Nantz ripping apart Fatcessa

[loluchka80]

Originally Posted by ground and pound

without having had the luxury of hearing this debate, based on this recap i must say that Francesa is 100% right, and the league should not change the overtime rules at all.


the absolute case in point of this is the Cardinals- Packers wild card game this year. in a game where 100 freaking points were scored, almost 1000 yards of offense put up, and where neither punter had been seen since the first quarter, the game ended in overtime on a DEFENSIVE TOUCHDOWN of all things. that was the clincher about this stupid overtime debate. this is not baseball, on any given play, either team score. as such, each team has a more than fair shot in overtime. im sure the whole world, including myself thought the Packers were going to win when they won the toss, and yet a defensive play ended the game. if that isn't proof that the overtime system is fair i dont know what is, and it sounds like Francesa is arguing the correct point of view, for once.

+1. francessa kept bringing up this game. the defense gets paid too. nantz kept saying, but that rarely ever happens.

nantz also kept saying that in baseball, when you go to extra innings, both teams get to bat. which is a terrible arguement, because in baseball the defense can't win the game.

[32green]

Originally Posted by Lazy Bum

i can't believe anyone still pays attention to Francessa.

The only thing more shocking is Francesser haters who see a thread that says "Francesser", click on it, read it, see "Francesser" then post "I cant believe it"...

Originally Posted by pauliec

I still think 32green does a better Francesser.

Lol, no way, thats great...Btw....Francesser must know thats out there because he went to greaaaaaaaaaaat lengths yesterday explaining how his cell phone is from the 80's and he doesnt have a "Boisenberry" and he's so backwards technology wise...thought it was odd til you posted that Paulie...

It def. got back to him.

[TampaT]

Originally Posted by SAR I

He's provocative and entertaining.

The 1050 boys are corporate and boring.

Sorry......Francesa is the better listen. The key to sports radio is to take a very specific path of opinion. If the listener agrees with it, he enjoys Mike saying it over and over again with gusto. If the listener disagrees with it, he waits for a caller to finally stick it to Mike, sometimes with some success. Either way, its entertaining radio. ESPN is dullsville.

SAR I

He lost it this time around. I get what you are saying, but like the crazy uncle that was worth listening to at one time, at some point you know when he has lost his edge and wit. Mike is not worth the time of day when we become his binky. Even a binky has the right to say no to someone who sucks.

[JumbalayaJet]

I don't listen much, but was wondering if His Emminence found time to discuss the beating his alma-mater took yesterday.

[Megalomaniac]

Originally Posted by ryan10

+1 totally agree...the "purest" football fan realized you can score on both sides of the ball and if your defense is good enough can win game on its own..the people who want everyone to get a "chance" with a possesion is the same people who want dodgeball taken out of school gym because there can only be 1 winner!!!

it has nothing to do with "purity." of course we all know you can score on both sides of the ball. but the defense scoring is MUCH more rare than the offense.

ok, and i don't understand your analogy at all. i'm assuming you're just trying to be funny, but it makes no sense at all. first of all, anyone that wants to get rid of dodgeball in school is just dumb. it's the best activity by far.

now, to make some sense of it, if the game of dodgeball was one on one with only one ball, and you decided who gets the ball by a coinflip, i would definitely think that's unfair. but as well, there's no money involved, and these are not peoples jobs, so who really cares in the end.

[JetsCrazey]

it's very simple: use the college system, except make each team start from their own 35/40. This makes them earn it either way.

[ground and pound]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

it has nothing to do with "purity." of course we all know you can score on both sides of the ball. but the defense scoring is MUCH more rare than the offense.

ok, and i don't understand your analogy at all. i'm assuming you're just trying to be funny, but it makes no sense at all. first of all, anyone that wants to get rid of dodgeball in school is just dumb. it's the best activity by far.

now, to make some sense of it, if the game of dodgeball was one on one with only one ball, and you decided who gets the ball by a coinflip, i would definitely think that's unfair. but as well, there's no money involved, and these are not peoples jobs, so who really cares in the end.

who cares if defenses don't score as much as offenses? what if the defense simply gets a 3 and out and then the offense gets the ball? what if the defense sacks the opposing quarterback at their own 20 and recovers, and then the offense comes on and is already in field goal range? the idea that both teams need a possession is craziness. why is it that when they showed the overtime records of teams this year prior to the coinflip in the Saints game, teams that had won the toss first had a LOSING record on the year, let alone them scoring on the first drive. the record was like 5-8 or something like that for teams that had won the toss.


how many times have the Jets won the coin toss in overtime and not won? Buffalo this year ring a bell? Jets win coin toss, march down field, holding call, botched field goal. teams trade 2-3 possessions and then Buffalo wins. each team saw the ball at least 3 times, i believe. how about the 07 Pittsburgh overtime game where both teams saw the ball multiple times, before the Jets won? how about in 03 when we played the Giants in OT and it took until 3 or 4 seconds left in OT for the Giants to win. or in 04 when the Jets won the toss against the Ravens, saw multiple possessions, as did the Ravens, and lost. or in 05 against Jacksonville, multiple possesions again. that's just the Jets recent OT history, and im sure the Jets aren't the only team. for every one time that Chad Morton is going to take the opening OT kick for a touchdown, there are probably 6 of the above examples where each team sees the ball multiple times, and i guarantee that more or less holds true for most teams throughout the league, not just the Jets. and that's aside from the fact that the defense can still score at any second, force turnovers, force 3 and outs, etc. the OT debate is asinine. it's fine as the way it is, and it would be a shame if the NFL changes yet another rule that has been well engrained into the fabric of the game for a number of years.

[Big L]

Originally Posted by ground and pound

who cares if defenses don't score as much as offenses? what if the defense simply gets a 3 and out and then the offense gets the ball? what if the defense sacks the opposing quarterback at their own 20 and recovers, and then the offense comes on and is already in field goal range? the idea that both teams need a possession is craziness. why is it that when they showed the overtime records of teams this year prior to the coinflip in the Saints game, teams that had won the toss first had a LOSING record on the year, let alone them scoring on the first drive. the record was like 5-8 or something like that for teams that had won the toss.


how many times have the Jets won the coin toss in overtime and not won? Buffalo this year ring a bell? Jets win coin toss, march down field, holding call, botched field goal. teams trade 2-3 possessions and then Buffalo wins. each team saw the ball at least 3 times, i believe. how about the 07 Pittsburgh overtime game where both teams saw the ball multiple times, before the Jets won? how about in 03 when we played the Giants in OT and it took until 3 or 4 seconds left in OT for the Giants to win. or in 04 when the Jets won the toss against the Ravens, saw multiple possessions, as did the Ravens, and lost. or in 05 against Jacksonville, multiple possesions again. that's just the Jets recent OT history, and im sure the Jets aren't the only team. for every one time that Chad Morton is going to take the opening OT kick for a touchdown, there are probably 6 of the above examples where each team sees the ball multiple times, and i guarantee that more or less holds true for most teams throughout the league, not just the Jets. and that's aside from the fact that the defense can still score at any second, force turnovers, force 3 and outs, etc. the OT debate is asinine. it's fine as the way it is, and it would be a shame if the NFL changes yet another rule that has been well engrained into the fabric of the game for a number of years.

Wow, bravo! +1. I couldn't have said it better!

Seriously, all the team that didn't win the coin toss has to do is force a 3 and out to get their offense a possession. Whats the big deal.

[sg3]

can we kindly get away from the substance of this issue

and back to bashing the fat turd in PM drive time on the FAN

[Batmans A Scientist]

Originally Posted by ground and pound

who cares if defenses don't score as much as offenses? what if the defense simply gets a 3 and out and then the offense gets the ball? what if the defense sacks the opposing quarterback at their own 20 and recovers, and then the offense comes on and is already in field goal range? the idea that both teams need a possession is craziness. why is it that when they showed the overtime records of teams this year prior to the coinflip in the Saints game, teams that had won the toss first had a LOSING record on the year, let alone them scoring on the first drive. the record was like 5-8 or something like that for teams that had won the toss.


how many times have the Jets won the coin toss in overtime and not won? Buffalo this year ring a bell? Jets win coin toss, march down field, holding call, botched field goal. teams trade 2-3 possessions and then Buffalo wins. each team saw the ball at least 3 times, i believe. how about the 07 Pittsburgh overtime game where both teams saw the ball multiple times, before the Jets won? how about in 03 when we played the Giants in OT and it took until 3 or 4 seconds left in OT for the Giants to win. or in 04 when the Jets won the toss against the Ravens, saw multiple possessions, as did the Ravens, and lost. or in 05 against Jacksonville, multiple possesions again. that's just the Jets recent OT history, and im sure the Jets aren't the only team. for every one time that Chad Morton is going to take the opening OT kick for a touchdown, there are probably 6 of the above examples where each team sees the ball multiple times, and i guarantee that more or less holds true for most teams throughout the league, not just the Jets. and that's aside from the fact that the defense can still score at any second, force turnovers, force 3 and outs, etc. the OT debate is asinine. it's fine as the way it is, and it would be a shame if the NFL changes yet another rule that has been well engrained into the fabric of the game for a number of years.

First of all. the OT rule isn't that old. It wasn't until 1974 that they changed the rule for the regular season

And the NFL is far different now then it was, especially in terms of how OT is played

1974 Kickers
30-39 Yards: 123-190 (64.7%)
40-49 Yards: 75-190 (44.4%)
50+ Yards: 4-30 (13.3%)

2008 Kickers
30-39 Yards: 286-321 (89.1%)
40-49 Yards: 186-255 (74.5%)
50+ Yards: 66-104 (63.5%)

Teams had to drive an extra 20+ yards for the same shot they had in 1974.
Just because this is the way the rule is now, doesn't make it right. The bottom line is that the team who loses the coin toss is at a significant disadvantage.

As for this season

Pitt Vs Tenn - Won by Pitt on 1st drive
Cinn Vs Cle - Won on Cinn drive (Receiving team) Drive #4
Dal Vs KC - Won by Dal (Kicking team) Drive #2
NE Vs Den - Won by Den on 1st drive
Jax Vs StL - Won by Jax on 1st drive
Buf Vs NYJ - Won by Buf (Kicking team) Drive #3
KC Vs Pit - Won by KC (Kicking team) Drive #1
NYG Vs Atl - Won by NYG on 1st drive
Bal Vs Pit - Won by Bal (Kicking team) Drive #2
NO Vs. Was - Won by NO (Kicking team) Drive #1
Mia Vs Ten - Won by Ten (Kicking team) Drive #1
TB Vs NO - Won by TB on 1st Drive
Min Vs Ten - Won by Chi (Receiving team) on Drive #3 (Also missed FG on 1st drive)

Reciving team - 7-6 (5 wins on 1st drive)

5/13 games end without one team getting the ball.

It's just a significant advantage, far too much, IMO.

[ground and pound]

Originally Posted by Batmans A Scientist

First of all. the OT rule isn't that old. It wasn't until 1974 that they changed the rule for the regular season

And the NFL is far different now then it was, especially in terms of how OT is played

1974 Kickers
30-39 Yards: 123-190 (64.7%)
40-49 Yards: 75-190 (44.4%)
50+ Yards: 4-30 (13.3%)

2008 Kickers
30-39 Yards: 286-321 (89.1%)
40-49 Yards: 186-255 (74.5%)
50+ Yards: 66-104 (63.5%)

Teams had to drive an extra 20+ yards for the same shot they had in 1974.
Just because this is the way the rule is now, doesn't make it right. The bottom line is that the team who loses the coin toss is at a significant disadvantage.

As for this season

Pitt Vs Tenn - Won by Pitt on 1st drive
Cinn Vs Cle - Won on Cinn drive (Receiving team) Drive #4
Dal Vs KC - Won by Dal (Kicking team) Drive #2
NE Vs Den - Won by Den on 1st drive
Jax Vs StL - Won by Jax on 1st drive
Buf Vs NYJ - Won by Buf (Kicking team) Drive #3
KC Vs Pit - Won by KC (Kicking team) Drive #1
NYG Vs Atl - Won by NYG on 1st drive
Bal Vs Pit - Won by Bal (Kicking team) Drive #2
NO Vs. Was - Won by NO (Kicking team) Drive #1
Mia Vs Ten - Won by Ten (Kicking team) Drive #1
TB Vs NO - Won by TB on 1st Drive
Min Vs Ten - Won by Chi (Receiving team) on Drive #3 (Also missed FG on 1st drive)

Reciving team - 7-6 (5 wins on 1st drive)

5/13 games end without one team getting the ball.

It's just a significant advantage, far too much, IMO.

a 7-6 record is a significant advantage? if that's a significant advantage, what would a minor advantage be, 3-10? i could understand if the receiving team had a 10-3 or 11-2 type of record, then i guess the significant advantage theory might hold some water, MIGHT. but 7-6? that's 1 game over .500 in a decent sampling size. shouldn't this significant advantage be utilized better than to the tune of 1 game over 500?

[ground and pound]

furthermore, an offense's strategy seems to change completely once you hit overtime. the idea of SUDDEN DEATH seems to hit home with the coaches, and often times teams are very conservative in OT to start off, because they don't want to make that game ending mistake (GB vs AZ not withstanding). heck, ask Hermie Edwards what his gameplans were once we would get into OT? point being, there is just as much pressure on the offense to score, while not making a game ending mistake, as there is on the defense for stopping the offense. for that reason, among the others talked about ad nauseum, the OT rule should be left alone. wanna win in OT? get the ball and score. or, stop the other team, get the ball and score. if you're the better team, you'll FIND a way to win. simple.

[IM3]

Originally Posted by ground and pound

a 7-6 record is a significant advantage? if that's a significant advantage, what would a minor advantage be, 3-10? i could understand if the receiving team had a 10-3 or 11-2 type of record, then i guess the significant advantage theory might hold some water, MIGHT. but 7-6? that's 1 game over .500 in a decent sampling size. shouldn't this significant advantage be utilized better than to the tune of 1 game over 500?

13 Games isn't that significant of a sample size.

Nantz said over the last 100 or so games (I think since the kickoff was moved back to the 30) that the team that won the toss has won the game 61% of the time. Is that an outrageous advantage? No. But it is way more than 50/50.

In the regular season, I think that the current system is ok, but in the playoffs both teams should get the ball. The stakes are too high to have a coin flip decide a game.

[VincenzoTestaverde]

Don't like Francesca or the garbage he says? Stop listening.

Any Jets fan who listens to 660AM while Mike Francesa is on needs to seriously evaluate his listening habits. That fat piece of dog sh*t can't stand the Jets and can't stand Jets fans.

[loluchka80]

Originally Posted by IM3

13 Games isn't that significant of a sample size.

Nantz said over the last 100 or so games (I think since the kickoff was moved back to the 30) that the team that won the toss has won the game 61% of the time. Is that an outrageous advantage? No. But it is way more than 50/50.

In the regular season, I think that the current system is ok, but in the playoffs both teams should get the ball. The stakes are too high to have a coin flip decide a game.

yeah, but that 61% isn't only first possession wins. the other team had a chance as well.

[Batmans A Scientist]

I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe over the past decade, something like 30% of teams won on the first drive.

That means that 30% of teams won partially because they won the coin flip.

And, while you can't win on defense in baseball, an OT game ending on a defensive TD is rare (I'd venture to guess less than 5% of all OT games end on a defensive TD). So I do think that the baseball analogy is appropriate here.

It's crazy to give one team a chance to win without the other getting a chance also.

At the very least, it's totally insane that they don't move the kickoff up to the 35 or 40 for OT (where it was before the mid 90s).

The average drive in the NFL is about 27-30 yards, Most drives, after a kickoff start around the 30. So an Average drive almost gets a team into FG range.

I don't see how this isn't a problem. Part of the reasoning I've seen for not changing the rule is "well ingrained in the fabric for many years". So what? So was lots of other rule changes that were made. If you were to start a new football league, would you really have this set up?

I say first team to score 4 points in OT, or 10 minutes in the regular season (I think a FG and a safety is enough to win a game personally).

Just because the Packers/Arizona game ended on a freak play doesn't mean that the rule isn't wrong.

The fact that no team in their right mind ever kicks the ball off is sign enough that rule is bad for football.

[ljr@work]

... fatcessa = big d*ckhead!!! ...

... ot is fine as it is ... leave it alone ...


... oh yeah, fatcessa = big d*ckhead!!! ...











l_j_r

[32green]

Fatboy has Archie Manning on....Archie started gushing about the Jets, the Charger game...the sacks on Peyton during the AFLCC...Revis.....Fatboy couldnt steer it back to the game where Peyton was pulled fast enough....

"Peytin wooden take his Helmet awf, do you see it, Peytin, not takin his helmet awf. What a competitah, he wooden take his helmet awf, and that kid, the otha QB, oh mah god, he was gettin boo'd, ogay, by the Colts crowd!"

Fricken hilarious

[shakin318]

Overtime should be a 20 on 20 Kill the Guy With the Ball game, with each team lined up on their own 35, the ball placed on the 50, a whistle blows and then a no-stoppage, no-penalties free-for-all until one team manages to get the ball into the other team's end zone. If a guy goes out of bounds, he's out and his team is down a man.

You'd love to see it, don't kid yourself.