Jump to content

The 2021 NFL thread


Nova Carmina
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose.I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

Who is you? The team that defends first, or the team that defends second? The FAIR thing to do is allow both teams to have a chance to score. The only reason they don't is for time and the fact some say safety. If both teams score TDs on their 1st possession they should have a FG shoot off.

A FG shoot off would actually be great, but more reasonable is to play sudden death 2 pt conversions and the winner of the coin toss gets to choose whether to play offense or defend the 2 pt conversion. If you score you win, if you deny the score then you win. That good, fair, and quick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As screwed up as this regular season was, it's led to a stellar post-season. The off-season will be interesting as well.

 

 

So, if the Garappolo-led Niners get to the Super Bowl, do you keep him for next year or trade him at what should be an enhanced value?

 

This would depend on what they think about Trey Lance's development, but I'd deal him for what value they could get. There have to be half a dozen teams who would view him as an upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose.I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

Who is you? The team that defends first, or the team that defends second? The FAIR thing to do is allow both teams to have a chance to score. The only reason they don't is for time and the fact some say safety. If both teams score TDs on their 1st possession they should have a FG shoot off.

 

You refers to the defense on the field at the start of overtime. All they have to do is keep the other team out of the end zone, and they guarantee their team a chance to score. If they can't do that, on 1 series, then I'm sorry, they don't get the participation trophy. "Fairness" comes into play with the coin toss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose.I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

Who is you? The team that defends first, or the team that defends second? The FAIR thing to do is allow both teams to have a chance to score. The only reason they don't is for time and the fact some say safety. If both teams score TDs on their 1st possession they should have a FG shoot off.

 

You refers to the defense on the field at the start of overtime. All they have to do is keep the other team out of the end zone, and they guarantee their team a chance to score. If they can't do that, on 1 series, then I'm sorry, they don't get the participation trophy. "Fairness" comes into play with the coin toss.

Four words. Field Goal Shootouts Matter. Say it Rick. Say its name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Patriot here ...but i still like to follow Brady and Gronk . Will they retire is the big question. I dont think they will. :musicnote: :eyeroll:

 

:musicnote:

 

Of those 2 I'd say Gronkowski is more likely to retire if for no other reason than he doesn't have a mouthy former supermodel to keep happy.

Edited by BastillePark
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Patriot here ...but i still like to follow Brady and Gronk . Will they retire is the big question. I dont think they will. :musicnote: :eyeroll:

 

:musicnote:

 

Of those 2 I'd say Gronkowski is more likely to retire if for no other reason than he doesn't have a mouthy former supermodel to keep happy.

My prediction: Gronk will join the military to get some of that sweet USAA insurance.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Commanders

 

So say the initial leaks and gossip...which could be wrong, of course! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Commanders

 

So say the initial leaks and gossip...which could be wrong, of course! ;-)

Better than Red Hogs

 

Anyone who thought they'd have a singular nickname e.g. Miami Heat, Colorado Avalanche, OKC Thunder, etc. hasn't been paying attention. The NFL has none and I'm guessing never will. Oh, and I think it's great. I don't like singular nicknames. Just my preference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Commanders

 

So say the initial leaks and gossip...which could be wrong, of course! ;-)

Not good, imo.

 

Should have kept it "football team" if that's the best can come you with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Commanders

 

So say the initial leaks and gossip...which could be wrong, of course! ;-)

Better than Red Hogs

 

Anyone who thought they'd have a singular nickname e.g. Miami Heat, Colorado Avalanche, OKC Thunder, etc. hasn't been paying attention. The NFL has none and I'm guessing never will. Oh, and I think it's great. I don't like singular nicknames. Just my preference.

 

I'm partial to The Washington Obstructionists.

 

If you want to get to the Super Bowl, you will have to go through US!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is football but, I got to thinking... how about if in baseball, if tied after 9 innings, there is a coin toss, and winner gets to bat. Score a run and it is over. If the other team complains, well, they should not have given up so many runs when they were playing defense during the first 9 innings. Edited by Wandering Hermit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Commanders

 

So say the initial leaks and gossip...which could be wrong, of course! ;-)

Better than Red Hogs

 

Anyone who thought they'd have a singular nickname e.g. Miami Heat, Colorado Avalanche, OKC Thunder, etc. hasn't been paying attention. The NFL has none and I'm guessing never will. Oh, and I think it's great. I don't like singular nicknames. Just my preference.

 

I'm partial to The Washington Obstructionists.

 

If you want to get to the Super Bowl, you will have to go through US!

:lol:

 

I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Commanders

 

So say the initial leaks and gossip...which could be wrong, of course! ;-)

Better than Red Hogs

 

Anyone who thought they'd have a singular nickname e.g. Miami Heat, Colorado Avalanche, OKC Thunder, etc. hasn't been paying attention. The NFL has none and I'm guessing never will. Oh, and I think it's great. I don't like singular nicknames. Just my preference.

 

I'm partial to The Washington Obstructionists.

 

If you want to get to the Super Bowl, you will have to go through US!

If they did that, they'd become my favorite NFC team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose.I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

Who is you? The team that defends first, or the team that defends second? The FAIR thing to do is allow both teams to have a chance to score. The only reason they don't is for time and the fact some say safety. If both teams score TDs on their 1st possession they should have a FG shoot off.

 

You refers to the defense on the field at the start of overtime. All they have to do is keep the other team out of the end zone, and they guarantee their team a chance to score. If they can't do that, on 1 series, then I'm sorry, they don't get the participation trophy. "Fairness" comes into play with the coin toss.

Four words. Field Goal Shootouts Matter. Say it Rick. Say its name.

 

How about these 4 words, "defensive captains arm wrestle?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose.I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

Who is you? The team that defends first, or the team that defends second? The FAIR thing to do is allow both teams to have a chance to score. The only reason they don't is for time and the fact some say safety. If both teams score TDs on their 1st possession they should have a FG shoot off.

 

You refers to the defense on the field at the start of overtime. All they have to do is keep the other team out of the end zone, and they guarantee their team a chance to score. If they can't do that, on 1 series, then I'm sorry, they don't get the participation trophy. "Fairness" comes into play with the coin toss.

Four words. Field Goal Shootouts Matter. Say it Rick. Say its name.

 

How about these 4 words, "defensive captains arm wrestle?"

I hear ya but not very marketable. First it doesn't have a cool term like shootout in it. And also they'll set the goal posts on fire. It going to be badass and help elevate the kickers to the thick thighed gods they should be known as.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose.I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

Who is you? The team that defends first, or the team that defends second? The FAIR thing to do is allow both teams to have a chance to score. The only reason they don't is for time and the fact some say safety. If both teams score TDs on their 1st possession they should have a FG shoot off.

 

You refers to the defense on the field at the start of overtime. All they have to do is keep the other team out of the end zone, and they guarantee their team a chance to score. If they can't do that, on 1 series, then I'm sorry, they don't get the participation trophy. "Fairness" comes into play with the coin toss.

Four words. Field Goal Shootouts Matter. Say it Rick. Say its name.

 

How about these 4 words, "defensive captains arm wrestle?"

I hear ya but not very marketable. First it doesn't have a cool term like shootout in it. And also they'll set the goal posts on fire. It going to be badass and help elevate the kickers to the thick thighed gods they should be known as.

 

Think “Over the Top,” meets “Any Given Sunday.”

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a great juke by the Bengals receiver to freeze the Chiefs defender. Now we got a ball game again.

 

21-10 Chiefs

 

Bengals left a minute on the clock, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...