Green Bay/ Arizona

[Mace]

You validate my sense of right in the world, Arians, just do it.

[feldspar]

Right after the 100-yard pick six Arizona took back, the ref says " there are penalties against both teams." Then he continues to call two TWO penalties against the Cardinals and none against the Packers, ignoring the horrific hold by the Packers completely, it seems.

Automatic first down. Large point swing.

This **** is getting harder and harder to watch, much less take seriously.

[YardRat]

Close game...hopefully Arizona can step it up in the second half.

[Mace]

I guess it's pretty apparent that Carson Palmer is still Carson Palmer.

[feldspar]

Holy ****ing ****.

You must know what I'm talking about,

[sahlensguy]

OT!!!

[YardRat]

LOL...unbelievable.

[feldspar]

How ?

How do you not cover that underneath?

Unreal.

[feldspar]

The coin didn't flip?

What the hell kind of BS is THAT?

Really?

What?

[feldspar]

It didn't flip?

The coin didn't flip so there was a do-over.

Somebody needs to explain that madness to me...

[feldspar]

Well, I guess I'm reminded about why I watch.

Unbelievable game.

Just wow.

[Dr. Lecter]

That was great.

I almost forgot what good football looks like

[feldspar]

That was great.



Sure was...

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Packers fans are now complaining that the OT rules are unfair because Rodgers didn't touch the ball in consecutive years. Ignoring that A) in both situations, McCarthy wussed out and refused to let his Hall of Fame QB try to win in regulation and B) the last time Rodgers DID have the ball in OT first in an Arizona playoff game, he got his ass strip sacked for a losing fumble return TD.

[sahlensguy]

It's a Coin TOSS, not a coin flip. Packers were fortunate to get two cracks at tails. Sucks they lost both times, but just call heads. Every time. Fun game to watch though. That Green Bay receiving corp, wow and Palmer was shaky.

[YardRat]

Personally I think the OT rules could use tweaking...no reason whatsoever why a TD on the first possession should eliminate the concept of both teams having an opportunity with the ball in their hands.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Personally I think the OT rules could use tweaking...no reason whatsoever why a TD on the first possession should eliminate the concept of both teams having an opportunity with the ball in their hands.

I think it's perfectly fine the way it is. If you can't keep them out of the endzone, your offense doesn't deserve another chance at the ball. I mean, let's assume these hypothetical rules were in place last night: Arizona scores a TD. Now Rodgers has the ball. Then what? All he can do is score a TD to match, which leaves them in an even worse situation then the one they had already forfeited in regulation - Rodgers with the chance to win on a 2 point conversion.

[YardRat]

I think it's perfectly fine the way it is. If you can't keep them out of the endzone, your offense doesn't deserve another chance at the ball. I mean, let's assume these hypothetical rules were in place last night: Arizona scores a TD. Now Rodgers has the ball. Then what? All he can do is score a TD to match, which leaves them in an even worse situation then the one they had already forfeited in regulation - Rodgers with the chance to win on a 2 point conversion.

How is it worse? It would be the same situation.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

How is it worse? It would be the same situation.

Because then the ball goes back to the Cards guaranteed instead of a coin flip.

[YardRat]

Because then the ball goes back to the Cards guaranteed instead of a coin flip.

And Green Bay would be guaranteed another shot with the ball regardless of what Arizona does with it. I'm OK with that.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

And Green Bay would be guaranteed another shot with the ball regardless of what Arizona does with it. I'm OK with that.

Why? At some point GB has to step up on d or score a 2 pt conversion. They had chances at both and failed. Why do they deserve another?

[YardRat]

They don't necessarily have to try a two point conversion, unless that is how the rules are re-written. They (and any other team that has lost on a one possession OT) never got a chance to have the ball in the OT period, so IMO both teams deserve THAT opportunity.

[Mr. Pink]

With all that momentum from those two insane plays on that final drive, I thought GB should have just gone for 2 and the win.

Think they woulda had it too, it had to be deflating for the Cards D for how GB tied it up.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

They don't necessarily have to try a two point conversion, unless that is how the rules are re-written. They (and any other team that has lost on a one possession OT) never got a chance to have the ball in the OT period, so IMO both teams deserve THAT opportunity.

Arizona scored a TD. The best that GB could have done was score a td in response. Then what? Go for 2 and win or step up on d. They had both those options already. Why do they deserve a chance to tie the TD? Why is shipping the 2nd drive more meaningful then the 1st?

[YardRat]

Arizona scored a TD. The best that GB could have done was score a td in response. Then what? Go for 2 and win or step up on d. They had both those options already. Why do they deserve a chance to tie the TD? Why is shipping the 2nd drive more meaningful then the 1st?

They had the option during regulation, not OT. IMO both teams deserve at least one shot with the ball in OT.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

They had the option during regulation, not OT. IMO both teams deserve at least one shot with the ball in OT.

Again, why? Green Bay could have earned a possession by forcing a kick. They didn't. They could have sidestepped the whole thing by going for 2. They didn't. How many times should the rules bail them out? The rules were changed because it was unsatisfying to see a team drive 45 years and kick a field goal to win. A td is a legitimate way to prove you were the better team, and Arizona did that in three plays.

This is 100% Rodgers favoritism btw. If Walsh makes the kick last week and Minnesota loses to Arizona on the first possession yesterday, there isn't a single person upset that Teddy Bridgewater didn't get a chance at the football. The same as it was when they changed the rule for Farve.

[YardRat]

Again, why? Green Bay could have earned a possession by forcing a kick. They didn't. They could have sidestepped the whole thing by going for 2. They didn't. How many times should the rules bail them out? The rules were changed because it was unsatisfying to see a team drive 45 years and kick a field goal to win. A td is a legitimate way to prove you were the better team, and Arizona did that in three plays.

This is 100% Rodgers favoritism btw. If Walsh makes the kick last week and Minnesota loses to Arizona on the first possession yesterday, there isn't a single person upset that Teddy Bridgewater didn't get a chance at the football. The same as it was when they changed the rule for Farve.

Has nothing to do with Rodgers, I was rooting for Arizona (and will next week also) for what it's worth.

No other major sport has a similar 'one possession, score and it's over' system in place. Think about it...what the NFL does is the equivalent of...

MLB-Going into extra innings, if a team scores a run in the top of the 10th...game over.
NHL-Going into a shootout, if the team shooting first scores on it's first attempt...game over.
NBA-Going into OT, if a team controls the tip and scores a bucket...game over.

The losing MLB team had the chance to stop the winner from scoring, right?
The losing NHL team had plenty of opportunities to score in regulation and 3 on 3, right?
The losing NBA team had an equal opportunity to win the tip and score themselves, right?

Not giving both teams an opportunity to possess control of the ball and score is simply unbalanced.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Has nothing to do with Rodgers, I was rooting for Arizona (and will next week also) for what it's worth.

No other major sport has a similar 'one possession, score and it's over' system in place. Think about it...what the NFL does is the equivalent of...

MLB-Going into extra innings, if a team scores a run in the top of the 10th...game over.
NHL-Going into a shootout, if the team shooting first scores on it's first attempt...game over.
NBA-Going into OT, if a team controls the tip and scores a bucket...game over.

The losing MLB team had the chance to stop the winner from scoring, right?
The losing NHL team had plenty of opportunities to score in regulation and 3 on 3, right?
The losing NBA team had an equal opportunity to win the tip and score themselves, right?

Not giving both teams an opportunity to possess control of the ball and score is simply unbalanced.

? The NHL is sudden death. If you win the faceoff and score a goal, the game is over. The shootout was an attempt to increase wins and reduce ties, not to make the OT period "balanced." There's no requirement that you give the other team a chance to possess the puck.

[YardRat]

? The NHL is sudden death. If you win the faceoff and score a goal, the game is over. The shootout was an attempt to increase wins and reduce ties, not to make the OT period "balanced." There's no requirement that you give the other team a chance to possess the puck.

Both teams have an equal opportunity to possess the puck at the faceoff. They don't flip a coin and give the puck to one team based on the result.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Both teams have an equal opportunity to possess the puck at the faceoff. They don't flip a coin and give the puck to one team based on the result.

Nor do they give the ball immediately to one team in the NFL. There is this play called a kickoff where you can attempt to keep possession.

So now we're up to:

The Packers couldn't tie the game until the clock expired in regulation.

AND

They chose not to go for two

AND

They lost a coin toss

AND

They kicked it deep instead of attempting an onside kick

AND

They couldn't stop the Cardinals from reaching the endzone with 80 yards to defend.

and somehow this is unfair to Green Bay. They had their chances to win. They either blew them or forfeited them. I feel no sympathy for a team that intentionally plays for OT and then loses in OT.

[YardRat]

A kick-off is a much different scenario than a faceoff or tipoff. Not even close.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

A kick-off is a much different scenario than a faceoff or tipoff. Not even close.

Defending an 80 yard field is also a different scenario then defending half a hockey rink or basketball court as well.

If you can't defend an 80 yard field, try to keep the ball on an onside kick.

If you can't recover an onside kick, go for 2 in regulation.

If you can't go for 2 in regulation, score more points before time expires.

If you can't do any of those things, sack up and accept your loss because you were the worse team.

[YardRat]

Defending an 80 yard field is also a different scenario then defending half a hockey rink or basketball court as well.

If you can't defend an 80 yard field, try to keep the ball on an onside kick.

If you can't recover an onside kick, go for 2 in regulation.

If you can't go for 2 in regulation, score more points before time expires.

If you can't do any of those things, sack up and accept your loss because you were the worse team.

The same can be said about the team that won the game, and the only thing that really separates the 'better' from the 'worse' is an additional opportunity to score for the 'better' that the 'worse' never gets.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

The same can be said about the team that won the game, and the only thing that really separates the 'better' from the 'worse' is an additional opportunity to score for the 'better' that the 'worse' never gets.

Green Bay was presented a chance to win the game with a 2 pointer and passed. Arizona was presented the opportunity to win the game with an 80 yard drive and succeeded. Arizona made the plays that counted, and they get to play another week. Green Bay gets to whine about the rules.

[YardRat]

Green Bay was presented a chance to win the game with a 2 pointer and passed. Arizona was presented the opportunity to win the game with an 80 yard drive and succeeded. Arizona made the plays that counted, and they get to play another week. Green Bay gets to whine about the rules.

I don't think comparing regulation to overtime is apples to apples. Arizona could have assured that Green Bay had to go for two at the end of the game, by successfully converting a two pointer of their own on any of their TD's. But they didn't. Why should one team be rewarded, and the other penalized, in overtime for employing the same exact strategy in regulation? Once again, this has nothing to do with a butt-hurt Packer fan losing and crying 'no fair', I was rooting for Arizona.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I don't think comparing regulation to overtime is apples to apples.

In this particular situation, Green Bay had a chance for a sudden death win. The clock had expired, they were down 1 with one untimed down. A 2 point conversion is 100% chance of a win, a 2 pt fail is 100% chance of a loss. A converted XP only sends you to OT and introduces the coin flip into the equation. The comparison to OT is rarely more direct.


Arizona could have assured that Green Bay had to go for two at the end of the game, by successfully converting a two pointer of their own on any of their TD's. But they didn't. Why should one team be rewarded, and the other penalized, in overtime for employing the same exact strategy in regulation?

First off, you are equating losing the coin toss with losing the game. That is not the case. The Packers were punished because they couldn't keep Arizona from completely flattening them on the first drive of OT.

Second, the Cardinals are a different team then the Packers, and made their decisions with different information. That will necessitate a different strategy. If you kick a field goal down 4 with :10 left in the half, it's a fine decision. If you kick a FG down 4 with :10 left in the game, it's suicidally stupid. Context matters. In this game the context was: The Arizona Cardinals' last four drives had resulted in 3 scores and a INT in the endzone after they had moved the ball 60 yards. Green Bay's defense was breaking down. Going to OT implicitly runs the risk that your D has to make a stop, which they completely failed to do.

Meanwhile, the Packers have the best QB in the NFL and have already lost playoff games in the past because they were too conservative and took the ball out of his hands. The Packers defense has failed in big situations over and over. In that context, the choice for the Cardinals to pass up the 2 pointer when they scored with 11 minutes left to go up 16-13 is completely different from the Packers choosing to pass it up in exchange for an all but guaranteed trip to OT.

[YardRat]

In this particular situation, Green Bay had a chance for a sudden death win. The clock had expired, they were down 1 with one untimed down. A 2 point conversion is 100% chance of a win, a 2 pt fail is 100% chance of a loss. A converted XP only sends you to OT and introduces the coin flip into the equation. The comparison to OT is rarely more direct.

First off, you are equating losing the coin toss with losing the game. That is not the case. The Packers were punished because they couldn't keep Arizona from completely flattening them on the first drive of OT.

Second, the Cardinals are a different team then the Packers, and made their decisions with different information. That will necessitate a different strategy. If you kick a field goal down 4 with :10 left in the half, it's a fine decision. If you kick a FG down 4 with :10 left in the game, it's suicidally stupid. Context matters. In this game the context was: The Arizona Cardinals' last four drives had resulted in 3 scores and a INT in the endzone after they had moved the ball 60 yards. Green Bay's defense was breaking down. Going to OT implicitly runs the risk that your D has to make a stop, which they completely failed to do.

Meanwhile, the Packers have the best QB in the NFL and have already lost playoff games in the past because they were too conservative and took the ball out of his hands. The Packers defense has failed in big situations over and over. In that context, the choice for the Cardinals to pass up the 2 pointer when they scored with 11 minutes left to go up 16-13 is completely different from the Packers choosing to pass it up in exchange for an all but guaranteed trip to OT.

I don't believe you can predicate how to institute overtime rules based on what did or didn't happen in regulation. Your contention that Green Bay forfeits any right to possession of the ball in OT based on what their strategy was in regulation is irrelevant to the situation, and can be applied to any situation in regulation just as equally. It is my opinion, just as in every other sport, the NFL should allow for equal possession for both teams.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I don't believe you can predicate how to institute overtime rules based on what did or didn't happen in regulation. Your contention that Green Bay forfeits any right to possession of the ball in OT based on what their strategy was in regulation is irrelevant to the situation, and can be applied to any situation in regulation just as equally. It is my opinion, just as in every other sport, the NFL should allow for equal possession for both teams.

I didn't say Green Bay forfeited the "right" to possession of the ball in OT, I said they forfeited their chance to win in regulation and so I have no concern for it being 'unfair' or 'unbalanced' that they didn't touch the ball in OT. If GB didn't want the randomness of a coin toss involved, they had a very specific chance to avoid it. This particular game didn't create my opinion of the OT rules, they just provide a particularly egregious example of a team that screwed itself.

Also, not "every other sport" allows for equal possession. All you get in hockey is one chance to possess the puck, nothing more. Nor, for that matter, does basketball guarantee an equal # of possessions. It's possible for the tip and the timing to leave one team with two more possessions then the opponent.

[YardRat]

I didn't say Green Bay forfeited the "right" to possession of the ball in OT, I said they forfeited their chance to win in regulation and so I have no concern for it being 'unfair' or 'unbalanced' that they didn't touch the ball in OT. If GB didn't want the randomness of a coin toss involved, they had a very specific chance to avoid it. This particular game didn't create my opinion of the OT rules, they just provide a particularly egregious example of a team that screwed itself.

Also, not "every other sport" allows for equal possession. All you get in hockey is one chance to possess the puck, nothing more. Nor, for that matter, does basketball guarantee an equal # of possessions. It's possible for the tip and the timing to leave one team with two more possessions then the opponent.

Every other sport offers the opportunity for possession for both teams. In hockey, both teams have equal opportunity to win the opening face off in OT, and both teams get at least an equal # of shots in a shootout. In baseball, both teams get equal opportunity for 'offense', and 'defense'. In basketball, both teams have an equal opportunity to win the opening tip of OT, and both teams have the opportunity to possess the ball on offense, regardless of if the circumstances dictate that total possessions don't necessarily end up exactly equal. Football is the only major professional sport that doesn't allow both teams to possess the ball offensively at least once in OT, and that's a fact that can't be denied.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Every other sport offers the opportunity for possession for both teams. In hockey, both teams have equal opportunity to win the opening face off in OT, and both teams get at least an equal # of shots in a shootout. In baseball, both teams get equal opportunity for 'offense', and 'defense'. In basketball, both teams have an equal opportunity to win the opening tip of OT, and both teams have the opportunity to possess the ball on offense, regardless of if the circumstances dictate that total possessions don't necessarily end up exactly equal. Football is the only major professional sport that doesn't allow both teams to possess the ball offensively at least once in OT, and that's a fact that can't be denied.

You switched it from "equal possessions" to "equal opportunity" which you have to realize is not the same thing. A coin flip is literally a 50-50 equal opportunity, seeing as you disregard onside kicking.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I was discussing this with someone else and we came up with a modified proposal. If the opening team scores, the other team gets the ball but cannot tie the game. They have to outscore the first team. If they get a FG, you have to get a TD. If they get a 7 point TD, you have to get an 8 point TD. If they get an 8 point TD, you lose without touching the ball.

[sahlensguy]

I was discussing this with someone else and we came up with a modified proposal. If the opening team scores, the other team gets the ball but cannot tie the game. They have to outscore the first team. If they get a FG, you have to get a TD. If they get a 7 point TD, you have to get an 8 point TD. If they get an 8 point TD, you lose without touching the ball.

Winner!

[YardRat]

I was discussing this with someone else and we came up with a modified proposal. If the opening team scores, the other team gets the ball but cannot tie the game. They have to outscore the first team. If they get a FG, you have to get a TD. If they get a 7 point TD, you have to get an 8 point TD. If they get an 8 point TD, you lose without touching the ball.

I think that would be much better, although I would eliminate the last part and give the other team the opportunity to score 8 points and extend the game.