Good thought.

That is a kick ass idea. That would create all kinds of sweet decision making and drama at the end of a game.

And I don’t see very many ties coming out of such a situation either. Bonus.

Let them play the whole quarter. If it’s still tied at the end, then it’s a tie. At least that way the team that lost the coin toss still has a fair chance.

i agree with everything you have said about Jay Cutler!!! you forgot to mention that mcdaniels is a smuck for not being up front to begin with!!! i think that the broncos are in a world of sh— and will not get out under the present leadership!!!

Isn’t the fact that teams score on the first possession only 39% of the time put to rest the argument that the coin flip decides the game. Without knowing the exact percentage of teams who defend before gaining possession and scoring (win), one might deduce from that it is better not to win the coin toss.

Why then do teams want the ball? Seriously? Even the greatest of defenses score less than the most mediocre of offenses.

In my opinion, changing the game from football to something else can never be the answer. I don’t think eliminating punting during overtimes adds any intrigue. I don’t think the level of strategery is enhanced; it may be reduced. This is not Madden, and there are consequences to losing games.

Throughout the course of a game, each team is given every opportunity to score points, or to prevent the opponent from doing so. In overtime, nothing less is expected: Score or stop the opponent from scoring – that’s football!

The numbers don’t support the need for a change. Coming out on the losers end of an overtime games sucks majorily, no doubt. Such is life.

Both of these teams failed to win the game. Whining about what happens afterwards seems petty.

And yes, I still want Cutler. This is the first time I’ve heard of him whining since he’s been in the league. And he’s leaps and bounds better than Tavaris and Sage.

I think that OT should just be settled in the opening coin toss. If you receive the ball in the first kick off, then the opposing team gets it in OT if it goes into OT. That seems fair to me. Eliminating punting is real gimmicky in my opinion.

And as far as Jay Cutler being a pre-madonna. IDK, I see him in clips (wearing a uniform) and he seems real, real competitive and passionate. He reminds me of someone who at the time was considered a pre-madonna (but later paled in comparison to T.O and the Vikings on the BOAT and other players who shot themselves in the leg) on our team.

Randy Moss. He never should have been traded but Red McCombs didn’t want to pay his bonus and was being vindictive because Randy shouted at him for being 33 million under the cap in a closed door meeting.

I think it’s safe to say that RANDY turned out pretty good… far from the jackal the media made him out to be. CUTLER is a choir boy in comparison. When RANDY called out his team mates after the blew a lead he single handedly got for them, after he “walked off the field” with 12 seconds left in WASHINGTON when we were down by 57 points. i supported him. He is a competitor, not an employee. And he was right at the end of the day.. we should have “fixed out chemistry problem” by trading our entire team and keeping him.

I say go for it, get cutler. He’s a bargain, young and he will be happy. And happy campers don’t cause problems.

I love this post for 3 reasons:

1. South Park reference. You want to please me, just reference South Park and I will agree with anything you say.

2. Calling him Rosencopter instead of Rosenfels. Also a great way to get my approval.

3. A totally BA idea. I read that same article, and while it’s unlikely, it makes for some great discussion about what that would be like.

If it boils down to 1 reason almost every coach has chosen to receive, it’s this: proactive vs. reactive.
There are other reasons, too:
2) to show confidence in their QB and offensive unit.
3) to show confidence in their offensive scheme/gameplan.
4) the belief that even if they don’t score, the other team will get their 1st chance in OT with worse field position than they would receiving the first kickoff.
5) because that’s how they learned it way back when.

Ideally, the decision should be based on a team’s (and/or coach’s) strengths, e.g., the 2006 Bears would usually choose to kick off and give Rex Grossman & Co. a shorter field. Marty Mornhinweg probably knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he chose to kick, and it’s too bad that it backfired on him. I’m sure he had put more thought into it than those who reflexively dismissed it as a stupid move.

NO on the no punting in OT rule. Talk about mostly random, unsatisfying, and boring. With no punting allowed, who could afford to piddle around with the running game? It would be a contest to see whether the 1st QB to touch the ball could beat the prevent defense or go 4-and-out, allowing the kicking team to win by kicking a 30-something yarder on 1st down…and who wants to see that? The coin toss winners would switch to kicking instead of receiving, and the coin toss loser would lose far more often.

And enjoy your sandwich :)

Now that that’s out of the way, the overtime thing is more interesting. At first I was inclined to agree; dump the punt, make the teams play to the limit every series… the reason that the last 72 teams have elected to receive is that they don’t have to get anywhere near the endzone to put the game way. All they have to do is get within field goal range, and if they have a reliable kicker, it’s game over man, game over.

But if you have a lousy kicker, it’s a lot harder to get that score (which may have been the situation with the Lions, I don’t know and don’t care enough to look it up); rolling the dice with the on-side kick may make more sense if you think you got a good enough mis-match on the line.

Fairness is in the coin toss, you can’t get more fair than random chance. After that, the tangibles should carry more weight than random chance, for one short quarter.

Taking away the punt means that whoever does the initial kickoff can help themselves out a lot by kicking it long, even if it goes out of the endzone. The opposition is screwed if they can’t make at least 4ea 1st downs, on the average, to move the ball out of their own territory. That same number of 1st downs ALSO puts them in long field goal range, though.

The punt means that each team will tend to have to start it’s series back in it’s own territory, which prolongs the game and forces each team to perform for a possible victory, rather than relying on a shortcut rule.

I’ll say, ‘stick with the punt’, for now, with the possible change of letting the scoring continue to the end of the quarter.

You both make solid cases for keeping the punt. The poll is quasi-close, but it seems like my idea isn’t winning a ton of people over. While I don’t think my suggestion is the perfect solution, at least it would make the OT situation less cut-and-dry. Maybe it’s just the blogger in me or wishful thinking, but I root for any chance to second-guess coaching decisions, especially with Childress!

Each team gets the ball an equal # of times. You must score a TD if the 1st team kicks a field goal-or just put it at the 10 and say no field goals. I would like that better.

For the Judy Grimes reference. Kristin Wiig is HILARIOUS!

It might change what teams want the ball first and what ones do not, but I don’t see it having much effect on fairness.

Sure, a defensive-oriented team would be more likely to choose to kick if they win the toss. But that does not make it any more fair for the teams.

The elimination of sudden death would probably be the best option.

That is, of course, unless people want to go to a shootout-style overtime where they have to make progressively longer field goals until one team misses.

Not sure I like the idea of no kicks – unless it’s the one I give below.

How about if you choose to take the ball after the coin toss you don’t receive a kick – it’s just placed at the 15 or 20 yard line? At least that puts the receiving team a little further back than a normal kick return might typically net and helps make the field position issue come into play a little more.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1508720,bears-cutler-040209.article

I cannot remember where I heard / read this, but it was not my original idea:

Only one coin toss, at the begining of the game, if the game goes into overtime then the team who won the toss at the begining of the game gets their choice……eerrrrrrr gets the ball!

IMO this is a great idea, if a game is getting down to the wire and a coach knows he will not get the ball in OT he will likely make some more gutsy calls.

What’s everyone’s take on this?

It’s Friday; I apparently quit caring about finishing sentences.