NFL fixes what ain’t broke

The NFL changed the overtime format today and even if it is only for the playoffs it is a mistake and makes no sense. If they wanted to change the rules in overtime to eliminate the field goal to win on the first drive, then just eliminate the field goal all together. First touchdown wins, it’s pure and it’s simple.

The “Favre Rule” gives the team that loses the flip slightly more hope if they can hold their opponent to a field goal. Basically it just prolongs the game. I can’t wait for the first time both teams get field goals on their first drives and then play two more quarters with the winner having to play another brutal playoff game the next week or losing a star player due to injury.

All the incredibly stupid suggestions I’ve seen on this subject since the end of the season show just how perfect the “sudden-death” rule is. This will come back to bite the NFL much harder than any first-drive field goal ever will.

Now as far playing the Super Bowl in New York, I’m all for that. The fact that they are even considering it is great news, after all, some of the greatest championship games in NFL history have been played in the mud and the blood and the cold. In fact the Packers have won three of their 12 NFL Championships in New York.

With the Super Bowl being pushed later and later into February, the cold weather has a lessor chance of being a factor, but winter is winter, anything can happen and usually does. Good weather in New York might open the door for Super Bowls in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or Washington. To be honest I can’t believe they haven’t had a Super Bowl in the nation’s capital yet.

I know it’s nice to have the teams in a perfect weather situation all the time but that’s not football. How opposite would those two moves be? Change the 52-year old overtime rule and move the championship game back to a cold weather site? Something wrong something not quite right.

Locally the Packers continue to take heat for not signing “other team’s” free agents. In other words not spending money for the sake of spending money. If they want to spend money foolishly they can always hire me as vice president. That wouldn’t be any worse than paying millions to the soon to be UFL players that make up NFL free agency this year.

The Packers have as much talent as anybody in the NFL and the approach that was instituted here in 1992 with the arrival of Ron Wolf has been pretty damn successful. Unlike the NFL, the Packers realize that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestRedditDiggStumbleUponEmail
This entry was posted in Al Davis. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Steve

    A Super Bowl in NY would be great, but one in Green Bay would be better. I have always thought that the NFL should make the Pro Bowl mean something. If they were to give the winning conference of the Pro Bowl the Super Bowl, then Green Bay could host one and the Pro Bowl would be more interesting. The best players of the season would wind up voted in not just popular ones.

  • Pete H

    Steve, you don’t want that circus there.
    Al, you keep bringing up Wolf and how TT is doing it that way…that is wrong. I like TT and his way, but Wolf entered the market much much much more often. Dotson, Robinson, Strickland, Reggie, Jones…all starters. And thats just defense. It is not even comparable to TT.

  • http://www.packernet.com admin

    Who the hell is Strickland? Four guys in 8 years, not exactly a lot. Wolf did his damage in the draft just like TT.

  • Pete H

    Fred…wasn’t good really, but he started. 8 years?…those guys all started on the same team. Not to mention Howard, Beebe, Ron Cox, Keith Jackson, Jim Mcmahon, Anthony Morgan, Mark Clayton, Mark ingram, Prior, Rison, Wilkerson, Mcintyre, Seth Joyner, Vaugghn Booker…..would you like me to go on?

  • Pete H

    Again, I like TT but that is not a good comparison

  • Ed

    Free agency in 1993-1996 was a far different place than it has been in 2005-2010.

    Nowadays every team has figured out that they need to keep their own good players and goes out of the way to lock them up. Then the price of free agent busts-waiting-to-happen like Joe Johnson or Chris Canty gets bid up out of all recognition.

    If there were a Beebe, Ron Cox, Jones, Edgar Robinson or Santana Dotson available at a reasonable price TT would be after them — he has said so and he has gone after many more free agents than actually sign here, Canty beign a case in point. (Was TT really supposed to negotiate salary over Canty’s agents’ cell phone while the agent was having dinner with the Giants’ brass?)

    Don’t get me wrong — I’d love for the Packers to have a few more *successful* FA signings on the roster. But criticisms of TT for not signing people usually fail to account for the specifics of present day free agency.

    BTW: Keith Jackson was acquired by trade, not in free agency. That’s a tool TT also used to get Ryan Grant (though Grant’s pedigree wasn’t as spectacular as Jackson’s of course).

  • Pete H

    The only point I am trying to make is that Wolf brought outside players in to a far greater extent than TT has, be it trade or free agency. I was simply disagreeing with the notion that the two are using the same model of success. I understand the market was different then and I didn’t say that I didn’t like TT and his way….just the opposite. They just aren’t really even close to each other is all.

  • roy jamison

    Has anyone read this book? Blindsided: Why the Left Tackle is Overrated and Other Contrarian Football Thoughts

  • Pete H

    is it worthwhile?

  • http://www.packernet.com admin

    I still think they are exactly the same. If Thompson had the same crop of free agents he would do it too. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Look at the moves he makes on draft day each year. Same as Wolf.

  • roy jamison

    As I may have said before, I think TT will end up with an edge on Wolf in better drafts in the first round. Wolf may have been forced into taking a shot on John Michels.
    Wolf’s 1st Rnd. drafts……Wolf may end up with better late draft choices.
    ’92 #5 Buckley
    ’93 #29 Teague (last)
    ’94 #16 Taylor
    ’95 #32 Newsome (last)
    ’96 #27 Michels
    ’97 #30 Verba (last)
    ’98 #19 Holiday
    ’99 #25 Edwards
    ’00 #14 Franks
    ’01 #10 Reynolds

  • Pete H

    yeah, thats unimpressive at best

  • jonnyfootballhero

    Really, “The Favre Rule”? Give me a break. Some of you guys will do anything to bash the guy. Let it go.

  • http://www.packernet.com admin

    JFH – that is not my term. Do you listen to sports radio or watch ESPN? I wish I could take credit for the term. You should let it go or go away.

  • jonnyfootballhero

    Ok Al, whatever.

    Anyway, I’m very happy the rule passed. What’s wrong with more football? Injuries?? Give me a break. Players are well aware that playing football is very risky, but they’re paid ridiculous amounts of money to do so. I wanna see exciting TDs win games in OT, not gimmie FGs because of a coin toss.

  • http://www.packernet.com admin

    JFH – I agree 100% about game-winning TDs, that is why it should have been first touchdown wins. You and I figured that out in the backyard when Mom yelled when supper was almost ready.

  • monkeon

    The only change, and this should be for ALL OT games is no field goals…

    Though I think it might be fun if there were no punting allowed either.

  • Steve Cheez

    Monk, I like that.

  • CheesyD

    I’m on board with the NFL OT rules change. I just wish they had extended it to regular season games as well.

    GO PACK!!

  • iccyfan

    McNabb wants to go to the Vikings! Indecision time in ‘Queen country; do they trade for McNabb while they’re still waiting for Favre to decide or do they wait on Favre and risk losing McNabb? Best case scenario – they wait on Favre, McNabb traded elsewhere and #4 decides to retire. In any case, it’ll be fun to watch the Viking fans squirm for awhile…

  • roy jamison

    If I’m Pittsburg, I might want McNabb instead of a guy who clearly has big big problems. Arizona could use him too.

  • Pete H

    Minnesota already knows Favre’s decision

  • Rick

    I hate this new system.

    a)If you sack the first team to get the ball in the endzone for a safety, you get two points and then have them free kick to you and still have to get a firkin TD. If you can’t and kick the field goal then THEY still get the ball back and a TD beats you. That is BULL!! What else does you team need to do to win in overtime?!!

    b)What is to prevent you from onside kicking the OT kickoff now? They can not kick a fieldgoal to win if you don’t get it. Just keep them from the endzone. It ruins the game. This is like a bad online Madden game!!

    I have sent a more formal protest to each teams website and the NFL commisioners office, and NFL network.

    I say leave it alone. First to score wins, period. Clean and simple.
    No limit to number of overtime quarters in the playoffs so there is no tie.

    Three sentences means it is a good simple rule.

  • Rick

    I doubt it will do any good but I thought what the heck why not??

  • Rocky70

    Have to agree ……… The Owners have really mucked up the OT rules ………. Now a team can actually win an OT game by 9 points ……….. And I thought the college OT rules were off the wall ……….. The NFL has now topped them.

    NFL teams have a clear advantage when they sign their own UFAs ………. They know exactly what they’re getting on the field & in the locker room ………..

    For those of you who want to sign someone from the outside ………. Wait for the draft ………. All the draftees are from the outside ……….. Can’t beat youth, size & speed ……….. Something most UFAs lack.

  • Steve Cheez

    Field goals have become way too easy (well, for most kickers around the league). How ’bout if they just made the goalposts narrower, kinda like in the Arena league. You’d see a lot fewer teams crawling into their shells when they get to the 30-yard line.

  • Rocky70

    Keep seeing “Mike Iupati” from Idaho as the GB pick in round 1 at many different mock draft sites ………….

    OG – 6′ 5″ – 331 lbs.

    ” The Packers need a young OT, but with the five top OTs off the board, they will settle for the premiere guard in the draft. Iupati could be moved to OT down the road, but he will start inside immediately. “

  • jonnyfootballhero

    I wouldn’t mind having an ass kicking guard to take the place of Colledge.

  • PackerPete

    If Iupati joins Wells/Spitz and Sitton up front and Johnson at FB, short yardage becomes no problem and second down becomes instantly manageable as runs between the guards should net 3 to 8 regularly.

    I am not totally in favor of Iupati as our #1 pick, however I can surely see a great benefit if he joins our team.

  • Rick

    My thought is to trade down the pick for a 2nd and 4th or 5th.

  • Larry

    Lots of talent in this draft….trading down is a distinct possibility if an elite OT is gone. But if the two QB’s are gone and the OT’s are gone there is a great chance a strong pass rushing LOLB is there for the taking. I’d also like to see Taylor Mays covering tight ends–(although things I read say this isn’t his strong suit) at 6’3″ –4.4 in the 40 he might be able to neutralize most TE’s

  • Pete H

    Mays is more noted for his hits than his coverage

  • Servius

    If they wanted to change the OT rules. Just go with the college rules.

    It’s fun. It’s fair. Both teams have to play Offense AND Defense.

  • Rocky70

    ” My thought is to trade down the pick for a 2nd and 4th or 5th. ”

    Why trade down for more draft picks ? …………. GB is already nearly the youngest team & has been for years ………. All you’ll be doing by accumulating more draft picks is possibly replacing ‘young’ players with even younger ……… Rebuilding teams need draft picks ……….. GB is not a rebuilding team ………..

    Don’t get duped into believing that this year’s draft is deep ……….. No one knows this ……….. This won’t be known for several years ………… The so-called experts are only guessing ………… GB needs to trade up more than once in this draft to obtain targeted players ……… Why draft players that won’t even make your final 53 ? ……….

  • Rocky70

    CM3 was targeted by TT & cost a few draft choices ………… That same approach will land an OL or DB or even a CJ Spiller ……….. GB doesn’t need anymore projects coming from the 3rd round or lower …….. Look for & go after the impact player or two that can immediately help GB get over the top ………..

  • iccyfan

    I don’t know Rock – there are some players taking up room on the 53 who don’t appear to be in the future master plan and might be replaced with a draft pick who has future starter potential. With Tauscher resigned for two years, why would the Pack retain both Barbre and Giacomini when neither appear to be his eventual successor? The last two drafts have yielded Sitton & Lang in the third & fourth rounds; hate to give that away for the right to move up a couple spots. I guess it depends on who slides come draft day. I’d probably be content to stand pat and make selections in what’s generally considered to be a deep draft, replacing those in the 53 who don’t project as future starters.

  • Rick

    Barbre and Giaccomini are expendable and could be hooked up with draft picks to move around in the draft or to swap for pieces we did not get in the draft.

    Also we have Poppinga and Bishop as solid 4-3 LBs that are stuck in a wrong system. Find 4-3 defense that needs depth at LB and has something we want. I.E. Raiders. We acquire a back up safety and they get a solid backup LB. You can then do what iccy discussed and put value on our roster and practice squad with the draft and develop players.

  • roy jamison

    All-Pro cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha for McNabb? It’s all about money with a $16 mil contract waiting for Asomugha. I’m betting McNabb could turn that team around. But when you look at the qbs in that division compared to the NFC central, it’s like night and day. Maybe there is something to the theory that if you don’t have a solid qb, you don’t have a playoff team.

  • Rocky70

    It would be nice to replace some of the ‘dead meat’ on the roster with ‘potential’ improvements but many times a team is only changing names & not making guaranteed improvements (especially with later round picks) ………….

    I’m sticking with bundling up GB’s 1st & more to move up in the 1st round & draft Clifton’s replacement ……….. If TT doesn’t do it in the 2010 draft, he’ll be forced to do it in the 2011 draft ………… Protecting AR’s blindside for the next several years has to be priority one for TT ……….. Without AR, GB is no better than an 8-8 team ………..

  • Pete H

    I agree Rocky. Having picks just to have them starts to be a waste. But so can jumping up and getting someone just for tat sake to. Whats nice to me, is that they don’t HAVE TO do anything particular.

  • iccyfan

    Rocky – Which left tackle is worth bundling picks to move up and get? I don’t see any consensus amongst draft experts on who the best LT is; most have Okung but I’ve recently started to see Bulaga above him in some mocks. We’re not gonna get either of those two and after that it turns into a real crap shoot. If LT is the choice, I’d rather stand pat and take the work-out wonder from Maryland (Campbell) or if he’s gone, trade down and take Charlie Brown around #30. I can see moving up in the second round to take whatever CB slides…

  • Rocky70

    No doubt drafting an LT in the first round is as risky as drafting a QB ……… Bulaga is my choice but you’re correct ……… Getting him will be unlikely ……….. None of the LTs are a ‘can’t miss’ like Joe Thomas ……….. A little over 3 weeks until the draft & there are absolutely no clues coming out of GB as to the possibilities.