.jpg)
Garrett Hartley sent the Saints to the Super Bowl, but did the Vikings even have a chance?
Let's take a break from the world of free agency for a little bit and look at something from last season that may cause changes in seasons to come. It's been discussed for years now off and on, but it has really been pushed into the spotlight ever since the New Orleans Saints defeated the Minnesota Vikings in the NFC Championship game for a right to play in Super Bowl XLIV. The NFL is now looking into changing the rules of overtime so that both teams would now get a possession and a "chance" to win the game.
Amazing how much influence Brett Favre has on the game isn't it?
Come on, you don't really think that this would be getting nearly as much press and attention if it had been Marc Bulger that lost the NFC Championship game now do you?
As of right now the rules of the NFL's overtime are simply known as "sudden death." A coin flip starts an extra fifteen minute quarter and the first team to score wins the game. The winner of the coin flip has the option to receive the ball or defer to the opposing team. It has happened before.
NFL owners will vote next week on a proposal that will allow for both teams in a playoff game to get a chance with the ball if the game goes into overtime. It appears though that this proposal is only for the postseason and both teams would get a chance with the ball only if the coin flip winner kicks a field goal.
Good God, if this isn't the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.
So let me get this straight. If a team wins the coin flip, takes the ball, and kicks a field goal, then the other team gets a chance with the ball too. If the coin flip winning team takes the ball and makes a touchdown, then the game is over. That is just ridiculous.
First of all, this whole talk of the overtime rules changing has been in discussion for years but word is that things would not change anytime soon. It appears as if the Saints win over the Vikings this past season has stirred enough talk and controversy to make the changes in overtime rules jump to the front of the line. Perhaps it's because the "legendary" Brett Favre never got his chance to go out there and win the game for his team after Garrett Hartley kicked the game-winning field goal.
People have been arguing that point since the NFC Championship game and long before it, but there is no backing to it whatsoever. Let me dissect the main arguments people come up with for changing the overtime rules in the NFL:
- The losing team never got a chance to win the game - Oh really? Sure as hell could have fooled me because I thought they had a full sixty minutes of playing time to win the game. If a team doesn't want the game to come down to overtime rules then play just that much harder to not end up there. If they do end up in overtime though, don't say they didn't get a chance because that is horrendously false.
- Only one team got the ball - It doesn't have to be that way. The Saints won the coin toss in overtime and got the ball first, drove down, and kicked a field goal. Had the Vikings wanted their turn with the ball then their "awesome defense" should have played better and stopped the Saints from getting into position for Hartley. Or maybe Favre shouldn't have thrown across his body on the run at the end of regulation resulting in an interception.
- The game should not be decided on a coin flip - Here is probably the most pointless argument of all. How on earth is a game decided by a coin flip? People are going to start tossing statistics out at me like how teams winning the OT flip win the game such and such percentage of the time. Sure, that's all fine and dandy but it holds no merit. It doesn't matter which team wins the coin toss, but it does matter how the offenses and defenses play. That right there is what decides the game.
Changes in the NFL are commonplace these days as the owners are looking to protect players more and more. Other changes are being made to seemingly make the game seem more fair which is just absurd if you ask me. That's where this proposal to change the overtime rules falls in because when a game is played for sixty minutes and ends up in overtime then it should come down to whichever team can get the upper-hand first. Sure that's a matter of personal opinion, but it makes sense.
I'm not saying there aren't legitimate points for both sides of the overtime argument, but currently the rules are in place and they have been for a long time. Fans of losing teams will always say that overtime should be changed while fans of winning teams will always say there is no problem with it. Had the Saints lost back in January then I would be upset but not complaining because it is the way the game is played. I can also tell you that there wouldn't be as much talk about changing the rules of overtime right now if Hartley had missed that kick and Favre stepped back onto the field. Sad, but true.
Overtime rules in high school and college are different and not that bad either, but they really take away from the entire dynamics of how the game is played. Giving the ball to both teams at pre-determined locations on the field molds a portion of the game enough as it is. From that point on, it is up to the teams to get into the end zone or kick one through the uprights but they still get things laid out for them on silver platters. Do you really think that giving the professionals the same "courtesy" is going to show much separation between the game levels?
Well, I guess we can leave separation up to the pay scale then eh?
For e-mail updates whenever a new article is posted, please subscribe at the top of the page and follow me on Twitter: @CapnDanny or join my group on Facebook.
Please be sure to check out BlackandGold.com, SaintsReport.com, and WhoDatZone.com for more.
Comments
First off, the Vikes "awesome" D did stop the Saints, but the refs decided to throw a flag on a horrible 3rd and 10 pass int. call when Brees just heaved it over D. Thomas's head before Brees got drilled. Then two very questionable reviewable calls either one could have been overturned, but was not. This rule is not about Brett Favre you fat toad, do you remember P Manning not getting a chance to get on the field against the Chargers two yrs ago? well obviously you don't or you just have hatred toward Favre because he carved up your Aints D. You would be crying in your gumbo if the situation were reversed and Brees never had his chance.....you're a f'n liar
Wow. N.O.Fluke, I have to say that NO, I don't remember the time two years ago when Manning didn't get a chance to beat the Chargers...but that's kinda the point that the author is making, isn't it? If the Saints had beat ANY other QB in OT to go to the SB, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And you are blaming the loss on one flag? You are probably right, it's a conspiracy. No one in the entire NFL world gives a care about Brett Favre....(gag).
fluke n.o. yep brett favre carved up the super bowl champion "aints d" for a 28-31 loss in which he had twice as many interceptions as touchdowns (2-1 by the way.) oh and brees only had 3 touchdowns and zero picks... the vikes may have won if they didnt have brett throwin picks and your offense consisting of nothing but turnovers... so maybe you wouldnt be crying if you know, the vikes offense didnt screw up so much you loser... get a life and quit crying and always remember... better luck next year!
Saints fan all my life but believe in fairness. Change the OT rules. 1) Coin toss stat is fact and can't be summarily dismissed. 2)Defense is reactionary; defense is more tired by end of 4th quarter. Just play a normal quarter. 1 TO/1 challenge per quarter.
Oh and N.O. Fluke, mind your manners, talking like that to people in real life would get your @&& kicked. Online it just makes you sound like a coward hiding behind a keyboard. That goes for anyone.
Thank you Sabadooba. I respect everyone's opinion whether they agree or not no matter who they may be, but at least be able to discuss the conversation without constant name-calling or anything. But if you are going to ridicule, at least it was at me N.O. Fluke and not at one of my readers. Berating me I can live with.
And I do recall Manning not getting a chance against the Chargers two years ago. I'm just saying that it appears that OT rules are getting more attention now ever since the ending of the Saints/Vikes game. And it is true that the media outlets have been all over this. Yes, Deion in particular. But it is tiresome hearing the argument be followed with the example of "Brett Favre never getting his chance on the field." I know it's being used because it is the most current but come on...put JaMarcus Russell or Matt Leinart or Chad Pennington in his place and this conversation PROBABLY isn't happening.
And let us not forget about the blatant facemask that went uncalled in the '08 matchup between Saints/Vikes. Everyone remember who went on to win THAT game by three points? Saints fans do. And that's what made all the 'bad calls' sooooo hillarious in the champ. game! Geez I can't believe that someone still has sour grapes.
Dude,
You took the words right out of my mouth! The Saints had to be involved (as the winner) for this to be an issue...Favre added a little more sauce to the pot but basically if the Saints hadn't won I don't think there'd be a discussion going on.
PS...N.O.fluke is an idiot!
It never ceases to amaze me how idiots like N.O. Fluke can call the refs out for an alleged bad call on :their" team & be completely oblivious to bad calls on the team they don't care for...what about the alleged late hit on your precious brett that the officials threw a flag later than the alleged late hit...what about the no contact pass interference call in the end zone....if you want to whine, whine about the most dumbest play of the game......which was brett's interception....you crybabies make me laugh...the saints won the game, the vikings lost....get over yourself
How about this idea for Overtime?? ELIMINATE the overtime coin flip ! Imagine this:
The team that wins the initial toss also wins the overtime right to kick or receive. Therefore both teams know who gets the choice at the beginning of overtime when the game begins. Wouldn't this create more strategy and decisions if the coach knows who is getting the ball in O.T?? Wouln't there be more agressive play if you know you aren't getting the ball in O.T. And of course more cautious calls if you know you will be getting the ball first in O.T.
PERSONALLY, THIS WOULD BE MORE EXCITING AND PUT SOME PRESSURE ON THE COACHES AS WELL.
THOUGHTS??
The N.F.L. wants Farve to win another super bowl so bad they cant stand it, he just got beat by a better team, My New Orleans Saints.
Easy and fun solution to OT.
Now, I don't find OT rules to be particularly egregious as they stand now, but there's no question that this would be more fun:
FIRST TEAM TO SIX POINTS IN THE OVERTIME PERIOD WINS
If anyone has any reasons why that simple and dynamic solution wouldn't be the cat's a**, I'd like to know.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!