NFL 2012
- Thread starter skeptik
- Start date
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
What are you talking about? That's like arguing that even though my Ferrari has a toe up engine, totaled transmission and 300,000 miles, I still have a great car. Maybe it used to be great, but it sure as hell isn't anymore. And I would be better off having a new Honda Civic. Those guys were done by the time they got to New England as demonstrated by the fact that Galloway had one more crappy season in Washington and then retired while Johnson couldn't even make the Dolphins. It wasn't an issue of "fitting in" but rather of the guys being finished. That's why a diva like Moss was able to fit be a super star receiver in New England.
Did you honestly watch the NFL in that era? Brady really didn't have stellar weapons and yet he still had a ton of clutch drives. Also, he won the Super Bowl and led the game winning drive in his first season as a starter. I'm pretty sure he's the only QB to win it all that quickly. If you can't grant that Brady was excellent in extremely high pressure situations then you obviously have an agenda that stands outside of the facts.
Again, you're ignoring the clutch drives and games Brady put together in the playoffs, which is one of the defining characteristics of a great QB; something Manning did not do as often (though obviously he did do it, i.e. the 07 AFC title game). Brady is arguably the best ever in the clutch.
Not sure Brady has been that innovative of a QB, but this is sports, not music. Innovation is not nearly as important as success. And very few QBs in the history of the NFL have been as successful as Brady.
King Richard
Hello there
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Krow
Garbage Connoisseur
Dak
mentat
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Dak
mentat
Dez Bryant.........smh.
Here's a rule I've never understood. If you attempt a field goal and miss on a down other than 4th down, why don't you retain possession back at the spot of the kick in the event of a miss?
Here's a rule I've never understood. If you attempt a field goal and miss on a down other than 4th down, why don't you retain possession back at the spot of the kick in the event of a miss?
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
King Richard
Hello there
Because if the kick is completed it's a forfeiture of possession whether it's good or bad. It doesn't make any sense to allow a team to kick a field goal four times in a row hoping one of them goes in. Same thing goes for a punt, the kick is the kick. By kicking it you forfeit your possession and give it to the other team, whether the punt was good or bad.
I think it makes a lot of sense.
Dak
mentat
That's the most absurd comparison possible. Just like almost all other plays are attempts to get into the endzone yet are not 1 and out upon failure to do so, why should an attempt to get the ball through the uprights be one and out?
Punting the ball is specifically a play to give it to the other team at inferior position than turning it over on downs. Not even remotely the same thing as trying to kick a field goal.
Forfeiting possession upon a missed field goal on a down other than 4th makes about as much sense as forfeiting the ball upon not scoring a TD on any down other than 4th.
King Richard
Hello there
The only time this would ever come into play is if a team is trying to tie a game at the end or win it, which is a very small portion of an otherwise long game. The rest of the time your idea would be pointless because it would be stupid to do it. There's no logical reason why a team would spend 3 downs to try and kick a field goal in the middle of the first quarter. That's why.
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
mdmatt4ever
Member
- Sep 27, 2006
- 2,749
- 26
- 48
Dak
mentat
Let's say you have the ball 1st and goal from the 9. You have a holding penalty on first down. 1st and goal from the 19. You have a false start. 1st and goal from the 24. You run a play for no gain. You have another hold. 2nd and goal from the 34. You run a play for ten yards. 3rd and goal from the 24. First attempt hooks. 4th and goal from the 31. Second attempt makes it.
Common scenario? No. Logical reason to want to retain possession after a missed kick? Yes. Of course the liklihood of the situation has no bearing the logic of the rule, and logic says the team should retain possession. Unless, of course, an opposing player catches the miss in the field of play.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Let's say you have the ball 1st and goal from the 9. You have a holding penalty on first down. 1st and goal from the 19. You have a false start. 1st and goal from the 24. You run a play for no gain. You have another hold. 2nd and goal from the 34. You run a play for ten yards. 3rd and goal from the 24. First attempt hooks. 4th and goal from the 31.
Sounds like a typical redzone possession for Dallas.
King Richard
Hello there
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Regardless of what you think of the comparison between field goals and punts, a field goal is still a forfeiture of possession. And it is a forfeiture of possession because that's the rule. The same reason that a bunt that goes foul with 2 strikes is an out in baseball. Because it's the rule. Because they decided that the rule is in the best interest of the game.
Similar threads
