RE: NFL News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message


David Levine -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 11:18:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

    A New Option for the Coin Toss?
    Sat Mar 29, 2008

    ESPN's John Clayton reports the NFL is trying to add a third category to the coin toss. Winners of coin tosses can elect to kickoff or receive the football. Under a new proposal, the league would like to give the team captain the option of deferring the decision and letting the other team decide.



Am I thick in that I don't see one possible benefit of deferring to the other team?




djskillz -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 11:36:22 AM)

Ya, these are stupid IMO.

I really don't like the facemask one.  If you get a touch on a facemask now, it's basically an automatic 15 yards, when a lot of times, I don't even like that it's FIVE on a random touch.  See: Favre last year vs. the Vikings, for example.

I'd actually like MORE judgment from the officials on facemask plays.  If it is clearly incidental, no penalty.




Duane Sampson -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 11:52:29 AM)

I can only remember a team kicking off when they won the coin toss once. The '85 Bears. Maybe there have been others.




David Levine -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 12:03:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

I can only remember a team kicking off when they won the coin toss once. The '85 Bears. Maybe there have been others.


And even that is covered by the existing rule and it hardly ever happens.

I can't fathom a situation where you'd want the other team to decide.




Jim Frenette -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 1:09:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

I can only remember a team kicking off when they won the coin toss once. The '85 Bears. Maybe there have been others.


Didn't Denny end up kicking opening both halfs 1 year in Chi?




hrerikl -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 9:47:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson
    A New Option for the Coin Toss?
    Sat Mar 29, 2008

    ESPN's John Clayton reports the NFL is trying to add a third category to the coin toss. Winners of coin tosses can elect to kickoff or receive the football. Under a new proposal, the league would like to give the team captain the option of deferring the decision and letting the other team decide.




Am I thick in that I don't see one possible benefit of deferring to the other team?


If you win the toss and defer, then you get your choice in the second half.




djskillz -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 10:12:30 PM)

Maybe I'm just dumb, but why would anyone ever NOT want the ball to start the 2nd half?




hrerikl -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 10:36:58 PM)

As I understand it,  The team that chooses will choose either the ball(kickoff or recieve) or the side of the field.  After you make first choice, the other team will choose the other decision.  If you make first choice, in the first half, the other team will gt first choice in the second half.  If you defer, the other team will get first choice in the first half, and you will get first choice in the second half.  It would go like this. 
Coin flip: Team 1 wins.
Team one what is your choice?
Team 1:  We will defer to the second half.
Team 2:  We will take the ball.
Team 1:  We will take the north End Zone

2nd Half:
Team 1: We will take the ball (having deferred until the second half and giving the other team the decision in the first half)
Team 2: We will take the North End Zone.





hrerikl -> RE: NFL News (3/30/2008 10:42:04 PM)

The current Rule
quote:



    The toss of coin will take place within three minutes of kickoff in center of field. The toss will be called by the visiting captain before the coin is flipped. The winner may choose one of two privileges and the loser gets the other: (a) Receive or kick (b) Goal his team will defend
    Immediately prior to the start of the second half, the captains of both teams must inform the officials of their respective choices. The loser of the original coin toss gets first choice



The big change is that with the new rule, you could give the other team first choice of privileges in the first half , to ensure you get first choice of privileges in the second half.




Guest -> RE: NFL News (3/31/2008 8:18:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Ya, these are stupid IMO.

I really don't like the facemask one.  If you get a touch on a facemask now, it's basically an automatic 15 yards, when a lot of times, I don't even like that it's FIVE on a random touch.  See: Favre last year vs. the Vikings, for example.

I'd actually like MORE judgment from the officials on facemask plays.  If it is clearly incidental, no penalty.

***********************************
By changing the facemask penalty to an automatic 15 yards there will be no incentive for the player who accidentally grabs the mask to let go.  They are really overthinking some of these player safety rules.




David Levine -> RE: NFL News (3/31/2008 11:58:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pete C

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Ya, these are stupid IMO.

I really don't like the facemask one. If you get a touch on a facemask now, it's basically an automatic 15 yards, when a lot of times, I don't even like that it's FIVE on a random touch. See: Favre last year vs. the Vikings, for example.

I'd actually like MORE judgment from the officials on facemask plays. If it is clearly incidental, no penalty.

***********************************
By changing the facemask penalty to an automatic 15 yards there will be no incentive for the player who accidentally grabs the mask to let go. They are really overthinking some of these player safety rules.


Outstanding point.

This change to the penalty could result in more injuries.




Duane Sampson -> RE: NFL News (3/31/2008 2:23:04 PM)

Owners Discuss the Big Three

[image]http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/44/443999.jpg[/image]

Roger Goodell







By Viking Update Staff
Posted Mar 31, 2008


As NFL owners begin their annual meetings in Palm Beach, Fla., three topics of discussion could greatly impact the game as early as this season - the seeding of playoff teams by record, allowing defenses to communicate with the sideline through a player headset and potentially increasing the size of training camp rosters.


The NFL owners meetings are underway, and historically there have been some dramatic changes coming out of those meetings. For years, instant replay was a hot topic – a move that dramatically changed the face of the game by allowing coaches to try to reverse calls by the officials they believe were wrong. Replay was spawned from the 1979 AFC Championship Game. At the time, the Steelers led 17-10 and the Oilers appeared to tie the game with a touchdown to wide receiver Mike Renfro. The officials ruled him out of bounds despite the fact the replay was conclusive that Renfro came down with both feet in bounds. The Oilers never came back, losing 27-13 but giving rise to the belief that, had the touchdown been allowed, the rest of the game would have been played differently and that a missed call cost the Oilers a chance to go to the Super Bowl.

The process to get replay instated in the first place and finally made permanent was the result of several owners meetings. With 24 of the 32 owners needing to vote in favor of replay, it was constantly up for a new vote in which owners who had been burned by a bad replay decision (in their minds, at least) could band together and kill it.

This year’s owners meetings are going to potentially have similar significance, as time-honored rules of play could be altered dramatically.

At the forefront of the discussion will be changing one of the traditional mantras of the NFL – win your division and you get your first playoff game at home. Commissioner Roger Goodell is pushing a plan in which the teams with the best records would lock down postseason seeds accordingly. Under such a plan, the Jaguars, who had to play on the road in the first round of the 2007 playoffs, would have had a home game by virtue of their 12-4 record and, depending on the outcome of the other AFC wild card game, wouldn’t have necessarily had to play the undefeated Patriots in the divisional round.

Traditionalists are going to argue that the league is cyclical and that some years one or two divisions are down. But, winning your division entitles you to a home game in your first playoff game – a reward for being the best in your division. While seeding the teams by virtue of record seems logical, all they need is nine old-school owners to band together and the proposal will fail. While many believe it will pass, it is far from certain. If it does pass, however, it will likely open the door for teams to play much more competitively in the final week or two of the regular season if there is still something to play for rather than resting more key starters because their playoff spot has already been determined under the current system and there is nowhere to move up or down.

A proposal that will get some serious debate is whether to allow defenses to have wireless communications systems like the offenses have. The problem with that is really quite simple – who gets to wear the headset? On offense, the quarterback is always on the field, so he is the logical choice. On defense, there aren’t always three-down players, and with some teams running a 3-4 defense and others running a 4-3, not everybody has the classic middle linebacker position. This one seems like it will be coming – if not this year at least eventually – but it won’t come easy if there isn’t a uniform way of designating which defensive player gets to hear his coach’s voice in his helmet. Currently, the proposal doesn't specify a certain position; rather, just that one player on defense would be allowed the communication system in his helmet. If he is injured, another player is designated as the backup to have the system and would retrive his replacement helmet.

Another proposal is to increase the number of players allowed on a training camp roster. The number is currently at 80 players, but that wasn’t always an accurate figure. Teams were able to designate players they allocated to NFL Europe as not counting against the current 80-man limit. If a team sent five players to NFL Europe, it could have 85 players in training camp instead of the mandated 80 players. With NFL Europe folding after last season, there is a push being made to increase the number as a result. Buccaneers officials have requested a number as high as 90, but somewhere in the 85 range is more realistic. But, with the potential for problems with the players union, this could be a sticking point the owners don’t want to deal with.

Each of these Big Three proposals could have significant ramifications on how the game is played. Much of the debate coming out of the meetings will center on Goodell’s “integrity of the game” belief system, which ranges from everything from cheating at the scale of the Patriots to tampering at the scale of the 49ers to personal conduct of players and even exposed hair coming out of the back of helmets. While those are all important topics, whether Troy Polamalu has to wear a hairnet is really small potatoes. The Big Three could have a major impact on the game and will be the real reason why the owners are meeting this week in Palm Beach. The results of those meetings could greatly impact how the game is played and what teams play for the next Super Bowl title.




Duane Sampson -> RE: NFL News (4/1/2008 7:12:35 AM)

More TV Games for Week #1 Annnounced
Mon Mar 31, 2008

 
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports the NFL announced the remaining three games of its national TV schedule for opening weekend, which starts with Washington at the Giants on Thursday night, Sept. 4. The Sunday night game, also on NBC, will be Chicago at Indianapolis. The Monday night double-header on ESPN will be Minnesota at Green Bay and Denver at Oakland in the late game.




Duane Sampson -> RE: NFL News (4/2/2008 1:48:32 PM)

Ken Whisenhunt Disappointed with Matt Leinart
Wed Apr 2, 2008
 
ESPN reports after seeing Internet photos of QB Matt Leinart partying last weekend at his Arizona home, Cardinals HC Ken Whisenhunt said he was "disappointed" in his quarterback. Among the four photos splashed across Web sites thedirty.com and TMZ.com over the weekend, Leinart was shown assisting a co-ed drinking from a beer bong in one and sharing a hot tub with four women in another. The photos ran on SportsCenter on Tuesday. "Matt called me Monday morning and we spoke for a while," Whisenhunt said in a statement obtained by the East Valley Tribune. "I reiterated to him the type of behavior that we expect at all times from our players. He understands that as well as the level of scrutiny that he's under because of who he is. It's being handled internally. "I was disappointed but at the same time have no doubts about his commitment to this football team or his ability to lead it."
 
[image]http://deadspin.com/assets/resources/2008/03/leinartbeerbong.jpg[/image]






thebigo -> RE: NFL News (4/2/2008 11:51:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

Ken Whisenhunt Disappointed with Matt Leinart
Wed Apr 2, 2008
 
ESPN reports after seeing Internet photos of QB Matt Leinart partying last weekend at his Arizona home, Cardinals HC Ken Whisenhunt said he was "disappointed" in his quarterback. Among the four photos splashed across Web sites thedirty.com and TMZ.com over the weekend, Leinart was shown assisting a co-ed drinking from a beer bong in one and sharing a hot tub with four women in another. The photos ran on SportsCenter on Tuesday. "Matt called me Monday morning and we spoke for a while," Whisenhunt said in a statement obtained by the East Valley Tribune. "I reiterated to him the type of behavior that we expect at all times from our players. He understands that as well as the level of scrutiny that he's under because of who he is. It's being handled internally. "I was disappointed but at the same time have no doubts about his commitment to this football team or his ability to lead it."
 
[image]http://deadspin.com/assets/resources/2008/03/leinartbeerbong.jpg[/image]





What's the big friggin deal? Sure the guys a douchebag, but we already knew that...




Karl Juhnke -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 7:59:13 AM)

Hving fun with women at bars?  Sharing a hot tub with them?  Shocking.




Duane Sampson -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 8:05:43 AM)

[&:] Yeah, this is the first time I've ever liked Leinart.




Lynn G. -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 8:29:09 AM)

I wonder how much time in the offseason he spends with his child.




Easy E -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 9:04:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

I wonder how much time in the offseason he spends with his child.


Hey, his kid was asleep in a back bedroom, he told people to be quiet and all... sheesh.

I think it should be every athlete's right to get 18 year olds drunk if they want. Contributing to the delinquiency of a minor shouldn't matter if you're rich and famous.




Chris Olson -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 9:09:40 AM)

Like Colin Cowherd said yesterday, regarding Leinart, if he had ever showed himslef to be a good pro, if he had ever showed himself to be a responsible guy off the field, these pics would mean very little, but because he has no "credit" in the bank, his rep is going to take a hit...he has simply proved so far to be an immature guy...

****

Speaking of Off field issues...I see Chris Henry got busted for assult, etc...that guy is done for the year IMO...maybe forever...

That gives Chad Johnson has a bit more leverage, now...I can see them trading a pick and a player, because they NEED another WR...

So who would need a WR that has a number 2 to give?

I would think the Eagles could offer Reggie Brown even up...maybe Avant and a 3rd?  I know they have been looking hard at picking up a playmaker at WR...

I can't fathom us getting into a play for Chad...plus we only have picks to offer...




Duane Sampson -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 9:10:12 AM)

I didn't read that the girls were 18. Drinking age in AZ is 21. They could be of age?




Easy E -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 9:23:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

I didn't read that the girls were 18. Drinking age in AZ is 21. They could be of age?


Could be. The world may never know.

According to those that have taken the time to track these (and the others Leinart has been photographed with before) down, they aren't, but then again, they could just be lying. I'm sure Matt took the time to research their ages before he beer bonged em.

Like I said, who cares? He's rich and famous, he should be allowed. Contributing the the delinquency of minors should be allowed in cases like his.




Duane Sampson -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 9:28:26 AM)

Sad fact is that money talks. That'll never change.




Easy E -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 10:41:11 AM)

Honestly, this is what Matt is really about. He doesn't really have an interest in the NFL, he is using it to get girls and make money. He's already been benched for Kurt Warner, who is horrible. I thought there was a decent chance he wouldn't even enter then NFL, but he'll be out of it in 5 years. Bumming at Nick Lachey's house and still trying to pick up 18 year olds.

When he's 45 he can do a reality remake of Scott Baio's life.. I'd watch that for a dollar!

As for a football player? Eh, bench him and let him get on with doing what he's best at.. .partying down with the young chicks.




Tim Cady -> RE: NFL News (4/3/2008 7:20:45 PM)

Leinart - At home partying. Not at a bar making it rain. Private residence, were his neighbor's complaining. Non issue to me. He is young and rich. This behavior is milder than most politicians. Who cares, it is the offseason.

NFL rejects Hester Rule -  My first thought was they were going to make him change his number. No other wide receiver in todays game gets to wear a number in the 20s. In the 70s Cliff Branch and Ahmad Rashad.

Anyway not what it is about, but still a point to me.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/League-rejects-Devin-Hester-Rule-on-punts?urn=nfl,74820




Page: <<   < prev  73 74 [75] 76 77   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode