stop the clock without the long interruption of a timeout. You raise good points Stig, but last minute drives are aided immensely by having a couple of TOs available -- even if they are not used. Knowing they are available greatly increases the Offenses options. Without TOs, a drive can be killed by a sack (and the time it takes to reset with the clock running). The running game is virtually eliminated -- even as a threat e.g: Draw plays to slow the pass rush. Finally, teams would be virtually restricted to sideline passes - making it that much easier to defend. Can a drive be run even without TOs? OF course. But the chances of success are greatly reduced. Seems to me end of half, and even better -- end of game, last minute drives are among the most exciting aspects of NFL games and they would be significantly diminished without TOs available.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 22, 2010 13:11:36 GMT -5
Boz wrote:
I like the college rule better (of course they also get three timeouts, which is a bit much).
I'd be happy with one timeout in NFL games if, in the last two minutes of either half, you get a clock stoppage with each first down.
I totally agree. I have mentioned that for several years. I wish the NFL would add the temporary clock stoppage to reset the chains in the last 5 minutes. Also, I would like to see college adopt the two minute warning. Both of those rules work to increase excitement at the end of games. As far as I'm concerned, I think excitement is a good thing.
While we are on the subject of rule changes, I would like to see college adopt a down by contact rule like the NFL rather than the current down without contact that they have now. I expect that historically, the rule was created to keep players from getting hurt. While I see the need for such a rule in high school or pop warner, I see no reason for a 200 pound college player to be down just because he slips. And if you think about it, the rule probably comes into play most on a punt. If there is a really low snap, the punter will often go down to a knee to field it. In college, he's down when that happens. That is the equivalent of a 50 yard penalty!!!! The punter is 10 to 14 yards behind the line of scrimmage and would normally punt 35 to 45 yards. So that amounts to a 45 to 60 yard penalty. That is just wrong. You spear someone in the kindney with the crown of your helmet and it's a 15 yeard penalty. But your knee grazes the ground fielding a low snap and you are penalized 50 yards or more? Really? Is that necessary?
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,991
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Oct 6, 2010 8:39:01 GMT -5
Welcome home original 'Freak'. Dust off the old '84' Straight cash homey.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,480
|
Post by DanMcQ on Oct 6, 2010 8:43:33 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 6, 2010 8:46:23 GMT -5
Super Bowl, Homeboy!
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Oct 6, 2010 9:29:43 GMT -5
Honestly could care less about Moss going there--and if anything-just adds pressure to a team that should now be a clear cut favorite for to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Also gives New England 2 picks in each of the first 4 Rounds of Draft which is how you keep staying in contention over time instead of going for broke in one season.
Bumpkin Boy got his playmate--now he has no excuses to be garbage.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Oct 6, 2010 9:47:53 GMT -5
Collective groan of all Tom Brady Fantasy Football Owners who realize that Brady best and only proven receiver is now a 5'9 white guy with a gimpy knee.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 6, 2010 10:09:22 GMT -5
Makes next Monday nights JETS v VIKINGS game even more intriguing! Ex-Jet Farve. Moss arrives. Revis returns. Jets also get their best receiver back, Santonio Holmes, and their best pass rusher back, Calvin Pace. Tomlinson vs. Petersen. Great stuff!!
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Oct 6, 2010 11:52:26 GMT -5
Jets vs Vikings could be a late playoff game, Ill be excited to watch that one.
As a Tom Brady fantasy owner...#$*&!
I really can't see what the Pats were thinking. obviously everyone is waiting for BB to pull something out of his back pocket but I just don't see it. SD is asking way too much for V. Jackson for them to pick him up. Unless there was some locker room drama, there is no reason for this.
PS lets hope tate will be a viable fantasy pick-up...opposing Ds are going to pack it in the box
|
|