:no:

 

The ball game is in his hands.

 

 

Yep, like a few people have said, there were several moments in the game that led to that point. BUT that's what people are going to remember. Just unbelievable.

Yep, like a few people have said, there were several moments in the game that led to that point. BUT that's what people are going to remember. Just unbelievable.

 

Yep.

:no:

 

The ball game is in his hands.

 

And went right off his helmet.

I forgot I had paused earlier in the game. I changedthe channel, turned it back and it was over. With that being said GB really fudged it up.

Flag is picked up in Dallas, a non catch in Green Bay, and now the botched onside in Seattle. Needless to say it has been fun to watch and very competitive. NFC playoffs were very intense this year. :popcorn:

There goes me and PP92s pick of the Packers in the Super Bowl.

I agree that Green Bay choked.

 

However, how is it fair to say to one team that if you win the luck of the flip, that you can win the game, no questions asked. Yet the team that loses the toss can lose the game that easily. Obviously if two teams go in to overtime that are playing an even game, yet the NFL has decided to take that aspect away by awarding the lucky team that wins the COO.g toss a chance to win indisputably by scoring a touchdown.

 

 

It's just an odd rule that gives the team that wins the toss a major advantage. I understand that the other team has the opportunity to stop them, but teams playing at this level are evenly matched enough to score at any given point in time. It's not right to punish an equal team because the coing didnt fall in their favor.

 

Why value one portion of the game over the other two? GB had a great kickoff and terrible defense in overtime.

 

If you can't get a stop in overtime, you don't deserve to win IMO.

 

I don't see how college overtime rules solve things better. Eventually a team will have to go for 2 and one team might not get it?

 

Given Seattle's field position, stats would show they had a 10% chance of scoring a TD on their overtime drive. GB couldn't hold them to a FG?

 

What makes you think the outcome would have been different? Is it likely that GB was going to stop them on their next possession? The last 3 possessions say otherwise to me.

 

Fair or unfair, make a stop. Even a FG is a win now.

 

Why value one portion of the game over the other two? GB had a great kickoff and terrible defense in overtime.

 

That's my whole point, WHY VALUE ONE PORTION OF THE GAME?

 

That, unfortunately is how it works In overtime in the NFL. The crazy thing is that they don't even value the overtime equally. If you win the toss and score a td you win, no questions, no opportunity for the other team to score.

 

How is that not putting more value on one portion of the game?

I'm good with these overtime rules in the regular season - not in the playoffs. Both teams should get the ball in OT in the playoffs.

 

As to Russell Wilson - he should buy new cars for every defensive player on the Seahawks. With the game he had today, Seattle should have lost by 3 TD's and he should be getting grilled for one of the worst performances ever by a playoff QB in a conference championship. I believe he was 1-7, 14 yards and 3 INT's in the first half. His defense saved his tail big time today.

To put it simply, what is the problem with letting a team that doesnt win the toss at least have a chance to score, after they are score on. To me its garbage and unfair. Just another reason I prefer college ball over pro ball I suppose. I enjoy pro ball, but they seem to make up rules as they go. It takes a lot away from the game.

That's my whole point, WHY VALUE ONE PORTION OF THE GAME?

 

That, unfortunately is how it works In overtime in the NFL. The crazy thing is that they don't even value the overtime equally. If you win the toss and score a td you win, no questions, no opportunity for the other team to score.

 

How is that not putting more value on one portion of the game?

 

Because you need all three areas to be consistently successful in overtime

games.

Crazy stat ... Russell Wilson targeted Kearse 6 times in the game. The first four times resulted in interceptions, the 5th time incomplete, the 6th time game winning TD.

What is the rule if Bostick A - swats the ball out of the air and out of bounds OR B - grabs it and throws it out of bounds while still in the air? I think it is much riskier than what he should have done OR actually did, but just interested in the rules on that.

 

Also, I strongly agree that, given the time left, the guy who intercepted the ball has to run as far and as fast as he can and then slide / go out of bounds prior to any contact from any SEA player. However, if he tries to run a few yards and fumbles the ball (either with or without contact) and SEA gets it back, isn't he going to be crucified for not getting on the ground as quickly as possible? No win scenario.

Playing not to lose means you lose.

 

 

Playing not to lose.... that's Marvin's M.O. We've seen that haunt the Bengals many, many times.

What is the rule if Bostick A - swats the ball out of the air and out of bounds OR B - grabs it and throws it out of bounds while still in the air? I think it is much riskier than what he should have done OR actually did, but just interested in the rules on that.

 

Also, I strongly agree that, given the time left, the guy who intercepted the ball has to run as far and as fast as he can and then slide / go out of bounds prior to any contact from any SEA player. However, if he tries to run a few yards and fumbles the ball (either with or without contact) and SEA gets it back, isn't he going to be crucified for not getting on the ground as quickly as possible? No win scenario.

 

Bostick should have blocked and let Nelson catch the ball.