2010-11 Chicago Bears: The Last Time You'll See Utler Alive

[Shooter]

Whoa.  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHSwbXq1wnH-jmEl-jV4W8M0Vd1wD9EKHCBG1

So fucking stupid.  I hate the new rules to begin with, but at least make
it the same in the regular season.  I hate specialized rules for playoffs
(with the exception of continue instead of calling it a tie type rules.)

My guess is if it proves effective in the playoffs they'll try to apply it to the regular season for 2011. If they play that season, anyway.

Good idea to test something like that for 11 games. I mean, I'm sure the percentage of games that go to overtime is over 9.09%, and of those games, I'm sure the occurrence they're trying to fix will happen

What happens if both teams kick field goals on their respective possessions?

Then it's back to sudden death.

Forget that mess, I've already got several mind-blowing questions that need to be addressed:

What if the kicking team excutes and recovers an onside kick?  Can they then win the game with a field goal, or does the opponent still get the ball back?

If the kicking team records a safety on the first possession, is stopped on the ensuing possession and then gives up a field goal, do they lose?

Thrill and SKO said they think that basically the first team to score 6 total points wins.  If a team scores a safety and field goal, do they still have to score again?

In both of your examples, according to the Twitters yesterday, the team that scored wins (in fact, if the kicking team scores a safety, they don't even need the subsequent FG, the safety ends the game). The logic is that the other team had an opportunity to score and didn't.

[Brownie]

They should just play a 60-minute overtime period. And if that doesn't settle it, go for another.

[Brownie]

Whoa.  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHSwbXq1wnH-jmEl-jV4W8M0Vd1wD9EKHCBG1

So fucking stupid.  I hate the new rules to begin with, but at least make
it the same in the regular season.  I hate specialized rules for playoffs
(with the exception of continue instead of calling it a tie type rules.)

My guess is if it proves effective in the playoffs they'll try to apply it to the regular season for 2011. If they play that season, anyway.

Good idea to test something like that for 11 games. I mean, I'm sure the percentage of games that go to overtime is over 9.09%, and of those games, I'm sure the occurrence they're trying to fix will happen

What happens if both teams kick field goals on their respective possessions?

My point was more of just an add-on to Pre's. Apparently since 1973, there have been 445 regular season games that have gone to OT. I did some rough math that gave me around 8500 games played in that span, which translates to 5% of the games.. Since there are only 11 playoff games, the odds of it being an OT game is kind of low since the occurrence doesn't happen once in every 11 games, more like once every 20 games. Now, I'm sure some stats major could tell me the odds of a 5% occurrence to happen in a series of 11 games, but the point remains that they should do it for the regular season too. This isn't that big of a change to where they need to "test" it on some games first.

DPD. My guess is the percentage of OT games is higher in the playoffs.

2009 2 of 11 were OT
2008 0 of 11
2007 1 of 11
2006 1 of 11
2005 0 of 11
2004 2 of 11
2003 3 of 11
2002 1 of 11
2001 1 of 11
2000 1 of 11

So in 10 years, we had 110 playoff games and 12 OT games... 10.9%

[Yeti]

Whoa.  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHSwbXq1wnH-jmEl-jV4W8M0Vd1wD9EKHCBG1

So fucking stupid.  I hate the new rules to begin with, but at least make
it the same in the regular season.  I hate specialized rules for playoffs
(with the exception of continue instead of calling it a tie type rules.)

My guess is if it proves effective in the playoffs they'll try to apply it to the regular season for 2011. If they play that season, anyway.

Good idea to test something like that for 11 games. I mean, I'm sure the percentage of games that go to overtime is over 9.09%, and of those games, I'm sure the occurrence they're trying to fix will happen

What happens if both teams kick field goals on their respective possessions?

My point was more of just an add-on to Pre's. Apparently since 1973, there have been 445 regular season games that have gone to OT. I did some rough math that gave me around 8500 games played in that span, which translates to 5% of the games.. Since there are only 11 playoff games, the odds of it being an OT game is kind of low since the occurrence doesn't happen once in every 11 games, more like once every 20 games. Now, I'm sure some stats major could tell me the odds of a 5% occurrence to happen in a series of 11 games, but the point remains that they should do it for the regular season too. This isn't that big of a change to where they need to "test" it on some games first.

DPD. My guess is the percentage of OT games is higher in the playoffs.

2009 2 of 11 were OT
2008 0 of 11
2007 1 of 11
2006 1 of 11
2005 0 of 11
2004 2 of 11
2003 3 of 11
2002 1 of 11
2001 1 of 11
2000 1 of 11

So in 10 years, we had 110 playoff games and 12 OT games... 10.9%

I did consider the idea that OT games were more prevalent in the playoffs, with more equal matched teams/better teams and all, but I failed to do the research. My bad. I was kind of wrong.

[Brownie]

Whoa.  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHSwbXq1wnH-jmEl-jV4W8M0Vd1wD9EKHCBG1

So fucking stupid.  I hate the new rules to begin with, but at least make
it the same in the regular season.  I hate specialized rules for playoffs
(with the exception of continue instead of calling it a tie type rules.)

My guess is if it proves effective in the playoffs they'll try to apply it to the regular season for 2011. If they play that season, anyway.

Good idea to test something like that for 11 games. I mean, I'm sure the percentage of games that go to overtime is over 9.09%, and of those games, I'm sure the occurrence they're trying to fix will happen

What happens if both teams kick field goals on their respective possessions?

My point was more of just an add-on to Pre's. Apparently since 1973, there have been 445 regular season games that have gone to OT. I did some rough math that gave me around 8500 games played in that span, which translates to 5% of the games.. Since there are only 11 playoff games, the odds of it being an OT game is kind of low since the occurrence doesn't happen once in every 11 games, more like once every 20 games. Now, I'm sure some stats major could tell me the odds of a 5% occurrence to happen in a series of 11 games, but the point remains that they should do it for the regular season too. This isn't that big of a change to where they need to "test" it on some games first.

DPD. My guess is the percentage of OT games is higher in the playoffs.

2009 2 of 11 were OT
2008 0 of 11
2007 1 of 11
2006 1 of 11
2005 0 of 11
2004 2 of 11
2003 3 of 11
2002 1 of 11
2001 1 of 11
2000 1 of 11

So in 10 years, we had 110 playoff games and 12 OT games... 10.9%

TPD

Let's look at the OT games and see which ones would be affected:
2009: Saints won BECAUSE THE NFL IS NOT FAIR!!  /Minnesota accent
Cardinals won because Aaron Rodgers handed them the ball.

2007: Giants scored really early (like 12:25) after FAVERUH threw his last pass as a Packer in OT.

2006: Seahawks get the ball first, punt from their 48, Sexy Rexy leads Bears into FG range

2004: Steelers beat Jets in OT after teams trade punts; Jets beats Chargers after Kaeding missed FG in OT

2003: Seahawks lose to Packers after Hasselback tells official he wants the ball in OT to "win the game." Hasselback's first throw is a Pick 6; Panthers win in 2 OT in the last game Lovie and Martz joined forces; Favre SOMEHOW THROWS ANOTHER INT in OT to give Eagles win.

2002: Titans win on FG on first possession of OT, beat PIT

2001: Patriots win on first possession on Viniateiri FG

2000: Dolphins beat Colts on OT TD

So... 2 of 110 playoff games over the past 10 years are TAINTED by the OT rule.

In the case of one, the Raiders are still moaning over the Tuck Rule. In the case of the other, the QB of the losing team threw a key INT towards the end of regulation. He also seems to have a track record here, doesn't he?

EDIT: I'm sorry... I should have said 3 out of the 12 were TAINTED. But really, were the Steelers going anywhere in 2002 anyways?

[PenFoe]

2002: Titans win on FG on first possession of OT, beat PIT

Fucking bullshit running-into-the-kicker Joe Nedney piece of shit asshole bullshit.

[Brownie]

2002: Titans win on FG on first possession of OT, beat PIT

Fucking bullshit running-into-the-kicker Joe Nedney piece of shit asshole bullshit.

That's right, I forgot about that. So:

2001: Would have been affected by new rule, but the Tuck Rule controversy a bigger game changer.
2002: Shitty running into kicker call gives Nedney another chance to win.
2009: Fuck Brett Favre. And Fuck Minnesota.

Just watch the consequences of this rule:

1) Teams getting the ball first will not even attempt a field goal unless they're inside the 15.
2) Teams might defer the opening kickoff.
3) Teams will then simply play for field position, giving us longer OTs, and more importantly, more BORING OTs (defenses and offensive won't play aggressively at all).

[R-V]

See ya, Brownie.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/bears-bidding-farewell-to-veteran-de-alex-brown.html

Does he have any trade value? He'll be 31 this season.

[Slaky]

See ya, Brownie.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/bears-bidding-farewell-to-veteran-de-alex-brown.html

Does he have any trade value? He'll be 31 this season.

He's still an effective player. I liked Alex Brown quite a bit and I would be willing to bet he loves it here. I think someone will take him, probably for a shitty draft pick.

[Poon]

See ya, Brownie.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/bears-bidding-farewell-to-veteran-de-alex-brown.html

Does he have any trade value? He'll be 31 this season.

He's still an effective player. I liked Alex Brown quite a bit and I would be willing to bet he loves it here. I think someone will take him, probably for a shitty draft pick.

Mark Anderson is not good enough to steal that spot from Brown.  Another awful move by Angelo.

[Slaky]

See ya, Brownie.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/bears-bidding-farewell-to-veteran-de-alex-brown.html

Does he have any trade value? He'll be 31 this season.

He's still an effective player. I liked Alex Brown quite a bit and I would be willing to bet he loves it here. I think someone will take him, probably for a shitty draft pick.

Mark Anderson is not good enough to steal that spot from Brown.  Another awful move by Angelo.

From what I've seen, Mark Anderson has been useless since his rookie year. The coaches claim they see something different so who the hell knows?

That said, I am on board with Idonije getting a shot at left end. I've heard the stories about him being able to shape himself depending on where he's playing and he's done well wherever the Bears have needed him to be. Dude's an absolute beast and they might be onto something with this move.

[Waco Kid]

See ya, Brownie.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/bears-bidding-farewell-to-veteran-de-alex-brown.html

Does he have any trade value? He'll be 31 this season.

He's still an effective player. I liked Alex Brown quite a bit and I would be willing to bet he loves it here. I think someone will take him, probably for a shitty draft pick.

Mark Anderson is not good enough to steal that spot from Brown.  Another awful move by Angelo.

From what I've seen, Mark Anderson has been useless since his rookie year. The coaches claim they see something different so who the hell knows?

That said, I am on board with Idonije getting a shot at left end. I've heard the stories about him being able to shape himself depending on where he's playing and he's done well wherever the Bears have needed him to be. Dude's an absolute beast and they might be onto something with this move.

The Bears should go with Idonije & Brown and cut their losses with Anderson already.

[Poon]

See ya, Brownie.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/bears-bidding-farewell-to-veteran-de-alex-brown.html

Does he have any trade value? He'll be 31 this season.

He's still an effective player. I liked Alex Brown quite a bit and I would be willing to bet he loves it here. I think someone will take him, probably for a shitty draft pick.

Mark Anderson is not good enough to steal that spot from Brown.  Another awful move by Angelo.

From what I've seen, Mark Anderson has been useless since his rookie year. The coaches claim they see something different so who the hell knows?

That said, I am on board with Idonije getting a shot at left end. I've heard the stories about him being able to shape himself depending on where he's playing and he's done well wherever the Bears have needed him to be. Dude's an absolute beast and they might be onto something with this move.

The Bears should go with Idonije & Brown and cut their losses with Anderson already.

THI.

[Pre]

The Bears should go with Idonije & Brown and cut their losses with Anderson already.

For me, this boils down to what they can get for Brown.  If they dump him in a trade or
release him, then it's idiocy.  However, the Bears have tons of needs and if they can
address more pressing things moving Brown then I can't complain much.

[Waco Kid]

The Bears should go with Idonije & Brown and cut their losses with Anderson already.

For me, this boils down to what they can get for Brown.  If they dump him in a trade or
release him, then it's idiocy.  However, the Bears have tons of needs and if they can
address more pressing things moving Brown then I can't complain much.

That's exactly what I expect to happen to Brown if the Bears head down this road.