My anecdotal evidence says: 'NFL Overtime sucks!'

It's NFL playoff time and that means the team/player/coach with the most heart, guts, ability to run the ball/stop said run will obviously win the Super Bowl.

It also means some games may go to overtime, as some teams are equally matched. This happened with San Diego/Indy over the weekend, a game in which the Chargers won after winning the coin flip.

This one instance means the coin flip sucks as a way to "decide who wins" an NFL game.

King me:

The overtime rule continues to be the dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books. Giving a coin flip more power than Tony Soprano has now deprived us of a satisfactory ending to two pivotal games this year -- Jets-Patriots in Week 11, when the Patriots and 401-yard passer Matt Cassel never saw the ball in overtime after a heroic fourth-quarter comeback, and Colts-Chargers, when we didn't get to see the NFL MVP even play in the fifth quarter because it was a one-possession overtime."

Oh how quickly we forget things that do not support our opinions. In week 16 the Giants and Panthers played a football match that proceeded to go into extra play. The Giants won the flip. Auto-win, right? Well they went three and out and punted. But so did Carolina. The second time around, the Giants win.

So the Giants won the flip and won the game, but both teams had a shot at it. Sounds fair to me.

That brings me to the enemy of anecdotes, mathematics (here, and elsewhere).

There have been 365 OT games from 1974 to 2003 (finding up-to-date stats was difficult). Seventy two percent of the time, teams have each had a possession. Fifty two percent of the time, teams that have won the flip have have won the game. Forty four percent of teams that have lost the flip have won the game, with five percent ending in a tie. Only 28% of teams have won the flip and driven to a score. It is unclear if that means directly scored, or, as in the Giants/Panthers case, simply scored and won the flip.

To me, 52 to 44 is a difference, but not a huge one. Plus, 365 games over thirty years isn't a very substantial sample size. There were 512 games played in 2008 alone, not including the playoffs.

Is it perfect? Obviously not. There are a number of solutions such as a timed OT period, not sudden death or using the idiotic college overtime system - in which teams start at the one-yard line and must only use linemen for quarterbacks.

But the coin flip isn't that bad - it just sticks out when teams who win it, win the game.

And for the record, I think pass interference is the "dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books."

That, or roughing the kicker. Those guys are wimps.

NFL MVP voters prove (again) 'winning' is the bomb dot com

Peyton Manning - who is only a few steps away from becoming the new Favre - has won his third MVP in a landslide.

Is him winning the worst thing in the world? No, not really. He was good in a season where there were no LDTs or Shaun Alexanders (remember him?) smashing TD records.

Manning received 38 points. Adrian Peterson, who finished second, had 15.5 points.

Where did Manning rank amongst the NFL's best passers this season? Glad you asked.

Comp. % - third
Yards - sixth (over 1,000 behind leader)
Yards/attempt - 13th (a full yard behind Rivers)
TDs - fifth (seven behind Rivers)
INTs - tied for 18th
QB rating - fifth (ten spirit points or whatever the hell they're called behind Rivers)
Team W/L - 12-4 motherfuckers!

A fine resume for an MVP. But there is a certain name that keeps ranking near the top of all these - Philip Rivers.

Comp. % - seventh
Yards - fifth
Yards/attempt - first
TDs - first
INTs - tied for 18th
QB rating - first
Team W/L - 8-8 :(

And because his team finished 8-8, he gets a whopping 4 total points in the voting. I am not saying Rivers should have won, but he had a better season than Manning. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Rivers, Peterson, Brees, Turner, Portis - hell even Thomas Jones, Chad Pennington or Albert Haynesworth, are all better MVP candidates.

But how many of them have two other MVPs and are the poster boys of the NFL?

Please, for the love of all that is holy, retire already

And I'm not talking about Favre, I am talking about Wojo.

Just kidding. I am talking about both of them.

Let's add another chapter to the "It's more than numbers, it's about heart. And wins" book of idiocy. This chapter's title? "2008 Aaron Rodgers SUCKS when compared to 2008 Favre."


Rodgers: 3807 YDS/28 TD: 13 INT/93.8 QB Rating

Jeans monger: 3259 YDS/22 TD: 22 INT/81.0 Rating

Pretty cut and dry, right? I mean, what could possibly put Favre ahead of Rodgers when comparing their seasons?

But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.

So: worse QB = better team performance. Dan Orlovsky's phone must be ringing off the hook!

First of all, the numbers don't always make the man.

Never do.

If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.

Great, wonderful misuse of "stats."

Those ten by yards: Rivers, Pennington, Warner, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, Schaub, Romo, Garcia, Cassel.

Schaub, Brees and Rodgers were out. But the rest of those missed the playoffs on the last fucking game of the season. Seriously. The Patriots, Bucs and Cowboys were eliminated on the last day of the season.

Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.

But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did,

Doesn't that undermi ... aw forget it.

but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road.

All because of Favre. Football is not a team game played by two seperate 11-man units. It is a game of quarterbacks. Just good, American, white quarterbacks. Gunslingin' and havin' a ball out there.

Thomas Jones, who led the AFC in rushing (the other part of offense that is not throwing) with 1312 yards and 13 TDs, had nothing to do with the Jets being good during one random stretch of the season.

Also, in that wonderful game against the Titans, Favre threw for 224 yards, two TDs and a pick. A typical Favre game. But the Jets won 34-13. How can that be? Without Favre throwing four TDs, kicking every PAT and picking off two passes while playing cornerback?

Leon Washington ran for 82 yards and two TDs on eight (!) carries and Jones had over 100 total yards (96 rushing) and a rec. TD. That's how. They ran for 192 yards.

You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.

I know it's hard for you to believe Wojo, but luck is an element in sports. A big one. One that the Packers had a lot of the bad variety this season. Look at their losses:

16-27, 21-30, 24-27, 16-19, 27-28, 29-51, 31-35, 21-24, 16-20, 17-20.

That's a crazy five games decided by three points or less. Two by four-seven and three by seven points or more. That sucks. I would be pissed if I was a Packers fan.

Now, of course, the Jets' losses:

10-19, 29-48, 13-16, 17-34, 14-24, 3-13, 17-24.

One by three or less. One by four-seven and five by seven or more.

This all means the Packers could have easily been 11-5 if they win a few more of the really close ones and one or two of the kind of close ones. The Jets, meanwhile, are pretty much where they should be.

The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's. ... But do wins count for anything?

No. They count for everything.

Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six.

See above long-winded loss breakdown.

They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

I'll give you the division thing, but counter with the AFC East played the AFC and NFC West. Those teams are garbage.

And the Pack beat the Vikings and Colts. That equals two playoff teams, not one.

Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers. But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts. In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.

But he also only threw 13 INTs and 6 more TDs than Favre. And what the fuck are "comeback siutations" anyway? Does being down 7-0 in the first quarter count? I bet it does.

I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too.

I could live with a six-win season too, as long as at least 70% of those 10 losses were winnable games. Oh, and my quarterback wasn't a 40-year-old dude with a TD to INT ratio of 1:1.

Dumb.

Just like this ... well you get it.

This man has a say in who wins the MVP

Well at least they got it right in the end. Pujols won his second MVP award. But with Manny and CC involved, the voting was not without its blatant stupidities.

Mr. Tom Haudricourt of the Brewers Blog (hint!) had quite the ballot, which he exposed (foolishly) for all to see. It's as follows:

Here's the way I voted:

1. Ryan Howard, Phil

2. CC Sabathia, Mil

3. Manny Ramirez, LA

4. Carlos Delgado, NY

5. Aramis Ramirez, Chi

6. Prince Fielder, Mil

7. Albert Pujols, Stl

8. Ryan Ludwick, Stl

9. Ryan Braun, Mil

10. David Wright, NY

Howard is whatever. "Carried his team into the playoffs." "Had a great September" and whatever other stupid axioms writers use to vote for inferior players. But let's look at number seven.

7. Albert Pujols

That's not the same guy who garnered 18 of 32 first place votes and finished with 369 total points, is it?

Shit.

He was the seventh most valuable player in baseball according to Mr. Haudricourt. This man, who writes about baseball for a living, placed Pujols seventh on his MVP ballot.

Prince Fielder, the Brewers first basemen (although I am sure that has nothing to do with it), was a more valuable player in Haudricourt's warped mind. Why you ask? Well, you won't get a good answer.

With the Cardinals finishing fourth, I voted Pujols seventh on my ballot. I don't consider MVP to be "the most outstanding player" award and therefore don't just go by who had the best stats. I like to credit players for lifting their teams to the post-season or at least keeping them in the race until the very end.

That last sentence is humorous. "At least keeping them in the race until the very end."

The Cardinals finished 86-76, while your mighty Brewers finished 90-72. That's four games. Care to respond?

I understand that the Cardinals would not have been even close to the wild-card berth without Pujols,

Argument undermined.

but I still like players who elevate their game in crunch time and lift their teams to new heights. And I thought Ryan Ludwick had just as much to do with keeping the Cards in the hunt as Pujols did.

Sept./Oct. splits for Pujols/Ludwick:

Pujols - 1.130 OPS/8 HR/8 2B/17 BB/7 K

Ludwick - .941 OPS/5 HR/9 2B/9 BB/30 K

So "just as much to do" becomes "not nearly as much to do."

St. Louis did stay in the wild card race until mid-September,

That was nice of you to undermine yourself again.

but mainly because the Brewers and Mets were gagging at the time.

Nothing to do with the Cardinals you know, winning while they were "gagging."

It's a subjective vote and every writer has his own preferences. That's why I voted for Sabathia second and Ramirez third because even though they played in the league only half a season they were primarily responsible for putting their teams in the playoffs.

I voted for them because I like them.

This is an inexact science. With 10 names on the ballot, you could move guys around and drive yourself nuts putting them in the spot you feel is best. But that's the way I voted. In sheer offensive numbers, Pujols certainly is tough to beat, which is why it's understandable that he got so much support.

What's not understandable is how the hell you have an MVP vote.

This one's for you

Fire Joe Morgan.

You may be gone, but you'll never be forgotten.

This one's for you.

Cold Hard Football Facts claims to be all analytical and shit about all things football. But really they are fairly wrong, fairly often. They express opinion as fact and will not get away with it. Not on my watch!

Best QBs ever. Go.

2. JOE MONTANA (San Francisco, 1979-92; Kansas City, 1993-94)

Best season (1989): 271 for 386 (70.2%), 3,521 yards, 9.12 YPA, 26 TD, 8 INT, 112.4 passer rating

Career: 3,409 for 5,391 (63.2%), 40,551 yards, 7.52 YPA, 273 TD, 139 INT, 92.3 passer rating

Championships: 1981, 1984, 1988, 1989.

Seems pretty freakin' awesome to me. Who could possibly be number one...

1. BART STARR (Green Bay, 1956-71)

Best season (1966): 156 for 251 (62.2%), 2,257 yards, 9.0 YPA, 14 TD, 3 INT, 105.0 passer rating

Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating

Championships: 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967.

Oh, someone worse. That's cool.

The numbers, in side-by-side form:

Starr - 57.4% comp/24,718 YDS/7.8 YPA/152 TD/138 INT/80.5 passer rating
Montana - 63.2% comp/40,551 YDS/7.52 YPA/273 TD/139 INT/92.3 passer rating


Those differences are a fucking joke. And not even a funny one. It's like a really racist joke that is offensive to anyone intelligent.

Almost 16,000 more yards. 121 more TDs. And only ONE more pick. Montana also played in four less games than Starr. He also had 2,000+ more attempts than Starr, which explains the minor difference in YPA.

But he won one less championship! Well Starr won them in a time when there were six teams and no coloreds were allowed to play.

Conclusion: Montana is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.

You say Jerry Rice. I say shut your mouth.

The stupidity, in word form:

And even if you listen to teammates today, they make it pretty clear that they would have fallen on a grenade for Starr. Leadership is an elemental piece of quarterbacking – probably more important than gaudy passing stats.

Jon Kitna. His tight ends would kill for him. No. Questions. Asked.

Best QB ever.

And that love his teammates had for their field general is an incredible sign of his leadership.

But forget, for a moment, the team accomplishments and the “intangibles” of leadership.

I will if you will.

Also, +1 for the douchy "_______" on intangibles. They aren't required because "leadership" "is" "actually" "immeasurable."

If you want to talk passing and statistics, we’ll put Starr up against anybody. Anybody.

How about, oh, I don't know, Joe Fucking Montana?

He led the NFL in passer rating five times. Johnny Unitas led the league in passer rating just twice. Ditto Joe Montana. Only Steve Young surpassed Starr’s mark (six).

Objection! Relevance.

Congrats on leading a league consisting of two teams in a wonky stat. Oh, and not being the best ever in that contrived example. Nice job.

When it comes to a combination of leadership, victories, big-game performances and statistical supremacy nobody – NOBODY – put together a more total package than Bart Starr, the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

The two things - wins (which are dumb anyway) and stats - I can measure against my ace (Montana), my guy wins.

Career win/loss:
Monty - 117/47
Starrman - 94/57

The stats are there - in all their uneven glory - above.

FJM, you will be missed.