If you look past the buffoon of an owner and the hilarity in which the franchise is run, the Raiders honestly do have a lot of talent on their team.Quote:
Originally Posted by lolzzz_321
JaMarcus Russell though.. AWFUL.
Printable View
If you look past the buffoon of an owner and the hilarity in which the franchise is run, the Raiders honestly do have a lot of talent on their team.Quote:
Originally Posted by lolzzz_321
JaMarcus Russell though.. AWFUL.
Also as long as we're on the subject of 2007 first round QBs,
Brady Quinn.. AWFUL.
meh, this isn't all that rare. teams do it a lot on 4th down from their own goal line to avoid the potential 7 points in close games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
i mean the team has to kickoff and pretty much guarantee them at least decent field position, so it's not near as gay as it seems. doesn't take away from the integrity of the game and it's rare that it robs last minute drama
Hmmmm, I can't immediately recall a team calling a play with clear intentions of taking a safety and nothing else. Closest I can recall is punters kicking balls out of the back of the endzone on bad snaps and what not.Quote:
meh, this isn't all that rare. teams do it a lot on 4th down from their own goal line to avoid the potential 7 points in close games.
Fair enough though, it only helps prove my point.
Wiki has a good writeup on it actually-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_...tball_score%29
see: elective safeties
I disagree on all major points here.Quote:
i mean the team has to kickoff and pretty much guarantee them at least decent field position, so it's not near as gay as it seems. doesn't take away from the integrity of the game and it's rare that it robs last minute drama
It only guarantees the receiving team decent field position in the context of what would be considered average. Considering that the team that took the safety is now getting a free kick at their 20, as opposed to attempting a normal punt possibly from inside their own 1, the receiving team is actually getting VERY POOR field position.
Whether or not it affects the integrity of the game is mostly a matter of semantics. I tend to use that phrase with more heinous things, for example Tim Donaghy definitely took away from the integrity of playoff basketball games. Blatant cheating off the field would take away form the integrity of the game. Rather, I just think these are bad sets of rules. Although I guess you could make an argument that being able to intentionally take what is supposed to be a devastating play and use it to clear advantage where the defense has no chance of stopping it could be interpreted as taking away from the integrity of the game.
It's only rare that it robs last minute drama because it requires a very narrow set of circumstances for it to happen. Nothing else. There just aren't enough games played to see it happen frequently. However, there are a lot of recent examples of it (including at least 1 game that I know I watched) on the wiki page, which makes me wonder just how much I pay attention to these things.
Does FTR have any rules against starting a thread where we can find others to wager our "play" PokerStars/Full Tilt chips against other FTR members' "play" PokerStars/Full Tilt chips? I find the vig can be avoided this way and it may be more fun to take other members' "play" chips. Mods?
What about situations where an elective safety *increased* the drama in a game?
For a majority of the time, Denver has owned NE. In one of their more dramatic wins against Denver in the last decade, Bellichick elected to take a safety, and punted away to Denver. The trick was, it put denver within a touchdown of the lead, when before it was a 2 score game. It worked for NE, but about gave me a heart attack.
7/24Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
It's not about finding an example of whether it increases the drama of the game, or even about the argument of whether it does or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
Here's my biggest problem with the current rule set:
I really like my defensive touchdown proposal. Fail that, move the free kick from the 20 to the 1, or something like the line of scrimmage of the play in which the safety occurred.Quote:
Although I guess you could make an argument that being able to intentionally take what is supposed to be a devastating play and use it to clear advantage where the defense has no chance of stopping it could be interpreted as taking away from the integrity of the game.
my point was that it's not an outright advantage for the team that elects to take the safety. it's like an intentional walk in baseball. barry bonds still gets to go to first base, and the team still has to get that final out in the inning and a lot of times this puts the tying run 90 feet closer to home and yadda yadda yadda, so it's not an outright advantage. it's just that in certain spots, the risk isn't worth taking for the potential reward, so they shoot themselves in the foot to avoid being shot in the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
as for the 7 points for a safety idea, that would really really change the sport in ways that WOULD actually rob the drama form the "shadow of their own goal line" situations. basically everyone would FB dive always whenever the ball was inside the 2 because the risk of getting tackled behind the line of scrimmage is not worth taking for just about any potential reward. maybe there could be some sort of "waive" or "decline" option for safeties, but i don't really know how that would work other than replaying the down, which would prolly have some ghey side effects of its own.
My point is that is *absolutely* is an outright advantage for the team that elects to take the safety, given the right set of circumstances. That much is very clear.
It is not like an intentional walk in baseball. Different sport, different rules, different set of circumstances. Walks happen in the normal course of the game, throwing the ball out of the back of the endzone does not. A better example *might* be intentional fouling at the end of a basketball game but what I wrote above also applies.
My idea is actually to make it a defensive touchdown, not a 7 point safety (the difference being who gets possession afterward). The only reason teams take intentional safeties is to avoid giving up a touchdown, or being put in a situation where the other team has a very good chance at a touchdown. Loophole closed.
For how rare and hard it is to get a safety, it seems like 2 points and possession, with worse field position than you'd otherwise get, is a pretty bogus reward. You might see defenses really selling out for a big risk/reward play.
Also, you got the Denver/NE game wrong, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_...tball_score%29
Quote:
A notable example of a team conceding an intentional safety for field position occurred in a Monday Night Football game on Monday, November 3, 2003. Trailing the Denver Broncos by one point with about three minutes remaining in the fourth quarter, and facing fourth-and-long from their own 1-yard line, the New England Patriots elected to have long snapper Lonie Paxton intentionally snap the ball against the goalpost, rather than attempt a dangerous punt. Now trailing by three, the Patriots' ensuing free kick traveled all the way to the Broncos' 15. The Patriots defense forced a punt, and their offense subsequently drove down the field for the winning touchdown with 30 seconds left.[2]
well i'm not trying to turn this into a shit flinging contest or anything. an intentional safety annoys you, and i can see way, and you're certainly not the first person that i've heard say that a ballin' ass play like a safety should get a bigger reward than 2 points and possession.
i just think that the sports much better off having this elective safety thing, which happens like once every 1000 games and doesn't even profoundly effect the games they do happen in (because the games are already pretty much decided already when they do happen), then to change the rules to something that's going to effect a whole bunch of games in a whole bunch of profound ways. i mean if you make a safety 7 points, regardless of who kicks off to whom afterward, there are gonna be a lot of spots where coaches are going to elect to punt on first and 10. that in my opinion is ten times gayer than a team getting a safety on themselves.
ANYWAY. if we wanna talk about nfl football rules that need a-changin', we might as well talk about overtime.
everyone either talks about changing it to college rules or changing it so that the team who gets the ball second always gets a chance at a possession, but i got a brilliant fucking idea!!! why not just let the game continue, like the end of regulation is the end of a quarter?!?!?! none of this coin toss bullshit, just switch sides and keep playing.
i'm a cowboys fan, and i still thought it was gay last year when the final play of regulation in the cardinals game was nick folk making the game-tying field goal, and yet we also got that all important first possession to begin OT. if regulation ends on the cowboys scoring, why not just give arizona the ball. instead of having jay cutler end regulation in a tied game by kneeling the ball, why not let him start a drive that'll be continued in overtime. why add so much unnecessary luck and chance to the game? when the gun goes off, just keep playing til someone takes the lead
i'm prolly not the first person to think of this, but i feel like i'm taking crazy pills or something when i watch espn and they talk like we only have two choices: college system, or both teams get a chance system
Have the excuses run out for Tony Romo yet?
Also, Manning or Brees?
Teams would not punt on first and 10 if you changed the safety rules.
Forget intentional safeties, take a situation like this: 0-0 game, first quarter, team is backed up on 4th and long from their own 1.
Defenses don't even sell out to block the punt because there's no point. There's no advantage of forcing a safety. MAYBE a small advantage at best.
Teams just play for the return. It's stupid that a play that is as hard and rare to force as a safety only gets you 2 points. Yet a field goal which modern kickers can knock off from 40+ yards consistently is 3. And you can take an intentional safety and give up 2 points and advance the ball very far all while avoiding a situation where you give up 7 points.
It makes no sense. The only thing I like about it is tradition, i.e. do you really want to mess around with an established rule like that?
Re: overtime, I agree that the current rules are stupid. Off the top of my head, the receiving team wins something close to 60% of the time? Which is stupid given that it's determined by a coin toss. I don't like the idea of continuing play as is though. A couple problems... 1 it would kill a ton of suspense late in games.. teams would have no urgency to drive down the field quickly to score and it would actually be a bad idea to do so. 2 it gives the offense too much freedom.. i.e. they are not limited by the clock whatsoever. 3 it kind of defeats the purpose of half-time and end of regulation by carrying it over like that.
Here's one idea, since a field goal is worth as much as a touchdown in overtime: the receiving team gets the ball at the 20, no kickoff, which partially mitigates both the over importance of the kicking game and the advantage the offense has. In that scenario, the offense should generally have a very small advantage. Put it on the 10 and the defense has the advantage.
I've heard lots of ideas for OT... college rules, first to 6 rule, 2 possession rule, etc etc. I honestly don't know what I prefer, or to just keep it how it is.
Watched both of their games this weekend and both looked exceptional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illfavor
Slight edge to Brees imo.
a safety is 2 pts plus you get the ball. way more valuable than a 3 pt fg
agreed (obviously), i still stand by the overall point thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
2 pts plus the opportunity to return a free kick, kicked from the 20 yd line is way too little of a reward for a safety. period.
who teh fuck is Antwan Odom?
related, it makes me cringe to see some of the offensive play calling when a team is backed up deep inside its own territory, near the goal line. For example-- QB sneaks/FB dives for 1 yard, etc.
Seriously, avoid giving up a defensive touchdown or a turnover inside the 10, those are disasters. A safety isn't much of a big deal. I'd like to see teams try to push the ball out more aggressively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
I think it was a guy who abused one of the Packers tackles, similar to Adewale Ogunleye in week 1.
Going to my first NFL game on Monday night...TIPS?
Be surprised at how small the field is in real life.
Be able to see open wide receivers before the viewership at home!
have funQuote:
Originally Posted by Illfavor
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
Brian Cushing had 10 fucking tackles and I couldn't see one in the nfl.com replay wtf
Cushing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Go Texans? This year I am 0-2 predicting the performance of my boys. I think they'll rock? They suck. I think they'll ABSOLUTELY SUCK; they win...
I know there are Redskins and Chiefs fans on this board...
LOL
jesus christ, djax is fast.
qfmft but he's still a moron, what's with the flip into a split in the endzone?! dude has a groin injury. I don't understand why 90% of WRs are idiot prima donnas.Quote:
Originally Posted by dthorne04
because you only gotta be fast to get paid
sweet throw by matt stafford, ballsy call from the sideline, unless you've lost 19 in a row
congrats to the lions
couple of great endings... fck favre but amazing catch greg lewis
hahahahaha LIONS4LYFE
<---------- Chiefs fanQuote:
Originally Posted by zook
please shoot me now. at least I didn't have a chance to watch the Chiefs play, I was out at the Royals game watching Greinke DOMINATE (hey at least Kansas City has one good thing going for it sports-wise)
too bad it's in the sport that hasn't been relevant for 100 years.
/wrists
thanks officials for blowing 2 game altering calls inside the 10
pats won but i'm getting killed in fantasy, the brady/moss combo isn't what it used to be
in before steve slaton fumbles me (im the ball)
ya chiefs are horrible but a least we didn't lose to the lions
too bad the royals suck Geroge, Greinke is amazing though
Forward down the field,
A charging team that will not yield,
And when the Blue and Silver wave,
Stand and cheer the brave!
Rah! Rah! Rah!
Go hard win this game!
With honor you will keep your fame!
Down the field and gain,
A Lion victory!
GOOOOOOOOO LIIIIIIOOONSSSSS!
http://melaman2.com/nfl-fightmusic/L...ron_Heroes.mp3
[ ]steve slaton
[x] chris brown
thank spenda
[?] bobs sister http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT2XyIBMWUY
I fell asleep during the Steelers game because we were up, and its the bengals. At 1-2 I'm more confident that our team'll make the playoffs than I was before the season. We're just shrugging off the negative variance early.
how about Mark Sanchez?
edit; oh, and congrats bob!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A5ihUrGRi8
lukie, start bracing yourself. the way i saw the browns play this past sunday...
on the bright side, there are at least excellent quarterbacks in next year's draft.
No worries Jack, even the Lions won. It's only preseason. Can't wait til the real games start!
yeah, I think it's almost a forgone conclusion that the Browns will be picking in the top 3 next year.
minor point because I'm a baseball numbers geek: Pretty much 99.9% of intentional walks in baseball are -EV for the defense. There's no hitter who is so good or so likely to hit a home run or get a hit that putting another runner on base can decrease the run expectancy of the situation, unless you have something like Albert Pujols up and a .080 hitting pitcher up next, which would basically never happen in a key situation.
-----
I wish the Eagles had traded McNabb 3 years ago.
p.s. If the Eagles get to the second week of the playoffs I'll be happy, I can't imagine them doing much more than that.
baudib, that intrigues me. Not saying you're wrong but since you said that you're a numbers geek, can you post relevant data/examples?
What about the following situations:
Right handed pitcher, barry bonds in his prime up to bat, relatively weak right handed hitter behind him, 1 out, runner on second. Certainly there is a score/inning combo that would make this a proper walk?
or
Tie game, bottom of the 9th, runners on 2nd and 3rd. Strong hitter up, weaker one to follow. 1 out. It seems like a walk is nearly mandatory here to either get the double play to end the inning or the force out at home.
lukie there's literally no generic base/out situation in which an intentional walk will result in a favorable outcome for the defense. There may on occasion be a rare situation where the specific identities of the hitters come into play. Generally though Barry Bonds is not going to be followed by a hitter weak enough to justify it -- he would have to be more likely to hit a homer than the next guy is to hit a double/triple/homer.
The problem with the second situation is that there are many dynamics at play, with the bases loaded the pitcher is forced to challenge the hitter, thus increasing that hitter's batting average and slugging percentages. Because of the increased chance of a double play, there will be more situations where the defense escapes unscathed, and if you are down a run it may result in a neutral or slightly positive Win Expectancy.
These situations are very rare; teams issue maybe 25-60 IWs a year and you can justify it MAYBE 5 times a year.
I respectfully disagree with you, baudib, but because this is a FOOTBALL thread I will go no further. EDIT: I lied, I have to go a little further. I agree with you *somewhat*, but your 99.9% line is what I disagree with, and I'll leave it at that.
Lukie, the Chiefs will be joining you at the top of the draft next year. The way things are going right now you might as well ship us the first pick, they have been omglolbad so far this year. We are so far behind the rest of the league that it isn't even funny, at least three years out from having a chance at .500.
If you can model a realistic situation where the run expectancy is lowered after the IW I'd be interested. Most IWs occur in really stupid situations, walking the NL No. 8 hitter who hits .240 to get to the pitcher, or walking Mark Teixiera to get to Alex Rodriguez.
I am amazed that the Chiefs did not even try to win in the second half.
I was just wondering here, but am I the only Eagles fan at this forum?
As much as I hate Michael Vick, he actually seems to be helping the team on the field right now, especially with Mcnabb's situation that is going on right now. Would be nice to see another Super Bowl appearence for the Eagles, after last season's close call.
Between all this discussion of how bad the Chiefs and Browns are, who is the worst team in the NFL? I think the Rams, Redskins, Buccaneers, and Lions are the other contenders, the Dolphins and Titans are much better even though they haven't won a game yet.
FYI, my vote goes to the Buccaneers.
Bucs or redskins
Browns without question. Worst franchise in the history of Brown's franchises.
Mcat, I can't fathom a team worse than the Chiefs. If there is one out there my head will spin. The list of problems goes on and on for the Chiefs. I just started to make a detailed post about all of the problems for the viewers of this thread, but realized I was writing a goddamn book and nobody cares so I deleted it. Basically the Chiefs are TERRIBLE in every facet of the game, except for punting, which they better be goddamned good at because they're going to do it a lot.
Oh yeah, JaMarcus freaking Russell and the Raiders beat us. At home.
UG, your team employs Brandon Flowers. It is therefore impossible for such a team to occupy last place.
edit feel free to borrow any of my proven winners. We could easily fit you into a tried-and-true Steelers fandom. Or, I'm thinking we let your hair down and go for the newschool VT hokies! Become a Mike Vick fan allover again with Tyrod Taylor!
The funny part is how many teams have such a loyal fanbase, no matter how awful they may be doing at the time. You have to praise that kind of dedication, when you end up cheering for lovable losers! :D
The Denver Broncos are the worst 3-0 team to ever grace the undeafeated collumn at this point in the season. Discuss.
easily. they won against the raiders and browns and had a fluke win vs bengalsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
they're schedule is getting tougher and i would say they lose 4 out of the next 5 games
Yes, makes me sad to live in the Cleveland area...Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Clearly happy we won but we didn't even try to move the ball in the 2nd half, I think Schaub had 5-6 passing attempts. Our D looked great, ofc that's b/c we were playing the Raiders at home, but a win is a win. Still, it would have been nice to keep the offense in rhythm going into next weeks game @AZ.
Also, are we about to see a tie in CLE, lesdodis Browns.
I believe we can now use the word "legit" in any conversation involving the Denver Broncos.
They're pretty good, but not a championship contender.
I think Stl has to be the worst team in the league.
It's not all about run expectancy. Sometimes the second run doesn't matter, or is significantly less important than the first run.Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
Interesting parallel, in football: Team A is down by 14 late in the 4th quarter and scores a touchdown. Team A *should* go for 2 here as it has a higher expectation of winning despite having a lower point EV.
Same idea, although the latter doesn't prove the former is correct.
Still waiting for why most IWs are bogus... I really don't know. It's not something I consider myself an expert on.
just pretend bill belichick is still coach of the browns, and cheer for the pats as your second team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty3038
also, can't be bothered to find the link, but apparently braylon punched one of lebron's buddies, lebron called him out publicly, etc etc.
Man this game is insane. I know everyone is sick of Favre and his shenanigans but damn. How does Favre still throw harder than most NFL QB's???
What an awesome performance so far. No matter where your opinion on Favre falls, this is some pretty compelling stuff.
I said that back in May, in the "Favre Watch" thread....I'm glad it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
But I mean, he is so happy out there, what childlike exuberance!! He just loves the game of fooootballlll!!!!!! STFU.
This is about the talking heads, no anyone on here BTW.
haha, I almost double-posted something along those lines. the verbal blowjob Favre gets every game, all game, is ridiculous. it's still pretty cool what he's been able to do.
Only man to ever beat every NFL team in existince during his career.
epic
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
Jared Allen is a freaking animal. I still remember Joe Thomas stone cold shutting him down in week 1 though.
Back on topic, awesome game. Kind of figured the Vikes would win this one pretty easily.
I'm not sure who gets his dick sucked more, Favre or Tebow, either way it makes me really hate both of them.
LOL Craptree