NFL Offseason

[OleMissCub]

Saints sign Curtis Lofton to a five year deal

[Exile on Waveland]

Bengals sign Derrick Harvey and Jamaal Anderson. Good low risk moves there.

 

Anderson was quietly very good for the Colts last year.

[dew1679666265]

Bengals sign Derrick Harvey and Jamaal Anderson. Good low risk moves there.

 

Anderson was quietly very good for the Colts last year.

 

Yeah, not the first rounder he was drafted to be, but I really liked the idea of the Titans grabbing him. Too bad the Bengals jumped in first, but I'd rather have Wimbley anyway.

[dew1679666265]

Donnie Avery to the Colts. Not a bad move for them.

[Banedon]

Regular season OT's will now be handled the same as the postseason. First team to have the ball can't win on a FG.

[sweetpeteman]

Regular season OT's will now be handled the same as the postseason. First team to have the ball can't win on a FG.

 

 

And no turnovers are automatic reviews:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d827ecefd/article/owners-vote-to-adopt-playoff-ot-rules-in-regular-season?module=HP11_breaking_news

[erik316wttn]

I still think both teams should be guaranteed at least one OT possession no matter what, but this is a step in the right direction.

[Soul]

I still think both teams should be guaranteed at least one OT possession no matter what, but this is a step in the right direction.

 

I don't like the idea of giving a team, who just failed to stop their opponent in any way, a mandatory 4-down drive all the way down the field to try to make up for their failure.

[Banedon]

I still think both teams should be guaranteed at least one OT possession no matter what, but this is a step in the right direction.

 

I don't like the idea of giving a team, who just failed to stop their opponent in any way, a mandatory 4-down drive all the way down the field to try to make up for their failure.

 

You just gave a team that failed to win in regulation an offensive possession though. If it's a game with two horrible defenses, why should one benefit from a coin toss?

[Formerly Snayke]

Exactly.

[jersey cubs fan]

I still think both teams should be guaranteed at least one OT possession no matter what, but this is a step in the right direction.

 

I don't like the idea of giving a team, who just failed to stop their opponent in any way, a mandatory 4-down drive all the way down the field to try to make up for their failure.

 

You just gave a team that failed to win in regulation an offensive possession though. If it's a game with two horrible defenses, why should one benefit from a coin toss?

 

One would benefit because there has to be an end. There's no reason why we need to keep making up reasons for the game to be extended. Coin tosses are not some sort travesty epic proportions that need to be remedied.

[Formerly Snayke]

Coin tosses to determine who gets the first possession are not a problem. Coin tosses to determine who gets the critical possession in a sudden death situation are. Either give both teams a shot or scrap the sudden death aspect of it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Coin tosses to determine who gets the first possession are not a problem. Coin tosses to determine who gets the critical possession in a sudden death situation are. Either give both teams a shot or scrap the sudden death aspect of it.

 

There is no one critical possession, any possession is critical in sudden death. And they are not guaranteed by any means to win on that opening possession. Both teams do get a shot, unless you give up a touchdown. Starting OT on defense doesn't = not having a shot.

[Banedon]

So it's your position then that the Bears have as much chance of winning in OT if they lose the coin toss as they do if they win the coin toss?

[jersey cubs fan]

So it's your position then that the Bears have as much chance of winning in OT if they lose the coin toss as they do if they win the coin toss?

 

It is my position that all the whining about "fair shots" in overtime is a nonsensical waste of time.

[Guest]

The NFL's overtime rules(even the modified ones) are maybe the only rules more nonsensical than MLB playing with a DH in only one league. Just play a full 5-10 minute period, how hard is that to grasp?

[CubColtPacer]

The NFL's overtime rules(even the modified ones) are maybe the only rules more nonsensical than MLB playing with a DH in only one league. Just play a full 5-10 minute period, how hard is that to grasp?

 

I've always wondered why this never came up as a solution myself. I guess the NFL thinks there would be too many ties that way, and the players definitely don't seem to want to play multiple OT's like there are in other sports. But it makes sense, and it would almost completely ensure that both teams would get the ball (if you let a team control the ball for 8 minutes even with say 2 timeouts, you have less of a case for saying you didn't get a chance).

[erik316wttn]

Both teams should get a possession, and then if the game is tied after that, next score wins.

[jersey cubs fan]

The NFL's overtime rules(even the modified ones) are maybe the only rules more nonsensical than MLB playing with a DH in only one league. Just play a full 5-10 minute period, how hard is that to grasp?

 

I've always wondered why this never came up as a solution myself. I guess the NFL thinks there would be too many ties that way, and the players definitely don't seem to want to play multiple OT's like there are in other sports. But it makes sense, and it would almost completely ensure that both teams would get the ball (if you let a team control the ball for 8 minutes even with say 2 timeouts, you have less of a case for saying you didn't get a chance).

 

I see nothing about that that makes sense.

[Formerly Snayke]

There is no one critical possession, any possession is critical in sudden death. And they are not guaranteed by any means to win on that opening possession. Both teams do get a shot, unless you give up a touchdown. Starting OT on defense doesn't = not having a shot.

 

What are you talking about? In the last decade teams that won the coin toss won 60 percent of the games. It's a huge advantage. It's about the equivalent of a home team starting the ninth inning tied with a runner at first base.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://deadspin.com/5897441/by-one-measure-the-saints-were-the-most-violent-team-in-2011

 

 

dirty saints

[dew1679666265]

What are some of the thoughts on here of Asante Samuel? The Eagles have him on the block and apparently (according to CSN Philly) are looking for a conditional 3rd round pick. The Titans have been rumored to be interested, but apparently aren't willing to give the necessary 3rd rounder.

 

With our need at CB after losing Finnegan, this really annoys me. Should it, or am I relying too much on reputation in thinking Samuel's a really good CB and well worth the trade?

[jersey cubs fan]

I certainly wouldn't want to give up a 3rd round pick for a 30-something CB unless he's a clear-cut elite defensive back, and I really don't think Samuel is anything like that anymore.

[sneakypower]

it became known that we were very close to trading for him last offseason, so it wouldn't surprise me a whole lot if we kicked the tires on him again

 

And tick off Asante Samuel the Eagles did. They should have just traded Samuel when they had the chance during training camp. Roseman, at one point, had a deal to send Samuel to the Lions for a second-round pick, two sources close to the situation said. Roseman even went so far as to have the Lions call Samuel. But he wanted a first round pick instead and called off the deal.

 

(UPDATE: I received further clarification on this proposed deal from another source close to the situation. The compensation for Samuel that was agreed upon was not just a second round pick, but two second day draft picks, and the deal fell apart for reasons other than draft compensation.)

[dew1679666265]

I certainly wouldn't want to give up a 3rd round pick for a 30-something CB unless he's a clear-cut elite defensive back, and I really don't think Samuel is anything like that anymore.

 

Yeah, the age makes me less excited about the deal, but are corners really that likely to drop off considerably in their early 30s? My biggest concern is that all three of Claiborne/Fitzpatrick/Jenkins will be off the board by the time the Titans are on the clock, leaving us with Jason McCourty and Alterraun Verner as our top 2 corners this year (and a middle of the road FA signing we'd likely make).

 

Maybe I'm being swayed by need too much, but a third rounder for a guy who just turned 31 doesn't seem like a bad deal at all. Unless he's already started showing signs of decline, which I guess is what I'm asking.