Owners approve change in OT rules for playoffs. I've always grudgingly accepted the standard OT rules, being bitter about the fact that they obviously favored the team that won the coin toss. So when I saw the headline I was at first glad that a change had been approved, but was this really the way to go? For starters it still favors the team that wins the coin toss for two reasons: - They still can still win the game before the other team gets possession by scoring a TD. - If both teams kick FGs, the game goes back to exactly the same previous format. The team that won the coin toss gets the ball and any form of scoring wins them the game. Plus, why would you just change this for the playoffs. Every year the difference between teams getting in or out rides on only one game (usually less than that via tie breakers). If they were insistent on making a change, why not try to just make the coin toss neutral? They could have adopted a format similar to college rules (the best option to me), or one requiring them to play out 'a fifth quarter' and then ending the game either in a tie (regular season) or go into extra quarters beyond that (playoffs). Yes, in the playoffs that would mean a game could go on for a damn long time, but the increased factor of endurance and toughness could be interesting. I don't really have a preference to the previous playoff OT rules or the one that's going to be used next season, I just don't get why you would make a change that essentially leaves you with the same problem you had before.
Agreed the college system is the way to go but start them further back like midfield or the opposing teams 45. Extra quarter would be fine but instead of playing quarters in the playoffs until someone is ahead at the end of one, if they are still tied after the first OT they should settle it via an intense game of Break-Through and Conquer. Spoiler
The crazy thing about this is the Vikings owner, Zygi Wilf, was one of the four who voted against the rule change, when it would have given us a second shot at beating the Saints and going to the superbowl this year. He suggested an alternate rule change. Nix the kickoff. Whoever wins the toss gets the ball at their own 20. That's it. Still sudden death, but no chance of a runback bringing the ball to the 50, or even into field goal range. You want to get the points to win sudden death? Earn them with a drive.
They're planning on voting for including the regular season at the coaches meetings in Dallas next month. Personally, I dislike this new rule change. It's called playing defense, if you want the ball back, play some. Even more so, I don't want to hear about what's fair, you had 60 minutes to win. For the record, (and I know these stats are a little dated but) from 1974-2003: There were 325 games that went into overtime. Both teams had possession 235 times, 72.3% of all overtimes, both teams get possession. The team that won the toss won 169 games, which is only 52% so lets not pretend that winning the toss equals winning the game. Also, now the team losing the kickoff gets an extra advantage. If the first team scores, the second team gets that extra down to play. I personally agreed with Zygi Wilf's idea of starting the ball at the 20 with no kick return.
I'm convinced McNabb walks with a gimp because his back is shot from carrying those teams for so many years. If he is traded, I would like to see him land with a contender. He wants the Vikings, but I say the Cards are his team. Wells and Hightower take the pressure off and Fitz/Breaston are the WRs he's been missing for his career (save the TO trainwreck). For everyone saying "What about Leinart?" Think to the Cards-Bears game of this year. Cards up big, Leinart replaces Warner, makes a mess in his pants, and Warner comes back in. All within 8 minutes. Leinart hasn't matured to the point that his teammates have confidence in him nor does he have the acumen to run the offense. He's a bust and will get one more contract to be a backup before continuing his journey to the Uncle Rico Hall of Fame
What's the gain in getting McNabb? The man is 33 years old. I don't think he's going to retire tomorrow, but it's in the foreseeable future. Probably in about five years, give or take. The Oakland Raiders, as currently constituted, are not a good football team. On either side of the ball. There's a few bright spots, but it's not a add-one-puzzle-piece sort of situation. Even assuming optimal management and coaching and a shitload of luck, they need at least 2 more years to be serious contenders. Maybe 3. Why trade building blocks for a guy who might not even be available when you actually become contenders? A team like Oakland doesn't need him. The types of teams who should be interested in him are on-the-cusp teams. It should be situations like the Vikings and Favre: teams who are almost there, and McNabb could be the missing piece. Not squads who are clusterfucks of awful, in desperate need of rebuilding. Surveying the NFL, my nominees would be the Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, Carolina Panthers, Washington Redskins, and SF 49ers. Throw in the Vikings if Favre isn't returning. The Cards are only an option if they are comfortable with shelving Leinart. It's make or break time for him. If they trade for McNabb, that's a sign that they will never voluntarily have Matt Leinart as their starting quarterback.
Well, one question for the Cardinals that's important here is what is their window? Do they see themselves as a team that's best shot of winning the Super Bowl is within the next three years? They were in the Super Bowl two years ago, and the Divisional playoffs last year. Maybe they want to capitalize now. The alternative is that they might want to maximize their chances of success over the next five or ten years. This is definitely possible. Now that Boldin is gone, they're very young on the offensive side of the ball (Leinart, Wells/Hightower, Fitzgerald, Breaston, Doucet, a young line). Less so on defense, but not particularly old there. I think the latter is the more likely and smarter route, but it may require sacrificing a little bit of short-term success. If they stick w/ Leinart and it doesn't pan out, they might end up kicking themselves in the pants for missing a chance to get a few years as serious contenders w/ McNabb.
I'd love to see the 49ers trade for McNabb, even though it isn't going to happen. They'd easily be a playoff team with a real quarterback. Gore and Crabtree on offense, Willis (aka a younger, faster Ray Lewis) on a very solid defense. That shit would be awesome.
When Jim Kelly takes a guy out to eat it means something. Further fueling my Tim Tebow fan boy flame of him going to Buffalo.
It looks like Oakland is now the likely spot for McNabb if he leaves PHL. Man, talk about a shitty way to go out. I still cannot understand why Andy Reid was so adamant just a few weeks ago that he was his starting QB. Just say, "this is football, and we'll always do what's best for the team". Reid went way out of his way to quash the rumors and now looks like an idiot.
McNabb to the Raiders makes sense for one reason only. Al Davis keeps trading away picks to get players he thinks can help him win now. Richard Seymour for a 1st rounder? You've got to be fucking kidding me. Granted, the last three first rounders have been burnouts (Russel, McFadden, and Heyward-Bey) so maybe getting a 33 year QB makes sense. McNabb to Raiders does nothing but harm the team. They need to figure out how to draft players and bring them up to NFL calibre. Getting McNabb will win you 5 games instead of 4. He still has no one to throw the ball to, no one to protect him and if they give up their all-pro corner for him, no defense to stop the other team. The person who mentioned McNabb to 49ers, that makes SENSE because that team is a QB away from contending for a playoff spot. This is the case because Cardinals have a new, untested QB, Seattle is falling off the face of the earth, and St. Louis... Well... Back to the case, Raiders need to draft well and establish a foundation to build on the next few years, McNabb isn't going to get you to the playoffs.
Shaun Rodgers busted carrying gun. Seriously how dumb can you be? On the list of places to not take a gun an airport must be very close to the top of a very long list. I really hope for his sake that he simply forgot it was in the bag. Why do so many NFL players feel the need to play gangster? At least it wasn't tucked into the wasteband of his sweatpants I guess.
I just don't understand these fuckin guys. I would give them this advice for free. Now that you are rich: 1. Stay away from your old "hood". If you have family there try and uproot them. 2. You really don't need a gun for protection, if and when you get "jacked" let them have your jewelery and cash, you will get more. Insure the jewels, if you are really threatened. 3. Don't go to a club were you need to carry a gun. 4. Don't bring gun's to poker games 5. Try not to shoot your limo driver 6. If you do carry a gun, keep the safety on. Getting a permit would also help. It always blows my mind when you read the stories about these athletes doing shit like this. I'm not naive I know money does not solve all problems but I just do not see the reason why so many of them insist on having guns, and illegally at that!!
The Chargers are my second favorite team, and I watched as many of their games last year as I did Vikings games (god bless bars with many large flatscreens). The Chargers O line couldn't run block for shit last year, but LT wasn't cutting like he used to either. Sproles got yards cause he's a slippery little fucker, but he just plain doesn't have the size to be an every down back. I guess they recently grabbed Marcus Mason from the Redskins, but the fact that I've never even heard his name before, and I live in the DC area, doesn't bode well.
Redskins sign former Steeler Willie Parker. As a Steelers fan, I was never a big Parker supporter. He can't break a tackle and is usually a 1-2 yard kind of guy until he busts one for 40-50, thereby bringing up his avg. That said, Washington seems to have decent depth at RB now with Portis, Johnson, and Parker, but they're all guys who are past their prime.
<a class="postlink" href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5055346" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5055346</a> So this throws the "Will Washington take Jimmy Clausen" talk out of the window. I wonder how awkward it will be when they play in Philly this year. Lord knows their fans were big enough dicks to McNabb when he was still playing for them...
I know this isn't really the big news right now, but oh man, am I so fucking sick of people talking about how awesome Sanchez was last year. It seems every time I see him referenced it's 'flashes of greatness' or 'a true franchise QB.' From what I saw he had one the worst seasons of starting QBs in the nfl. Sure, give him some slack for being a rookie, and he did do decent (not great) in the playoffs, but he in no way proved he's worth the money or that he's a viable starting option over the next ten years. I'm just so sick of how every rookie QB has a 'great season' unless he throws five times as many picks as tds. He had a shitty year, showed SOME signs of talent, and if he doesn't play better over the next two years he belongs on the bench. End rant. My guess is Washington still doesn't do better than 8-8 next year. Too tough of a division and their problems weren't limited to the QB position. It'll be interesting to see what the eagles do on draft day now.
Couldn't they at least traded him out of the division. He always plays well against the Giants. I am so sick of seeing McNabb.