Jump to content

swandown

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    179

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by swandown

  2. Posted

    What if the team that wins the coin toss and receives the opening kickoff in OT punts and the opponent muffs the punt? They never had a possession, so if the initial team then kicks a FG, do they still not win?

    The punt muffer loses. The new rule specifically states "A punt or field goal that crosses the line of scrimmage and is muffed by the receiving team is considered to be an opportunity to possess for the receiving team".

     

    They blew their opportunity, so they don't deserve another possession.

  3. Posted

    I have a few questions. So if I understand it correctly, there are only two possible offensive possessions in postseason overtime that can end in a score and NOT end the game. First, if team A receives the opening kickoff and kicks an FG, team B gets a chance. Second, if team B kicks a FG only after team A has successfully kicked a FG, the game becomes sudden death from that point on.

     

    So, scenario 1: Team A receives, drives, and kicks a FG. Then team B receives the kickoff and goes 4 and out or turns it over. Does team A win at this point or do they have to score again?

     

    Scenario 2: Team A wins the toss and onside kicks OR team B receives and muffs the kickoff. Team A kicks a FG. Does team A win at this point or does team B still get a chance?

     

    As the fan of a team that historically has had good defenses and average offenses (Bears), I would want Coach Smith to kickoff in the overtime and maybe try the onside.

    1. Team A wins the moment Team B's possession ends.

     

    2. Team A wins because Team B still got the "opportunity to possess the ball" (even though they screwed it up).

     

    The most interesting thing to me is: what happens when a team scores a safety? Is the game over automatically? The rules are not clear on that.

  4. Posted

    This is such a great argument, let's expand it... Why does a FF defense get charged with "points-against" when their team's QB throws a pick-6? The defense wasn't on the field at the time..

    Not in my league....why would any league follow that rule? :doublethumbsup:

    It's the same logic for giving Meachem's TD to the D/ST: Team A was technically on defense at the time that the pick-6 was scored; therefore, you should penalize Team A's D/ST.

     

    edit: I don't agree with this logic at all, by the way. But if you're going to claim that Meachem's TD goes to the D/ST, then you must agree that an interception TD against New Orleans' offense should be counted against New Orleans' D/ST.

  9. Posted

    Guy at work just told me it should be Team A getting the playoff seed since they beat Team B twice and Team C lost to team B.

    Guy at work is an idiot.

     

    Team C might have crushed Team A if they actually played each other. But since you'll never know, you can't assume that Team A is the better team. What if Team A lost to some other team that got crushed by Team C?

  10. Posted

    As commissioner of an MFL league I need to set the playoff seeds for next week. I have 3 teams tied for the last seed. Tie breakers are set up as head-to-head, then division records, then total points.

     

    First off, if you use Division Record to break a tie between teams in different divisions, then you should be fired as Commish.

     

    That said, here's how I would break it down:

     

    METHOD #1 (if you use Division Record for teams in different divisions)

     

    1. head-to-head does not apply (not all teams played each other)

    2. Teams A & B are eliminated by virtue of lesser division records

    3. Team C wins

     

    METHOD #2 (if you DON'T use Division Record for teams in different divisions)

     

    1. head-to-head does not apply (not all teams played each other)

    2. division record does not apply (since teams are in different divisions)

    3. Teams A & B are eliminated by virtue of lesser total points

    4. Team C wins

  13. Posted

    By your logic the DB that intercepted the ball for washington was also on offense after the pick. So are you saying that if he scored a TD, it shouldn't be credited to the defense?

    It sounds illogical, but the bolded part is exactly how the NFL works. The Washington Defense was temporarily on offense, and Meachem was temporarily on defense.

     

    Now, if you want to get into a discussion on why the NFL credits those touchdowns to the Defense (even though Rule 36 clearly states that they were on offense at the time), that's another matter entirely.

  14. Posted

    New Orleans is the offense when the down starts, but becomes the defense if and when Washington secures possession during the down, and vice versa for each change of possession.

     

    This is real simple.

    Therefore, New Orleans became the offense; therefore, Meachem scored a TD on offense; therefore, the New Orleans D/ST doesn't get the points.

     

    Thanks for clearing that up. :thumbup:

  15. Posted

    That's just it. I don't believe there is a case for both sides. The instant the ball was intercepted, the Saints defense was on the field regardless of the personnel involved. I may be mistaken, but most leagues do not give special teams point for a fake fg or fake punt that results in a TD, right? Even though the special teams are on the field. That's because the minute they don't try a kick, they are considered an offense. Same concept here.

    Here's why you can't really compare this to a Special Teams Play:

     

    - the NFL calculates Special Teams stats based solely on whether a ball has been kicked.

     

    - the NFL calculates Defensive stats based mostly on which team was on Defense at the start of the play.

     

    So, for example, the NFL credits Meachem's forced fumble to the defense; but his fumble recovery is NOT credited to the defense, and his touchdown is also NOT credited to the defense.

     

    From the NFL's point of view, Meachem was indeed on defense at the point of the interception; but once he recovered the fumble, he was no longer on defense.

  16. Posted

    Since the NFL rules that a change-of-possession takes place on the play, I used the Commissioner override feature and gave the owner of the Saints DST credit for the TD. Now, some of you may argue (foolishly) that this makes the defense become the offense. In theory, you would be correct, but for the purposes of the continuation of play, the potential results of that play are awarded to your DST. My position is very much like that of the NFL's in this case. Since there was a change of possession on the INT, the offense is now operating in a defensive capacity and if there is a resulting fumble with a touchdown, it's getting credited to the individual and the DST on the play.

     

    Just curious: why do you place so much value on the 1st change of possession, yet completely ignore the 2nd change of possession? That seems arbitrary to me. Further, it's a direct contradiction of the official NFL rulebook, which specifically states that Team A and Team B change back to their original designations when there is a 2nd turnover.

     

    Your position is not like the NFL's at all.

  17. Posted

    It's an offensive score because the offense was on the field = it's a special teams score because the special teams was on the field.

     

    This is a different argument altogether, since the NFL has a very clear rule about what defines a Special Teams play (i.e., the ball MUST be kicked), whereas the definitions of "offense" and "defense" are much more murkier.

  18. Posted

    i dont know if there is no way to show the TD in box score for Meachem as an offensive player or not but the NFL's box score only has the TD as a fumble return. to me that sounds like a defensive TD?? :doublethumbsup:

     

    nfl.com saints box score

     

    so take that for whats its worth

     

    But notice how Meachem is not listed under "Defense" on the lower left? If the NFL considered it to be a defensive TD, wouldn't he get credit for the FF there?

     

    Also, the official NFL Gamebook lists it as an Offensive TD (scroll down to the last page).

  19. Posted

    Fleaflicker admin has stated that they have scored the TD as an "offensive fumble recovery TD"... this is in contradiction to the official NFL box score, which lists the play as a "defensive fumble recovery"... which in turn would mean a defensive TD.

     

    I think you're incorrect here. The NFL box score does not list it as a "defensive fumble recovery". It's technically listed as a "Misc Fumble Recovery". Furthermore, the NFL officially considers the TD to be an "offensive touchdown".

  21. Posted

    8. Minnesota (4-2). If they gave IQ tests for quarterbacks, two of the highest scorers would be starting tonight. This would be my QBIQ Top 10: 1. Peyton Manning; 2. Tom Brady; 3. Brett Favre; 4. Gus Frerotte; 5. Brad Johnson; 6. Trent Green; 7. Donovan McNabb; 8. Trent Dilfer; 9. Drew Brees; 10. Mark Brunell. Knocking on the door of the top 10: Charlie Batch, Damon Huard, Matt Hasselbeck, Jake Delhomme, Jon Kitna.

     

    He mentions his top 15 quarterbacks in terms of IQ... and only 2 of them are black.

     

    Think of it this way -- there are only about 10 black QBs in the entire NFL, yet 2 of them are in the top-15. Meanwhile, there are over 70 white QBs in the NFL, and 13 of them are in the top-15.

     

    So maybe King is saying that black QBs are smarter than white QBs?

  22. Posted

    Sports Guy Bill Simmons nailed it on his website:

     

    That reminds me, we didn't get a breakout promo for a new Fox show this month (although "Justice" feels like it's about to break into an SNL sketch at any time), but after everything's said and done, we'll remember these playoffs for four haunting words: "This is our ... country." We couldn't get away from the song all month in the Chevy ads, and about 109 days after it had become completely intolerable -- seriously, what does Katrina footage have to do with me wanting to buy a Chevy? -- they made us wait over a minute before Game 2's pregame performance, which would have been the most horrifying moment of the playoffs if not for Bob Seger's teeth on HDTV. I made a joke in a previous column about how John Mellencamp was gunning to replace Seger as the sellout rock artist of his generation, but this has taken on a life of its own.

     

    In fact, I even spent a few minutes on his Web site recently hoping to find SOME explanation, even if it was something like, "Guys, I'm sorry, I'm going through a bad divorce, my wife took everything, it was either do these Chevy ads or declare for bankruptcy." But here was his actual take on the song, courtesy this weekend of the Detroit Free-Press, which reported that a message on his Web site said: "I wrote this song to tell a story about some of the challenges our country faces and how our beliefs and ideals can help us meet them, a message of hope and tolerance. It's a song that is all about standing up for the working people who are the backbone of our nation."

     

    Here's how that same message reads on his Web site right now:

     

    "About a year ago, I wrote this song to tell a story about some of the challenges our country faces and how our beliefs and ideals can help us meet them. This partnership with Chevy -- an American company that is creating jobs and supporting our communities -- makes perfect sense for a song that is all about standing up for the working people who are the backbone of our nation."

     

    Hmmmm ... Quote No. 1 sure reads differently than Quote No. 2! But let's assume that he meant everything he said in Quote No. 2, and that he's not just shilling this song to make money and promote his new album that comes out in four months. And let's factor in his outspoken views against the war in Iraq and our own government over the past few years (explained in this open letter). What does any of this have to do with a Chevy Silverado? He can't possibly expect us to believe the "partnership with an American company" angle, right? So was he thinking, "I'm not getting my political message across, maybe I'll do it secretly through a Chevy ad?" Does he have a master plan to use these never-ending ads to increase his visibility, then use that visibility to take more shots at the government? Or am I putting way too much thought into this subject because they won't stop showing the ads and they're beginning to drive me crazy?

     

    I don't know the answer, but one thing's for sure: "From the East Coast to the West Coast, down the Dixie Highway back home ... this is our country ... I'll take the check in cash please, in unmarked $100 bills ... this is our country ... "

×