HawkShack.com

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:08 pm

Did anyone else see this garbage? I guess Denver got beat by a bunch of "lucky bums" this dudes a jackalope

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_265 ... cos-ending

by **Zorn76** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:17 pm

Yea, they were talking about this on NFLN as well, particularly Sanders.

I wasn't a big fan of the OT rule change(s) to beging with, but understand why they did it.

That said, as they exist now is more than fair. All Denver had to do was keep us out of the endzone, something they had managed to do for the entire 2nd half of regulation.

This was no cheapie, this was an 80 yd drive that had us convert several 3rd downs in the process.

Sour grapes.

The coin toss is 50/50.

But the Seahawks overcame greater odds by getting the TD to start overtime.

by **obiken** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:20 pm

They were lucky to be in OT. Too bad.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:27 pm

Yeah, I saw the Sanders comments as well, but just thought it was more Deion being Deion and thought, that was kind of stupid, but it is picking up steam for some unknown reason. I actually tweeted (something I seldom do) and noticed links to previous articles, one where he specifically says the Steelers should have "stopped the Broncos" if they wanted to win, and Steelers fans need to cope with the rules in place, talk about hypocritical... WTF.... maybe he just has a real, real short memory.

Is it lucky to drive 80 yards in OT for a win? He certainly didn't think it was "luck" to be in OT to begin with, and lauds the 80 yards drive manning had just a few short minutes before, so it got me wondering why an 80 yard drive just a few minutes later becomes luck instead of skill. ?

Anyway just thought it was stupid.

by **jshawaii22** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:07 am

In College and H.S. games O.T. rules are considered 'fair' by giving both teams at least one possession. The rules worked for us today.

Would it of mattered if it was Percy running the OT KO back 100 yards and the game ended in 12 seconds?

Would it of mattered if Denver had won the toss and gone down the field and scored, which after the previous few minutes would seem a pretty good probability.
Peyton was on fire in the 4th...

Sanders didn't get a lot of support from anyone else, so this isn't going to be a game changer, like the 'fail mary', but it could come back some day to bite us in the ass, too.

js

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:14 am

http://www.milehighreport.com/2014/9/21 ... on-manning

Well if you can't beat em' complain or whine. Good lord SMDH. I'm sure there will be some new Seahawks rule or emphasis that skews something even more towards the offense ( how about all those "point of emphasis" illegal picks flags thrown today? Oops my bad, there wasn't any).

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:16 am

jshawaii22 wrote:In College and H.S. games O.T. rules are considered 'fair' by giving both teams at least one possession. The rules worked for us today.

Would it of mattered if it was Percy running the OT KO back 100 yards and the game ended in 12 seconds?

Would it of mattered if Denver had won the toss and gone down the field and scored, which after the previous few minutes would seem a pretty good probability.
Peyton was on fire in the 4th...

Sanders didn't get a lot of support from anyone else, so this isn't going to be a game changer, like the 'fail mary', but it could come back some day to bite us in the ass, too.

js

it might indeed, course I don't see anyone here complaining about, or agreeing with a reporter complaining about how "unfair" it all was that Wilson didn't get the ball, should it happen. Cause, you know, that's football.

by **jshawaii22** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:32 am

One thing for sure. We're 2 -1 going into the bye week and no one in Seattle is looking for a re-do.

js

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 3:28 am

HumanCockroach wrote:Did anyone else see this garbage? I guess Denver got beat by a bunch of "lucky bums" this dudes a jackalope

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_265 ... cos-ending

Yea, that guy is a terd. The "only" reason the Hawks won was a flip of the coin? What a moron. The Broncos stopped our offense cold in the second half, but they couldn't keep us from going 80 yards on that final drive when the game was on the line. If they want to talk about luck, I'd advise them to go back and see how often Steven Hauska misses a kick from inside 50. The Broncos have plenty of lucky stars they can count.

I don't like the OT rules, either, but they're the best of a bad set of alternatives. I don't think the Kansas tiebreaker used by colleges and high schools are a good idea, at least not at the pro level. It changes the game in that it alters the game from the way it was played in regulation. And it wasn't until recently that they inserted the requirement that the team that gets the ball first must score a TD to end the game. Before, any score ended the game, a true sudden death.

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:25 am

You knew as soon as Manning or Brady were denied a chance at the ball in overtime this new OT system suddenly wouldn't be fair either ...

To their credit though 58% of Bronco's fans still don't think OT rules need to change (per their poll in the article linked).

by **kalibane** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:32 am

Kiszla might be the worst sports "journalist" in the Country. Everything in the league as moved in a way that happens to benefit the way Peyton Manning teams play almost since Peyton Manning got to the NFL. And yet he needs even more rule tweaking to win a game? But like I said Kiszla is a complete moron his columns should run in the entertainment/comedy section.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:24 am

c_hawkbob wrote:You knew as soon as Manning or Brady were denied a chance at the ball in overtime this new OT system suddenly wouldn't be fair either ...

To their credit though 58% of Bronco's fans still don't think OT rules need to change (per their poll in the article linked).

It's not a 'new' system. It's been in place for 3-4 years, which makes your point even more vivid as it took that long for the media to go into a conniption fit over a game that was decided on the first drive in overtime. If I remember correctly, we won a game in Chicago two years ago under the same OT rules when we scored a TD on our first drive in overtime and the Bears offense never saw the ball in OT. Where was all the sissy little cry babies then? Why don't the Denver fans bring up how they won a playoff game in OT a couple years back when Tim Tebow completed a TD pass on their first series in overtime and kept Worthlessburger on the bench?

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:08 am

2012 is not 3 or 4 years ago.

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:47 am

I heard some talking head say yesterday there have only been 3 games decided in this fashion since the rule change. If that is true then Russ led 2 of the 3 drives which is amazing and a little more than a coincidence. Denver can shove their luck. Ive had it with his royal highness Peyton Manning. Seattle got robbed of a fumble deep in Denver territory and Denver only began gobbling up chunks of yardage when they rolled out their pick plays which were blatant and illegal. Denver and Manning got beat by the best, most dangerous QB in the league. And usually its not the QB s playing each other, its them playing the defense and blah blah blah. But Russ looked at the situation and realized he couldn't let Manning have the ball back so he put the team on his back and made it happen.

So it was QB vs QB, check and checkmate. F em...

by **THX-1138** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:27 am

Hawktawk wrote:I heard some talking head say yesterday there have only been 3 games decided in this fashion since the rule change. If that is true then Russ led 2 of the 3 drives which is amazing and a little more than a coincidence. Denver can shove their luck. Ive had it with his royal highness Peyton Manning. Seattle got robbed of a fumble deep in Denver territory and Denver only began gobbling up chunks of yardage when they rolled out their pick plays which were blatant and illegal. Denver and Manning got beat by the best, most dangerous QB in the league. And usually its not the QB s playing each other, its them playing the defense and blah blah blah. But Russ looked at the situation and realized he couldn't let Manning have the ball back so he put the team on his back and made it happen.

So it was QB vs QB, check and checkmate. F em...

This this this^^^^
Couldn't agree more.

by **Long Time Fan** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:54 am

Yes the Seahawks won the game fair and square and all that, BUT..... the OT rule is STILL a horrible rule. What is so difficult about giving each team an offensive series? The rule needs to be changed. Glad we won, but objective enough to know a dumb rule no matter who won.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:57 am

c_hawkbob wrote:2012 is not 3 or 4 years ago.

I believe the current procedure came into being in either 2010 or 2011. Not sure, though.

If Denver's complaint is that too much of an advantage is given to the winner of a coin flip, why not find an objective method, such as the team with the most first downs. Oh, wait! They can't do that, the Hawks had more first downs.

by **burrrton** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:07 am

The positions that writer forced himself into to make his 'point' are so irrational they hardly merit addressing.

SEA driving the length of the field to score a TD when they absolutely had to is "luck", but DEN doing so when they absolutely had to wasn't? It's a given that DEN would have scored a TD in overtime had they gotten the ball, but us doing so was... something else... and there's no chance our D would have figured out that dmn route?

Etc.

by **mykc14** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:24 am

Personally I would like it if in OT both teams could touch the ball, but part of me likes the current rule as it emphasizes D a little more, also in reality if you can't stop the other team from scoring a TD on the first possession then you don't deserve to win. I would say the same thing if Denver would have won the toss and marched down the field and scored a TD to win it. Even though Seattle has done it twice in two years it is actually rare that a team wins the coin toss in OT and then drives down to score a TD. I think the stat is with the current system in almost 90% of OT games both teams end of getting at least 1 possession. Lastly, everybody knows the OT rules (except Donovan McNabb) so if you kickoff your D better hold the other team to a FG.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:36 am

So the plan is to reward the team with the best offense? Isn't there enough rules in place to help offenses along? If you have a more "complete" team you should be penalised if you don't have the best offense in overtime? I hate this crap. Defense MATTERS and should be as important as the stupid fast break NBA wanna be game the NFL and it seems some fans want this game to become. Denver didn't have to do much, just keep Seattle from scoring a TD, nothing more, to give Manning a chance, they couldn't get it done, that's on them, not the rules.

by **Uppercut** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:48 am

So will it be another off-season rules change by the league to thwart this injustice by the Seahawks again?

LOL sportswriter crybabies

Denver's D should have stopped the Hawks and they would have gotten the ball!

What if the old rules were still in place Seattle probably would have kicked the FG when in reasonable range.

What If What If? Baaawwwawaaawwa

Since in Was Manning they should give him a 10 pt handicap to start the game, same for Brady

Thought Phill Simms was being a jerk too

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:55 am

RiverDog wrote:
I believe the current procedure came into being in either 2010 or 2011. Not sure, though.

If Denver's complaint is that too much of an advantage is given to the winner of a coin flip, why not find an objective method, such as the team with the most first downs. Oh, wait! They can't do that, the Hawks had more first downs.

Google it, it was 2012. March even.

by **Seahawks4Ever** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:04 pm

Peyton Manning is going to get branded a WHINER if want s to keep blaming rules after yet another inexplicable loss to an otherwise inferior( In P.M's mind) football team.

Under the OLD rules we could have won the game with a field goal. The new rules actually DID give Manning a chance, all he needed for that chance was for the Bronco defense to hold our offense to a FG on that over time drive.

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:07 pm

Seahawks4Ever wrote:Peyton Manning is going to get branded a WHINER if want s to keep blaming rules after yet another inexplicable loss to an otherwise inferior( In P.M's mind) football team.

Under the OLD rules we could have won the game with a field goal. The new rules actually DID give Manning a chance, all he needed for that chance was for the Bronco defense to hold our offense to a FG on that over time drive.

But it wasn't enough of a chance ...

I don't know if it's fair to say it was Peyton whining about the rule though ... the press seems to over-react to anything that deprives the NFL world of more Manning or more Brady. ... maybe it's Archie?

by **kalibane** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:38 pm

apart from the terrible column. I don't get this issue. Stopping the opposing team from scoring a TD isn't high bar to clear as evidenced by how few games have ended this way.

Personally I HATE the college/highschool rules. It's like deciding soccer and hockey with a shoot out. That's not football.

Furthermore, there are some inherent flaws in allowing each team to have a possession.

1. Games will take much longer.
2. If the first team scores, the second team is blessed with the advantage that they know they'll have four downs to get a first down on every series where as the first team only will be working from the mentality that they only have 3 downs to get a first.
3. If both teams score a TD then you're still looking at a situation where a FG can win the game without the other offense having a chance to answer. And people will just start complaining about that instead.

I think the NFL has the best option. The only reason the old sudden death rule got to be a real problem was because FG kickers were getting so good that you only needed to pick up about 40 yards and you could win the game.

Furthermore... how come this is only ever an issue when Peyton Manning doesn't get to touch the ball? That's how the we got the rule changed in the first place because people were out there talking about what an injustice it was that the best player in the game didn't even have an opportunity to decide the outcome of the game. Why exactly do people think Peyton is owed this more than any other QB? Newsflash. He had an opportunity. And if he'd managed to not only accumulate 3 points in the first half we wouldn't even be having this discussion. He had 14 drives to determine the outcome of the game.

by **burrrton** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:49 pm

kalibane wrote:Furthermore, there are some inherent flaws in allowing each team to have a possession.

1. Games will take much longer.
2. If the first team scores, the second team is blessed with the advantage that they know they'll have four downs to get a first down on every series where as the first team only will be working from the mentality that they only have 3 downs to get a first.
3. If both teams score a TD then you're still looking at a situation where a FG can win the game without the other offense having a chance to answer. And people will just start complaining about that instead.

I don't find #1 particularly compelling ("get the game over with" has never been something I cared about), but #2 and #3 are spot-on.

Every 'solution' to the 'problem' creates as many issues as it solves and people will just start crying about something else.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:50 pm

Just go back to permitting ties.
Maybe teams will take more chances at the end of the game to tie it or win, and it makes for interesting playoff races.

by **kalibane** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:00 pm

I don't personally have a problem with #1 either Burrton but it's undeniable that length of the game is one of the things that is absolutely killing baseball so I included it as well even though it wasn't really my concern.

by **burrrton** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:09 pm

kalibane wrote:I don't personally have a problem with #1 either Burrton but it's undeniable that length of the game is one of the things that is absolutely killing baseball so I included it as well even though it wasn't really my concern.

Yeah, agreed. I guess I just think if the games are longer *because of more action*, it's not an issue, but yeah, 15-30 more minutes of looking at the referees ass under a hood reviewing a play is different.

by **Long Time Fan** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:17 pm

Either accept the tie at the end of regulation or add a ten minute overtime end.

There is no legitimacy to having a coin flip be so consequential; that was the point of adding the stipulation of only a first possession touchdown being sudden death. The problem of first possession bias remains.

This ain't rocket science - add a ten minute overtime period.

by **depaashaas** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:24 pm

Google it, it was 2012. March even.[/quote]

Your both kind of right, these overtime rules were in place for the playoffs only in '11 and got implemented also for the regular season in '12. Fun fact: Denver was first team to that won with this rule when tim tebow's first pass got caught in overtime and they ran it in for TD and steelers got kicked out of playoffs, it worked fine for horse faces back then in playoffs and now this writer is not happy with result during regular season game

by **burrrton** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:31 pm

There is no legitimacy to having a coin flip be so consequential;

What about forcing a defense to keep the other team out of the endzone is 'illegitimate'??

Think of it this way: the coin flip merely dictates which unit has to step up first. I don't see any reason the league should be obligated to give a team's offense a chance if their defense gets steamrolled.

I thought the 2012 change was reasonable, because it required so little to win the game beforehand (for reasons already mentioned), but simply asking a defense to keep the other team from scoring a TD is hardly a tall order.

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:37 pm

depaashaas wrote:Google it, it was 2012. March even.

Your both kind of right, these overtime rules were in place for the playoffs only in '11 and got implemented also for the regular season in '12. Fun fact: Denver was first team to that won with this rule when tim tebow's first pass got caught in overtime and they ran it in for TD and steelers got kicked out of playoffs, it worked fine for horse faces back then in playoffs and now this writer is not happy with result during regular season game

The first playoff game of the 2011 season was January 7th 2012.

by **Long Time Fan** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:45 pm

Rules need to be "stress tested", if there was a superbowl decided in this way this rule couldn't hold up.

Give me a case to be made against a ten minute overtime?

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:51 pm

Long Time Fan wrote:Rules need to be "stress tested", if there was a superbowl decided in this way this rule couldn't hold up.

Give me a case to be made against a ten minute overtime?

The only thing I can come up with is if the first team getting the ball takes almost all of the time off the clock before scoring then it wouldn't be fair to the other team who has to battle not only the other team, but the clock, too.

by **kalibane** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:58 pm

The case against a 10 minute OT period is the playoffs. How many OT periods are you willling to add to the end of a game that cannot be declared a tie?

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:59 pm

Long Time Fan wrote:Rules need to be "stress tested", if there was a superbowl decided in this way this rule couldn't hold up.

Give me a case to be made against a ten minute overtime?

Why? Isn't the whole POINT of the SB to crown the "best" team the Champions? News flash people, defense is part of the TEAM.If the point was to crown the best offense, then the NFL could just do away with defense and special teams ( which IMHO they are attempting to do anyway). If a SB ended this way, and it was Seattle won or lost, you wouldn't hear me whining. Those are the rules, and it puts as much emphasis on the defense as the offense ( something seldom done by the NFL or the fans any longer it seems) Denver's defense had more than an ample opportunity to allow Manning a chance to win that game, they didn't. Spoiled milk is all this is.

This is akin to complaining in the NBA that even though a team loses, that the star player should get a chance to shoot, after the buzzer sounds because he should have the ball in his hands, or that the best pitcher and best hitter from each team should be up in the final at bat, no matter where they hit in the lineup. It is up to the TEAM to get the ball in that players hand, or up to the TEAM to get that hitter to the plate. Denver's D didn't do that, so tough chit.

by **Long Time Fan** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:10 pm

NorthHawk wrote: it wouldn't be fair to the other team who has to battle not only the other team, but the clock, too.

The only element of "fair" to protect is that each team gets an opportunity to run an offensive series.

kalibane wrote:The case against a 10 minute OT period is the playoffs. How many OT periods are you willling to add to the end of a game that cannot be declared a tie?

As many as necessary. Far less an issue that explaining why a team's offense never got to take the field.

HumanCockroach wrote:

This is akin to complaining in the NBA that even though a team loses, that the star player should get a chance to shoot, after the buzzer sounds because he should have the ball in his hands, or that the best pitcher and best hitter from each team should be up in the final at bat, no matter where they hit in the lineup. It is up to the TEAM to get the ball in that players hand, or up to the TEAM to get that hitter to the plate. Denver's D didn't do that, so tough chit.

Drivel. In both the NBA and MLB overtime or extra innings ensure each team has offensive opportunities.

Separate your thinking from defending the outcome of yesterday's game. We won; by rule. Now going forward what is in the best interests of the game.

A ten minute overtime is my solution, I haven't heard a good argument against it.

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:25 pm

But why is 10 minutes better than 15?

Sounds to me like your issue is with the coin flip ...

by **Long Time Fan** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:36 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:But why is 10 minutes better than 15?

Sounds to me like your issue is with the coin flip ...

Bingo. Coin flip that can leave only one team possessing the ball is inherently unfair. Length of extra period is not critical.

Now PTI is questioning the issue. F it. We won.

HawkShack.com

Who is online