Our Morning Aftermath feature has been, like so many other things that have appeared on the site over the years, a work in progress.
For the first several weeks, the key word has been "work."
We've been putting a lot of time each Monday into cobbling together an analysis of every game played on Sunday -- an exercise that keeps me away from being fully engaged in the flow of news that emerges the day after a bunch of NFL games.
So we're going to try something different this week, especially since I'm getting on a train out of New York at noon and I don't have the luxury of spending nine non-stop hours to take an in-depth look at 14 contests, less however many I could have "delegated" to MDS and Rosenthal.
In past years, I've done a "10-pack" of takes on Mondays. Since I've exported that title to SportingNews.com, where it's used on Fridays during the season and whenever else a topic can be broken up into 10 parts, I won't call this a "10-pack." But we're breaking the thing into 10 parts. And we're putting it in one pack.
They'll be popping up one at a time until all are posted. Before posting "change it back, asshole" in the comments, we ask that you at least give it a quick read.
Then you can post "change it back, asshole" in the comments.
1. Broncos need smelling salts.
Early in the third quarter of Sunday's game between the Chargers and the Broncos, a CBS camera captured images of receiver Eddie Royal taking multiple whiffs of an ammonia packet.
While waiting to return a punt.
But he hadn't just been knocked out or otherwise popped in the melon. The punt came at the end of the first drive of the third quarter. So while Royal might have banged his hat while getting shoved around on the sidelines by Knowshown Moreno and/or Brandon Marshall, Royal didn't need the ammonia for anything that had happened in the game at any point since the second quarter.
Perhaps Royal, like Seahawks coach Jim Mora during his time in Atlanta, uses the ammonia to get that extra pop, sort of like a deux deux deux. With Royal's team now in a full-out free fall after a 32-3 loss at home to San Diego, they all could benefit from sucking the stuff into their lungs -- it might be the only thing that wakes up a slumbering franchise that has lost four in a row after winning its first six.
After the game, Marshall generally called out some of his teammates for playing like they need to be huffing ammonia. (Or taking copious amounts of Canadian aspirin.)
"There were guys on the sideline that weren't angry, who didn't have a lot of emotion. And they need to look at themselves in the mirror," Marshall said after the game, per Nancy Gay of AOL's FanHouse. "This is a game where you've got to have it. And none of us can make any terrible plays."
Marshall and Moreno's moment of jostling occurred because Moreno, in Marshall's estimation, made a "terrible play," fumbling on the goal line during quarterback Kyle Orton's first drive of the game, which came after the Chargers had extended the lead to 13-0.
The fact that Orton, who didn't take a snap in practice all week with an ankle injury, even
played shows that coach Josh McDaniels realizes the team is desperate. Ultimate proof of that mindset came from an onside kick after the Broncos managed a field goal on the drive that began with Royal's ammonia-enhanced 10-yard punt return. The Chargers then took the ball down the short field for a touchdown that pushed the lead to 20-3 and, as a practical matter, put the game out of reach.
As it turns out, McDaniels' ill-advised decision to call for an onside kick wasn't the dumbest thing he did on Sunday. Reports emerged last night that the first-year head coach taunted the Chargers defense before the game.
Maybe, in McDaniels' defense, it was the ammonia talking.
2. Last year's Cinderellas are headed for possible pumpkin status.
The remarkable 2007 turnarounds from a trio of downtrodden franchises helped bolster the sense that anything can happen in the NFL -- on any given Sunday and in any given season.
This year, however, the bottom could be dropping out for the Ravens, Falcons, and Dolphins. A season after each made it to the playoffs, all three are 5-5 with six games to play.
Though the Dolphins should be feeling good about themselves because they've climbed to .500 via a two-game winning streak, the Ravens and Falcons both started the year strong and then faded. And both had a chance to pull off a big win against teams led by one of the Manning brothers not named Cooper on Sunday.
After a sluggish first half in a game played without starting tailback Michael Turner, the Falcons scored 24 points on only four second-half drives, losing in overtime after losing the coin toss. (More on that later.) For the Ravens, an interception by Indy linebacker Gary
Brackett inside the Colts 15 with less than three minutes to play cemented the two-point margin, and sent the Ravens to yet another close-game defeat.
Though there's still a long way to go before the dust settles, the road won't be free of talking potholes. The Ravens play the Steelers twice and visit Green Bay. The Dolphins play the Patriots, Steelers, Texans, Jaguars, and Titans.
The Falcons seem to have the cleanest path to a turnaround, with four of six games at home including the two toughest matchups -- visits from the Eagles and Saints.
Either way, three teams that made big splashes in 2009 are now forced to scramble for a chance to get back to the postseason, and it's possible that none of them will make it.
3. The Bengals aren't ready for prime time.
We've been sounding the alarm for weeks now.
The Bengals, despite showing up and kicking tail whenever scheduled to play the Ravens and Steelers, cannot be trusted to perform like an elite team when facing a not-so-elite team.
Just ask the hapless Browns, who took the Bengals to the final seconds of overtime in the
Sunday sandwiched between three-point Cincy wins over the other two AFC North teams.
And so after sweeping four games from last season's conference finalists, it's fitting that the Bengals fumbled away a prime opportunity to gain even more separation from Pittsburgh and
Baltimore, both of whom lost during Sunday's early action.
It appeared that Bengals would take care of the Raiders easily, after building a 14-point lead against a team that had given the quarterback job to Bruce Gradkowski, whose only prior experience against a Mike Zimmer defense, back in 2006, resulted in a 38-10 loss and a passer rating south of 30.
But the Raiders methodically chipped away at the lead, ultimately pulling off a Heidi-style
finish (the folks in Oakland missed the final seconds . . . along with the rest of the game) via a last-minute, game-tying 29-yard touchdown pass from Gradkowski to Louis Murphy, followed by an Andre Caldwell fumble on the kickoff, followed by a game-winning field goal from the
other bald-headed Raider of Polish ancestry.
If the Bengals were as good as their 7-2 record and 4-0 mark against Pittsburgh and Baltimore indicated, Cincy would have won that game -- and they would have won it handily. The real question is whether, with the Browns and Lions looming, the Bengals can finally play like a great team when facing a franchise at the other end of the spectrum.
Until further notice, we don't think they can.
4. Dusting off the overtime debate.
We despise the current overtime rules in the NFL. The notion of sudden-death is bad enough; the idea that one team gets the exclusive shot at delivering the death blow via the arbitrary tossing of a coin makes the approach wholly unacceptable.
And since we can't articulate the situation any better than Bob Costas did during halftime of Sunday night's game, we'll yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Missouri.
We continue to believe that an outcome like that would result in a change to the rule. So why not recognize what would happen if what happened in New York on Sunday ever happens in a Super Bowl game, and then fix the situation before the worst-case scenario unfolds?
5. Cartwright! . . . Cartwright!
We've always liked Redskins running back Rock Cartwright. Not for substantive reasons like the quality of his play or any of the charitable off-field projects in which he's involved or because he's not a big jerk, but because his name is "Cartwright," and whenever we mention it we then can run a link to the "Cartwright! . . . Cartwright!" scene from the Chinese restaurant episode of Seinfeld.
But Cartwright (Cartwright!) gave us something more to discuss than his name on Sunday. With starter Clinton Portis gone, again, due to a concussion and Ladell Betts lost early in the game with multiple knee ligament tears, Cartwright was the bright spot for a Washington offense that managed only six points on Sunday, and yet somehow almost stole a win.
Cartwright contributed 140 yards of total offense (67 rushing and 73 receiving). Though not as potent as the three-headed Dallas monster of Marion Barber, Felix Jones, and Tashard Choice, the Portis-Betts-Cartwright combination is a strong one, even if one or more of them will be gone in 2010, when a new coach -- and possibly a new front office -- is in town.
A big part of the problem is that, by running back standards, they're all getting brittle in the cartilage. Betts is 30, Cartwright will join him at that number before the end of the year, and Portis is an old 28, with 2,418 career touches.
Still, with Portis still recovering and Betts possibly gone for multiple weeks, we could be getting a heavy dose of Cartwright! over the balance of the season.
6. There's hope for Thanksgiving.
The good news about Sunday's overblown none-of-the-above one-point win by the previously 1-8 Lions over the currently 1-9 Browns is that, as the Thanksgiving tilts (unfortunately typo narrowly avoided) approach, there actually might be some mild interest in the early game, which features Green Bay at Detroit.
Throw in an Oakland upset over Cincinnati and a subpar performance by the Cowboys in a one-point win over the Redskins, and the afternoon game becomes more interesting (or, as the case may be, less uninteresting), too.
Not that it matters. We'll watch the Thanksgiving games because, on Thanksgiving, we gather in a room of family members and stare at a television until the tryptophan kicks in.
So save the good games for Sunday night or Monday night, and put the crappy ones on Thanksgiving. It's tradition.
More importantly, it's good business.
And who knows? Maybe a game that was expected to be crappy, like Browns-Lions, will end up being not so crappy, after all.
7. What if Saints and Colts don't lose?
For the first time since 1990 -- and only the third time ever -- two teams have made it to 10-0.
Last time around, the Giants and 49ers were on a collision course to meet on a Monday night. Both lost before they got together in the regular season, and then they got together again in the NFC title game, with New York ending San Fran's bid for a third straight Super Bowl win.
This time, the Saints and the Colts won't be playing each other, until the Super Bowl. So what if they both continue to win?
The Colts have had to resort to luck the past three weeks, scraping out close wins against the Texans, Patriots, and Ravens. Chances are it won't continue. But who knows?
The Saints looked great on Sunday, and Sean Payton thinks they're getting better. They'll need all that and more next Monday night, when the Patriots come to New Orleans.
We wouldn't recommend wagering anything of value on a meeting of 18-0 teams in Miami. Until one of them loses, however, it remains possible -- and with each passing week the prospect of Peyton Manning's team facing Archie Manning's team becomes more and more interesting.
8. AFC's starting to look like the NFC
In past years, the NFC playoff field has been only slightly more exclusive than a public golf course, with nine wins being good enough for admission and with 13 of 16 teams playing at least one round in the past three years. The AFC, in contrast, has had a country-club quality for most of the decade, with 11 wins often the mandatory minimum. Last season, the Patriots showed up with one donut short of a dozen -- and they were turned away at the door.
This year, the AFC could be slumming it. Apart from division leaders, no team has a record of better than 6-4 through 10 games.
Though one of those 6-4 second-place teams (Steelers, Jaguars, Broncos, and if they win tonight the Texans) could get hot down the stretch, that would still leave a spot for someone to staggers in with nine wins.
In the end, there could be a cluster of 8-8 teams who qualify only after the application of various tiebreakers, with the extremely remote possibility of admission being determined by the flip of a coin.
Hey, if it's good enough for determining who'll get exclusive possession of the ball in overtime of a Super Bowl, it's good enough to determine which team will grab the last ticket to the AFC postseason party.
9. Eagles dodge a cannonball.
Last year at this time, the Eagles had fallen to 5-5-1, in the game that resulted in the highly-publicized benching of quarterback Donovan McNabb.
This year, the Eagles could have slid back to 5-5 again, if the Bears didn't seem to be generally ambivalent regarding the concept of winning football games.
It was a flat, uninspiring affair, with flashes of high-end ability (and Devin Hester's bare ass) that were too few and too far between. (The high-end ability, not the rear-end images.) And while, thanks to the two Seans, the Eagles found a way to keep pace with the 6-4 Giants and the 7-3 Cowboys, Philly simply doesn't have the look or feel of a team that is destined to get back to the NFC title game, or beyond.
But as we learned last year, via a 9-7 Cardinals team dubbed by many as the worst franchise ever to qualify for the postseason, any team that finds a golden ticket in a box of paper could get hot at the right time, and then ride that momentum all the way to the playoffs.
Assuming that the Eagles can't score a seat at the tournament table or look dreadful once they get there, look for speculation to commence regarding a possible house cleaning -- or at a minimum an involuntary passing of the baton from McNabb to Kevin Kolb.
10. Vikings won't be going away quietly.
Though the Saints currently seem to be preparing for a date with destiny, there's a team in Minnesota that could do to the team in New Orleans what the team from Atlanta did to the team from Minnesota eleven years ago.
In 1998, the Vikings were the toast of the league, finishing the season 15-1 and sporting one of the best offenses the game ever had seen. Quietly (relatively speaking), the Falcons built a 14-2 record, but they were still regarded as inferior to the immediate precursor to the Greatest Show on Turf.
And so in three-plus hours on a Sunday in January 1999, the Vikings saw the Falcons derail their dream season.
This year, it would be far less shocking if the Vikings find a way to fell the Saints.
The biggest difference comes from a quarterback with extensive postseason experience, who at age 40 generated a career-best display of accuracy on Sunday, completing 22 of 25 passes for 213 yards and four touchdowns.
The best news was that the Vikings were able to give Brett Favre some extra rest on Sunday against the Seahawks, removing him from the game once the outcome was no longer in doubt. Down the stretch, rest for Favre will be critical; they need him to be as fresh and as healthy as possible come January, especially with two teams of destiny apparently destined to collide at some point in the playoffs.
Maybe you can just spend a few minutes on a little blurb about each game? That would save you time and get the point across. Or you could just do longer posts on the important games and ignore irrelevant games like the Bears vs the Eagles.
Change it back, asshole.
The Morning Aftermath posts seemed too long and were posted pretty late on Mondays. Meanwhile any news that may have come out of any of the games had to wait for the Aftermath to be posted. It seems like the site shuts down after the SNF Extra commentary is posted. My suggestions: let Mike do the SNF chat on the NBC site and don't repost it here. Meanwhile, let the other contributors post the news of the night here on PFT and ditch the long-version Aftermath.
I never really liked these at all... I'd just stick to the one liners
Damn Florio! This "War and Peace" posting is seriously cutting into my surfing the web while I should be working time. You're killing me man!
To be honest, the readership of the in-depth analysis probably mostly (if not entirely) constituted fans with a vested interest in one of the teams. "Neutrals" just skimmed right over them. (That being said, I read them all... although I'm sure most didn't.)
Anyway, I like this format too. I can get some of the highlights of the weekend in the NFL without reading up to 16 match reports. Fans of particular teams might be PO'd that their team doesn't get a shout out, but more people will actually read it (and with a lot less work for you).
LOL, still holding on to the idea that the Bengals aren't an elite team because they play down to their opponents eh? Guess you never will learn Florio. It doesn't matter if you play up or down to your opponent and it doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 100, you merely have to win. The Steelers lost last year in week 3 to the Eagles, a team they should have beaten. They barely beat the Browns the week before that. They made history with the first 11-10 score in NFL history when they barely squeaked by a struggling Chargers team that finished 8-8. Now, all this supposed "non-elite" team did was make it to the playoffs, beat everyone on their schedule in the bonus season, and then make it to the Superbowl to win in tremendous fashion not seen since Superbowl 23. Last year, I have to wonder if Florio was pounding the drumbeats that the Steelers weren't an elite team or not ready for prime time. Also Florio, you might want to remember, the Bengals only kick the crap out of other elite teams, which surprisingly, are the only ones that make it to the playoffs. Hmmm, wonder if that bodes well for a Super Bowl run? Wonder if your Steelers-blood will let you classify them as elite then?
My guess is that you want to propagate this myth that they can't be elite unless you say so. Sorry pal, you're still not that important. If they make the playoffs, something I've never taken as a given, then you are scared gutless of what they can do. They've got 6 games left, I think they need to win at least 4 to make the playoffs and possibly 5 to get a first round bye. Let's see how this thing plays out before we go dropping them out of the upper echelon of the NFL.
The OT rule won't change because
a) There's a simple reply - you had your chance in 60 minutes, if you don't want the luck of coint toss win the game in normal time.
b) There is no better solution out there, all of them that have been proposed have had fatal flaws.
Whatever you wanna do is fine with me Mike. As you can see I will read pretty much anything this site has to offer even if i don't like it. Unless of course you start making long posts about baseball, then we could have a problem.
And to all those people who go out of their way to post a comment critizing you and the site, you will all keep coming back like little crack addicts so stop all the bitching and moaning and read whats written.
Same, never liked it, mainly because it doesn't make sense. I don't massively rate how you see the game on the field, I'm more interested in the off-field rumours and stuff like that anyway.
If the NFL does change the overtime rules, then there has to be a complete possession of the football by each team. I don't mean giving the teams a shot from the opponents' 25 yard line. I mean a normal kickoff and possession. It is absurd that college football eliminates such an important facet of football such as kickoffs, and thus kick returns in their OT rules. If you have a stud kick returner on your team, why shouldn't he be allowed to get his chance to return a kickoff?
Bottom line is that flipping a coin to determine possession is statistically the fairest way to determine who gets the ball first in OT. No team has a better chance than the other when the outcome is 50/50.
It is not broken. Don't try to fix it!
Why doesn't somebody tell Patrick and Costas how stupid they look with that shoe polish in their hair ? What a couple of dopes.....change it back, bud.
If you are going to write about the Redskins at least know what the hell you are talking about. In the 2 games that Portis has missed the Redskins have looked better than they did in all games previous. Betts should be the starter, Cartwright should be the number 2 and Portis should be watching football on Shaun Alexander's couch while Edgerin James is flipping the burgers on the grill.
The Morning Aftermath posts seemed too long and were posted pretty late on Mondays. Meanwhile any news that may have come out of any of the games had to wait for the Aftermath to be posted.
Maybe you can just spend a few minutes on a little blurb about each game.
Change it back, asshole.
Post like this can be added anytime, as it is not necessary to pop it out on Mondays.
Look at the teams that the Ravens lost to, all except one game was close and they had a chance to win in all but that one game. They get a chance to face the Squeelers twice and with BigBen expanding his waistline to match the Hindenburg they have a good shot at sweeping them. Even if they split the Squeelers games that would put them in a good spot for the wild card.
Falcons are up and down, still a good shot for wild card though. Miami is done.
@ kaos
I second the baseball comment. One post on it and I'm gone.
shinsnake says:
November 23, 2009 8:23 AM
LOL, still holding on to the idea that the Bengals aren't an elite team because they play down to their opponents eh? Guess you never will learn Florio. It doesn't matter if you play up or down to your opponent and it doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 100, you merely have to win. The Steelers lost last year in week 3 to the Eagles, a team they should have beaten. They barely beat the Browns the week before that. They made history with the first 11-10 score in NFL history when they barely squeaked by a struggling Chargers team that finished 8-8. Now, all this supposed "non-elite" team did was make it to the playoffs, beat everyone on their schedule in the bonus season, and then make it to the Superbowl to win in tremendous fashion not seen since Superbowl 23. Last year, I have to wonder if Florio was pounding the drumbeats that the Steelers weren't an elite team or not ready for prime time. Also Florio, you might want to remember, the Bengals only kick the crap out of other elite teams, which surprisingly, are the only ones that make it to the playoffs. Hmmm, wonder if that bodes well for a Super Bowl run? Wonder if your Steelers-blood will let you classify them as elite then?
My guess is that you want to propagate this myth that they can't be elite unless you say so. Sorry pal, you're still not that important. If they make the playoffs, something I've never taken as a given, then you are scared gutless of what they can do. They've got 6 games left, I think they need to win at least 4 to make the playoffs and possibly 5 to get a first round bye. Let's see how this thing plays out before we go dropping them out of the upper echelon of the NFL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLATION: "I'm a Bengals fan and I'm sick to my stomach that they lost to that joke-of-a-team known as the Raiders.... So now I'm gonna go off on a boring, long-winded rant that no one is going to take seriously- or probably even finish reading."
eaglealan64 says:
November 23, 2009 8:56 AM
The OT rule won't change because
b) There is no better solution out there, all of them that have been proposed have had fatal flaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
such as...?
eaglealan64 says:
November 23, 2009 8:56 AM
The OT rule won't change because
a) There's a simple reply - you had your chance in 60 minutes, if you don't want the luck of coint toss win the game in normal time.
b) There is no better solution out there, all of them that have been proposed have had fatal flaws.
I agree with Eaglealan. I'll even add another point
c) This is the way it is, and has been for 50+ years. There have been countless teams over that span of time who lossed in OT similarly that felt the rule unfair, and it didn't make a difference. THERE IS NOT AN EASY FIX HERE, the NFL shouldn't out-smart themselves, and just let it be.
That Browns-Lions game was something else! 2nd best game of the week behind Indy-Baltimore, and obviously for a lot of different reasons. PIT-KC was a good one to watch as well.
Funny your quick to talk about the Bengals loss to the 2-7 (3-7) Raiders but fail to see through the black and gold glasses you wear to see the steelers lost to the 2-7 (3-7) chiefs... Flo... your a loser.
trickbunny
And yet you take seriously the long winded, boring ramblings of a Steelers fan about how the Bengals aren't an elite team because they can't get fat on a bad team whose words could have been translated into "Yeah, the Steelers lost, but the Bengals aren't an elite team because they didn't steamroll the Raiders." Sad that so many people invest so much in false prophets and yet, there are so many sheep in this country nowadays, I guess its the status quo.
I'm a type who likes longer, more in depth analysis. This is better.
In short...Don't change it back, asshole.
Oh, and leave the OT rules alone, NFL. Something tells me Goodell and the owners and player association have other things to worry about right now. Once a new labor agreement is worked out, then talk about peripheral issues.
@ shinsnake - STFU. End of story, nothing else to say. Read below and you'll get my drift.
@bengirlsfaninpittsburgh: First of all, how often do you show up in orange and black with your copy cat sissy girl orange towel at Heinz Field? Probably never ... you probably can't get a ticket. Even if you do, I hope the home fans treat you as poorly as the Bengirls fans treat opposing fans at PBS (what a joke - you all pay money to that bastard who has taken your money and produced a shitty team 18 of the past 20 seasons?). You're just pissed that your team isn't yet ready for prime time, once again based upon their inability to blow away a shitty opponent yesterday.
Are the Bengals improved? Yes - no doubt about it. But the flaws in their organization, leadership and self-driven players (eg., Ocho where's my Cinco POS ). Your final comment about giving equal space to the Steelers implosion yesterday in KC proves exactly what the POS journalists here in Cincinnati keep saying, all the Bengals and their shitty fans want is to be just like the Steelers. Get over it!
Dude - guess what? You've got a long way to go be just like the Steelers, so why don't you and your sorry ass, band wagon, 2 winning seasons in 20 tooting fans focus on the Bengals and stop trying to compare to the Steelers. You out right, flat out will NEVER compare. 6 Rings - 0 Rings. 48-32 all time, 15 of last 21 meetings - Steelers have won with many more season sweeps than yours this year... 10 sweeps for the good guys since 1990 compared to 2 sweeps for the bad guys.
I'm bummed the Steelers came out flat against the Bengals last week and once again thoroughly outplayed an inferior opponent but let spec teams and TOs keep KC in that game and ultimately win it. Am I concerned as a Steelers fan? No - contrary to popular belief by bungles fans and many other envious and jealous fans of other organizations, my life doesn't ride on whether the Steelers make the playoffs or win their 7th SB this year or in the future. As long as they compete game in and out, year in and out and stick to the principles that have built this great franchise over the past 4 decades, I rest comfortably at night. I also know that the principles they follow year in and out will always give them a shot. Can't say the same about your organization.
Congrats on your 1st season sweep in 11 seasons. Since the 1990 season, you've swept the Steelers twice during the season, we've swept the Bengals 10 times.
Why the long post? I'm sick of the BS from the bengals fans who can't focus on their effin team and their effin issues and always bring it back to the Steelers. Get your own identity, come up with your own fan gimmicks (nice integration of the effin orange towel dutch bags - oh and you all complain and make fun of the terrible towel, but wave that thing as if you want to be a Steelers fan every day of every week and use it after every BM every day of every week b/c you're so attached to Steeler envy).
Actually, the OT coin flip winning percentage was very close to 50% for 20 years (from '74 to '94), until they moved the location of the kickoff backwards from the 30 yard line from 35 yard line. After that rule change, the coin flip winning percentage increased to unfair 60%. A simple change in the OT rules to regain equity would be to return the OT kickoff location to the 35 yard line.
Why exactly is Payton Manning playing the Saints "more and more interesting"? Can someone explain this to me? Yes, I understand the connection, but we're talking about 2 different generations of players here. It's a tenuous link, at best.
The Costas comments would have had more weight if he'd provided an actual percentage in talking about how often the team winning the toss wins the game. I believe the percentage is only about 60/40. The best solution is to eliminate the field goal as an option and require teams to score six. I'm a Steelers fan and we lost in OT yesterday, though both teams had a possession so the coin toss was irrelevant. But I have no complaints. Sudden Death is preferable to the slow painful death imposed by the college system.
I prefer this Aftermath format to having to click all over the place to find articles--but please shorten the blurbs.
Train? What the hell is a train? Did the VW bus break down?
@trickbunny: couldn't have said it better myself.
Taking a partial cue from Soccer (where there is often stoppage play), the best - fairest way to fix OVERTIME is to simply roll the clock over from the end of the fourth quarter into OT. That is, treat the movement from the end of regulation as you would the end of the 1st quarter into the 2nd, and the end of the 3rd into the 4th. The teams would change ends of the field, and the team with possession of the ball would maintain possession at the start of OT.
Benefits of this would include forcing the teams to strategize their time management at the end of the 4th quarter. The team with the ball simply couldn't run out the clock and hope they win the coin toss. That last second field goal to tie the game would now result in the kicking team to kickoff to start OT - that means they would at least consider going for the TD to win the game, rather than risk losing possession of the ball. And, the team that gets the ball back with 45 seconds to go after their opponent just tied the score, would be able to advance the ball knowing they would still have it when OT begins (that means every down would 'count', and they couldn't wimp out and take a knee). Finally, by changing ends of the field, any wind advantage would have to be taken into account by both clubs knowing it will shift in OT.
NO system is perfect, but this rollover proposal would eliminate the dreaded coin toss and create all kinds of new startegies for coaches and players.
Funny how it's widely held that the excitement of a sudden death overtime put the NFL on the map and spelled the end of baseball as national pastime, and these chuckleheads want to change that very rule. Overtime should stay as it is because it has all three phases of the game involved in deciding the outcome. Phase four, the coin flip, also figures in game stategy. Anything else, except for a timed fifth period, is NOT football. The colleged rule sucks. It's the football equivalent of T ball! We'll just set you up at the twenty-five and everybody gets a chance! What's next, a rule that says everybody on your 53 has to get in the game? Next thing you know you'll have stadiums full of "moms" and the ref can start the game by reminding both teams that winning isn't the most important thing, so be good sports! Going to a fifth period is to impractical so leave it alone!
bengalstink09
I love when people like this find a message board and can't even see their own hypocrisy in their posts. I'm going to pen a huge rant about how much the Bengals suck and while I'm at it, I'll tell you to concentrate on the Bengals and not the Steelers. Apparently hypocrisy has never met an idiot it did not like.
And of course I want the Bengals to be like the Steelers, who doesn't? Who doesn't want championships and winning seasons? I don't envy the Steelers or their clueless fans, but of course I want the Bengals to do well. I couldn't care less about how well the Bengals do compared to the Steelers, I just don't suck on the teat of a Steelers fan who complains about the team I root for not being "elite" enough for him. I call him out for it. Apparently, because you also lack for intelligence when it comes to this matter, you got offended by it as well. It's okay little buddy, these words on the internet can't hurt you in real life.
But all of this is nonsense, since I never lacked for focus on the Bengals. I merely compared them to last year's elite team, the Steelers. And I never mentioned how the Steelers did this week, only that a Steelers fan like Florio is an idiot for imagining that his words make a bit of difference for this Bengals team this season. So before you tell someone to STFU, perhaps you should RTFU, read the ---- up, but looking at your post, I doubt reading would help much as comprehension would still lack. "MAN, he said the Steelers, can't that guy concentrate on his own team. Wait, was he talking about a Steelers fan or the Steelers, I don't care, I can't be asked to think or comprehend. He said the Steelers so I must write a rant and tell him to shut up. Yeah, that's what I'll do. That'll make me feel better about lacking the intelligence to understand what he's saying."
Apparently, Teddy Kennedy's No Child Left Behind has failed us all.
The Falcons had the ball in their hands on the 2yd line. They could have decided the game right there. They didn't need a coin flip.
I'm pretty sure Brett Favre whiffs smelling salts just before every game starts on the sidelines. I don't know if its become ritualistic for him, of if it helps give him a little kick, but I've noticed him doing it for years, and still does in Minnesota.
stetai says:
November 23, 2009 11:12 AM
I'm pretty sure Brett Favre whiffs smelling salts just before every game starts on the sidelines. I don't know if its become ritualistic for him, of if it helps give him a little kick, but I've noticed him doing it for years, and still does in Minnesota.
--------------------------------------
Maybe it's a masking agent. Relax Vike fans, it's just a joke! (How do you spell HGH?) When you think about it though, this is just another form of huffing. How come Jim Mora was criticized for doing it and players (who's bell has not yet rung)aren't?
bengalstink09,
For one, I like how when you pull facts out, you pull them JUST enough to support your team. Notice how your stats go JUST to 1990. You know, the decade the Bengals are infamous for sucking? Outside of the 90's, the Bengals are a pretty respectable organization. True, it is Mike Brown's fault and yes, I realize they were awful then. But, where were the Steelers in the 80's? Why did your stats STOP at the 80's? Oh, is that becasue the Bengals were good then? Well, that really wouldn't support your argument then would it. But, then I wouldn't expect anything less from your average Pittsburgh fan.
Truth is, Cincy HATES Steelers. Not because we are envious or jealous, I have no problem giving respect to the Rooney's or even Mike Tomlin. But, the city itself, the fans, the players ... I'd MUCH rather stick with our owner, our team, our city, our record & our fans than have what the Steelers have. I've been to alot of games in my life and have been cool with pretty much EVERY other teams fans ... except for Steelers fans. Arogant, rude and truthfully ... as you've shown above ... quite idiotic.
So ... enjoy your team, your 6 rings & your arrogance. Just know .... The Steelers are the LAST team in the NFL Bengals fans wish the Bengals could be.
PS: I find it HILARIOUS that your hatred for the Bengals is so much that your username is what it is. Who's Jealous? LMAO!!!
Guarantee possession in Overtime
Keep sudden death, but with one change. Each team should be guaranteed one possession of the ball in the overtime period. This would make overtime more exciting and more fair.
Let's say the Giants and Falcons play overtime with these rules. The Giants win the coin flip. The Giants decide to receive the ball. After the kickoff, on the first possession, the Giants drive down to the Falcons 20 and face a 4th and 5. If they kick a field goal, the Giants must then kick off to the Falcons. The Falcons could then drive and score a touchdown and win the game in sudden death. The Giants would therefore have to think about going for it on 4th down.
Once both teams have a possession, you have "sudden death." If the Giants kick a field goal, and then kick off to the Falcons, the Falcons must score a field goal to tie the score or a touchdown to win the game. If the Falcons fumble the kickoff and lose the ball, or if Falcons fail to match the score of the Giants on their first possession, the Falcons would lose the game.
The team that wins the coin flip would be tempted to kick the ball off as opposed to receiving the kickoff.
On the other hand, suppose that the Giants take the opening kickoff, but are stopped. They punt. Now the game is in sudden death. As soon as either team scores any points, they win the game.
What if the Giants take the opening kickoff, but then the Falcons score a safety or a defensive touchdown? The Falcons have won the game. The Falcons are guaranteed one possession, but they have already scored. The game is over.
Another scenario is if both teams score the same amount of points in their opening possessions. Let's say the Giants and Falcons each kick field goals to start overtime. Now it is sudden death. The Falcons kick off, and if the Giants score again on their second possession, they win and the game is over.
If the score is tied at the end of overtime, the game is a tie, unless it's a playoff game. That rule would stay the same.
This rule change would be minor but would add fairness and excitement to overtime.
One other rule change should be made. For preseason games (exhibition games) there should be no overtime period. If the score is tied at the end of regulation, the game is a tie. Nobody wants to play or watch a preseason game that goes to overtime.
What is wrong with arbitrary? Both teams showed themselves capable of scoring the same number of points (the only metric that matters) in the allotted time. Therefore, determining who gets it nexts should be random and arbitrary as is the start of the game. I can't imagine anything fairer.
Changing it to some oddball rule based on some other idiot's notion of who "deserves" the ball sounds far more arbitrary than leaving it to chance.
Can't wait to read what you have to propose because it's already sounding stupid.
@bengalstink09
time to crawl back up your own ass and wait for next Sunday when you can show your face again. Time to stop long dicking your mother and grow up you dick dripping waste of skin.
There goes shinsnake. Can't leave out his politics. Football...douchebag....football...douchebag. Like shit and shinola. Come back after you've polished a few more of Glen Beck's turds.
Sudden Death overtime is the best solution. I hope the NFL never changes that. Ask the Steelers if the coin toss handed them an easy win in OT against the 2-7 Chiefs. The mighty Chiefs played defense and won the game. Wow, what a concept.
Florio Wrote:
"But the Raiders methodically chipped away at the lead, ultimately pulling off a Heidi-style finish (the folks in Oakland missed the final seconds . . . along with the rest of the game)"
Actually, it was the anti-Heidi game. Although we missed most of the game because it was blacked out, the network switched over to the final minutes of the Raider game after the Denver-San Diego game finished.
bluestree
Hell, I'm going to start checking my toilets and make sure you're not tra-la-laing around in them, as much attention as you seem to pay to me. Don't worry, when my political comments mock you mercilessly and hit so close to your home, I do it out of amusement, not because I hate you or think you're a douchebag.
luxm
I agree, I can't stand the Steelers, their QB, their smiling wide receiver, their coach, anything about them. I'm not jealous or envious of them, but I definitely want the Bengals to become the Steelers. I don't root for the Bengals to be also rans, I root for them to be champions. Not because I want them to be better than the Steelers, but because I like winning, period. But yeah, his projection that Bengals fans are envious of the Steelers is apparently anti-Bengals projection. Sad, sad, sad.
leatherneck... while it sounds like it might work the team that is down by 3 will play completely differently than if they were tied. The two possessions are not equal. They'll go for it on 4th instead of punting for example. Or try a long pass... a trick play. So in the end you just exchange one advantage for another.
The only solution I see is to play a set amount of time... say 10 or 15 mins. That pretty much guarantees both teams see the ball. However it robs the NFL of those dramatic moments associated with "Sudden Death". No more game winning plays. Doubt they want to see this fan favorite end.
There was a Morning Aftermath Post?
As much as I hate the Bengals losing to a single play or on a single possession in OT, I have to admit those sudden death plays are pretty durn exciting. One of my favorite plays in the postseason over the past decade or so was Matt Hasselback's "We're going to take the ball and we're going to score" pick-six in OT against Green Bay. That wouldn't have been nearly as funny if it hadn't ended the game.
Krow: "while it sounds like it might work the team that is down by 3 will play completely differently than if they were tied. "
The team that gets the ball first would realize this, and would always be tempted to go for it on 4th down, too.
Plus, if you have a successful surprise onside kick, that could swing the game.
Funny to look back on the power rankings of last week where Vikings fans were all pissy that the Bengals were ranked above them despite the fact that the Vikings just look like a much better team.
Bengals fans got all huffy about how the Vikings haven't played anyone other than Pitt and Ravens wich the Bengals are 4-0 against. Arguing that the Vikings only appear good compared to the people they have played and how incredibly lucky this year they have been with their paltry 11 average difference between points scored and points allowed.
It should becoming clear at this point that there are 3 great teams in the NFL this season. There are 5 or so terrible teams this season. And then there are a bunch of teams in the middle that you just can't predict. Some of those middle teams are a shade better than others, but not by much.
I wish there was a fair overtime that didn't take forever. college is fair but takes way too long. And why do you assume the Eagles will collapse? This isn't Dallas we're talkign about. Statistically under Andy Reid the Eagles have had very strong finishes, so I expect them to heat up at the right time. Don't act like it's panic time in Philly and they need to clean house
Ok, this is just about stupid. There needs to be a separate comments for all the different issues raised by one aftermath blog. I would guarantee that it is being done this way cause Lord Florio completely mismanaged his time and can't get it done.
CHANGE IT BACK ASSHOLE
That being said, I guess Lord Florio has already gotten his site hits for the month. He has yet to mention one of the more significant accomplishments of all yesterdays games.
Nothing has been said about Favre and/or the Vikings yet. From NFL.com:
Favre completed a career-high 88 percent of his passes for 213 yards and four touchdown passes and the Vikings delivered their most complete performance of the season in a 35-9 victory over the Seattle Seahawks on Sunday.
Favre completed 22 of his 25 throws for the Vikings (9-1). His previous career high was 85.2 percent against Detroit on Sept. 20. But he has only completed at least 80 percent two other times in his previous 18 seasons.
It was Favre's 22nd career game with at least four touchdown passes, surpassing Dan Marino.
There is a better way, and here it is:
1)A coin toss to determine who gets the ball first
2)If Team A scores a TD team B gets a chance to match, if they dont, team A wins
3)If Team B holds Team A, and B scores, obviously, Team B wins
4)If both score a TD, you repeat
5)If Team A kicks a FG, team B gets an offensive possession. If Team B, scores a TD they win, if Team B gets a FG, the next team to score wins
So in essence, its the first team to score 4 points with both teams having at least one possession. This removes the importance of the toss, gives both team chances, but is nowhere near the ridiculousness of the NFL/college rules that are currently in place. Costas basically was right on.
I want to know how often the team with the best records actually make the SB? Not many methinks. Its those cloudy teams throughout the regular season that make a run in the playoffs that make it to the sb and win it.
Go Bengals
the Morning Aftermath was one of the better features you were developing so I am sorry to see it go...hopefully its only a one week break
I enjoy reading the takes on the games & reading the comments...it was kind of nice on a Monday to actually read about the games rather than an op-ed piece about overtime etc...
One big advantage of a "Sudden death overtime with guaranteed possession" rule would be this.
Overtime games could end on: blocked field goals, missed field goals, onside kicks, fumbled kickoff returns, and failed 4th down conversions. It would be awesome for your team to stop the opposing team on 4th down with 9:36 left in overtime, and that would win the game.
RE: OVERTIME Solutions --
I dunno, some of these each team gets the ball and tries to outsmart each other with FG vs TD's scenarios seem more complex than need be. The current Sudden Death is better.
The Rollover idea of the team with the ball at the end of regulation time maintaining that possession in OT still sounds the least complicated, simplest and fairest way IMHOP.
Here's the BEST solution to the overtime dilemma:
1) Eliminate OT for all regular season games
2) Record ties as LOSSES for both teams
3) For play-off games, keep OT rules as they currently are
To fix overtime just eliminate field goals and require a TD by any means (special teams, defense, or offense.
This way the offense really has to completely BEAT the defense to win.
I don't know why everyone keeps making it so complicated. Like Patrian says and I posted this morning, simply eliminate the field goal and require teams to score six to win in OT. That way you keep the Sudden Death element that football fans love but you eliminate the possibility that teams can throw a couple of good passes and kick. The offense and defense will have to play their best to succeed.
Of course, the way my Steelers are playing on special teams right now, if they lost the toss, they'd probably just watch the opposing team run back the OT opening kick and that would be the end of it. Sigh.
Too much to comment on Mike. Change it back to one thing at a time.
I really don't want to wade through the whining Bengal fans, the bitter Eagle fans, or the Favre-Drugged Viking fans who think they may actually go to and win the super bowl to FINALLY talk about how pathetic, anemic, and sick the Bronco's look. Other than the my Lions and the Browns, could a team really play that consistently bad on both sides of the ball? Really?
Why is Simms on this roster? He was bad way beyond not taking regular snaps. I mean painful, ugly, not even Texas quality bad. Bring back Jay Cutler, at least he can complete passes to opposing defensive backs.
Whoever cut off and hid the entire Bronco Defense's testicles in a bucket, please give them back.
Josh - Your NOT Bill Belichick. Act your experience level and coach a football game based on most probably success, not fairy tail luck.
What a bone head way to successfully and completely deflate and demoralize your team.
If you eliminate FGs, you have to also eliminate Safeties in OT. In other words -- changing the playing rules in OT. Sounds too close to what College Football does, not to mention the truly asinine Shootouts in Hockey and Soccer.
Keep it simple.
Sudden Death.
The 4th quarter rolls into the OT quarter as if it were the 2nd quarter or 4th quarter with ball possession remaining with the possessor at the end of Regulation.
All other rules stay the same as in Regulation.
@PolegoJim ...
But if Florio had changed it back, I wouldn't have gotten to read your post. And it was a really good post LOL
@JoeStem ...
No, definitely not like what they do in college. Hate the college system of slow, tortured death. Just the same as it is now, except you'd have to score a TD to win instead of being able to score a FG. But I could live with your suggestion, too.
@Deb - thank you, good point.
PolegoJim
Interesting idea, but it would totally take away the 2 minute drill in tie games, and the excitement of a game winning drive. If a team gets the ball with under 2 minutes, and a tie game, there would be no urgency to score during regulation, because they would get a fresh 15 minutes to continue the drive.
My opinion is to let both teams get at least one possession. If the OT receiving team scores on the opening drive, they have to kickoff, giving the other team one last chance. If neither team scores on their first drive, sudden death rules apply. It's not perfect, but at least both teams get a shot without using the lame college version of OT.
MajikMan --
Yes, the team with the ball might be interested in holding on to it and running out the clock, BUT, the defenders could call timeouts and try to stop them to gain possession of the ball for OT. It's still better than letting a coin flip decide somewhere in the neighborhood of 55 to 60% of games.
As Costas and others have pointed out, kickers are better than they were years ago (Kris Brown notwithstanding) AND the kickoff moved back to the 35 yd line has added to the coin flip winner percentage of winning stat.
One more stat I'd love to see factored in: What percentage of Coin Flip winning teams that ALSO have a Top 10 ranked offense win OT games? I have a feeling that the stats might be quite different than when you consider all teams - offensively challenged or not into the equation. It's one thing to say that 55% of teams that win the coin flip also win the game, but I would guess it's more like 60%+ of teams with superior offenses.
JoeStem,
You're missing the point. In a continuation overtime, like PolegoJim was talking about, the defense wouldn't need to worry about the clock either, as the OT would essentially add another 15 minutes to the game, barring a score. So the D would not need to stop the clock, they just need to stop the other team. This would really take away the sense of urgency from both teams.
I agree with you on the better offenses having a better winning percentage. But the problem here is what happens when 2 high powered offenses go into OT. Imagine if the Pats and Saints go to OT on Monday. In that battle of high scoring offenses versus average (at best) defenses, the coin flip winner is going to win.
The Pats - Saints potential OT only makes my point stronger. Keeping the current system makes the coin flip winner more like a 70% game winner in OT. My system would make every play and every second count. And, the D would have an incentive to get the ball back as quickly as possible so as to gain possession of the ball before regulation runs out.
Now, teams often just take a knee and hope for the coin flip win, and the D does the same. With the Rollover OT, each DOWN would also count. 4th down would be a forced punt (or go for it situation). You can't just see what the flip of the coin does - you would lose possession - period.
What would be the benefit of gaining possession before the end of regulation? What's the difference if the team with the ball has to punt it with 30 seconds left in regulation, or 30 seconds into overtime? Or the difference between getting the ball back before the end of regulation because of a forced punt, or 3 minutes into overtime because of a forced punt, if the punting team is still on the same drive they were on at the end of regulation?
With your system, if a team gets the ball on its own 30, with 45 seconds left in a tie game, there would be no urgency to try to score in regulation, seeing as how they could pick up 10 or 15 yards in the final seconds of regulation, then just pick up where they left off in OT.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to understand your thoughts. Clearly we both agree the current system is flawed, but there is no perfect solution either.
My ROLLOVER OT thinking is:
1. Get rid of the dreaded coin flip
2. Avoid all the cutesy Only a TD; Both Teams Get the Ball; A TD beats a FG etc etc scenarios
3. Maintain Sudden Death
While it is true that a team with the ball could run out the clock, they still have to be aware of Down and Distance. And, if there is any appreciable time left on the clock in regulation, it would behoove the Defense to try and make a stop in the 4th Q just in case they score before time expires. Regardless, by using up their opponent's downs, the D can work towards getting the ball back whether it be in the 4th or OT. Not to mention working on field position.
Yes, I admit the team with the ball towards the end of the 4th Q has an advantage, but, it's still better than a coin flip to determine possession. Often times you see TEAM A score with a minute left. They kickoff. If TEAM B gets the return only to about the 20 yd line or so, they will play super conservative and just take the 50-50 chance of a coin flip. Under the ROLLOVER OT scenario, they would eat up at least 2 downs (and maybe 3 if Team A has a TO or 2). That would FORCE them to try and move the ball, knowing the other side would gain field possession should they have to punt (doesn't matter if it's the 4th or OT). BOTH sides have incentive to play full out for that last minute because every play would count towards down, distance and field position.
Plus, both coaches would have to gameplan differently in the final several minutes of regulation, knowing that every play counts down to the very last second.
My mythical TEAM A might just say that they should really go for that TD in regulation rather than a tying FG so that TEAM B would have no chance to overcome them as they would in a tie game. And, hey, some daring coaches might even go for a 2pt conversion to avoid the fact that they wouldn't even have a 50-50 coin flip chance of getting back the ball first in OT.
What I'm saying is why would the defense need to use timeouts at the end of regulation in a tie game? Essentially, a rollover OT just means a 30 minute 4th quarter, if no one scores. No urgency by either team at the end of regulation when the offense knows they have 15 more minutes to sustain a long, methodical drive instead of a 2 minute hurry up.
As I noted, the Offense does have the advantage in theory. But, you seem to assume that the offense will always be able to drive down the field whether in regulation or OT. You seem to ignore that both the offense and the defense can try and score/get the ball & score in regulation in order that the other side can't even get to OT.