Bring Back Pat!!! Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The valid reason for not awarding the TD is simple. The NFL did not award Gore the offensive TD. http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2012121613/2012/REG15/49ers@patriots#menu=highlights&tab=analyze There is a 0 next to TDs. How can you award points the NFL did not? That would be arbitrary, which is fine, but it needs to be specified by the league and stated clearly that they count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The valid reason for not awarding the TD is simple. The NFL did not award Gore the offensive TD. http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2012121613/2012/REG15/49ers@patriots#menu=highlights&tab=analyze There is a 0 next to TDs. How can you award points the NFL did not? That would be arbitrary, which is fine, but it needs to be specified by the league and stated clearly that they count. funny. If you go to NFL.com and search under scoring in the stats dept. there's a column for fumbles. Sort by that. You'll see Frank Gore listed along with every other player who has a fumble recovery TD. Some offensive, some defensive. Next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Tackle in the backfield that happens to be the endzone, gets you whatever your league pays out for safeties. Hmmm, seems to me you're OK with a league deciding how much to award for a safety. And it could be something other than 2 pts. If that's the case, why aren't you OK for a league deciding to award something other than 6 points (e.g. 0 points) for an OFRTD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Hmmm, seems to me you're OK with a league deciding how much to award for a safety. And it could be something other than 2 pts. If that's the case, why aren't you OK for a league deciding to award something other than 6 points (e.g. 0 points) for an OFRTD? Believe it or not, I actually don't care what you do. It's your league, score things how you want. And, for the record, I actually like to score safeties with more than 2 pts because they're so rare and, unlike real football that rewards the team with 2 pts and the ball back, FF just gives you 2 pts. Your team D doesn't feel the love that the real D feels. So, for much the same reason that non-scoring events like gaining yardage are given pts and some scoring events like passing for a TD or kicking a particularly long FG, sometimes scoring in FF doesn't match actual real pts in an attempt to reward performance. And since I think a safety is cooler than 2 sacks, I like to make them worth 3. My only issue, all along is the notion that "any scoring system is just as good as the next because, it's my league and I'll do it how I want." Do you realize the depths of stupidity that line of reasoning could be used to explain? Award 5 pts for missed FGs? Stupid? or "just as good as anything else because it's my league and I'll do it how I want." That's the thing that annoys me, especially in America where we're supposedly all about individual achievement and all that. Everyone hides behind this notion of "every idea is as good as the next if you like it." Um, no they're not. In this instance, scoring ideas born from in the spirit of evolving scoring to improve the game and what not, like discounting passing TDs or awarding yardage and not just TDs are "better" ideas than one where the best anyone can do is surmise reasons why, theoretically, someone might like it better that way, pulling any number of things out of their ass, many (or all) of which actually don't fly. Edited December 20, 2012 by detlef 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 20, 2012 Author Share Posted December 20, 2012 Wow, somebody's pissed in detlef's Chirstmas egg nog. So because safeties are cooler than 2 sacks you give them 3 points. Great justification and not just a "because I think so reason". Serisouly man, take a chill pill and relax. Have cold one or something and forget about. You have taken this far too seriously and heaped a bunch of crap on everybody else in this thread because in your eyes, certain ways of scoring this are right (or at least more right) than others. And why you may not care how a league scores something you'll type a bunch of posts, several thousand words, pushing a short discussion to 7 pages, for what? To rail against people that do things there way and don't want to change just because you disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Wow, somebody's pissed in detlef's Chirstmas egg nog. So because safeties are cooler than 2 sacks you give them 3 points. Great justification and not just a "because I think so reason". Serisouly man, take a chill pill and relax. Have cold one or something and forget about. You have taken this far too seriously and heaped a bunch of crap on everybody else in this thread because in your eyes, certain ways of scoring this are right (or at least more right) than others. And why you may not care how a league scores something you'll type a bunch of posts, several thousand words, pushing a short discussion to 7 pages, for what? To rail against people that do things there way and don't want to change just because you disagree. I see you're still not trying to prove a point. Which is good, actually, because you're not. I actually explained the safety deal more than what you repeated, but then you know that. The funny thing is, you actually started this whole tangent. You were already in a crappy mood because you had a pissed off owner (who really didn't have a limb to stand on) and then someone dared to say that a scoring system that you admit you didn't even set up that way on purpose was "retarded". Ooh, now the gloves are off. So you, and others, started down this path of justifying something that you did by accident and trying to claim that this thing that you did by accident and, actually were probably going to ditch before next year if you could convince the other owners, was "just as good" as scoring systems that have evolved with intention to improve the game. Because, "hey, any idea is as good as the next if it's the one you like", right? Or, in this case, is not even the one you like but you'll be damned if anyone is going to judge any of your league rules, even the ones you don't like and didn't set up that way on purpose. The other funny thing is, I think DoG is so butt-hurt by this whole thing that I'm afraid he's going to try and adopt this stupid idea just because. Edited December 20, 2012 by detlef 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I see you're still not trying to prove a point. Which is good, actually, because you're not. I actually explained the safety deal more than what you repeated, but then you know that. The funny thing is, you actually started this whole tangent. You were already in a crappy mood because you had a pissed off owner (who really didn't have a limb to stand on) and then someone dared to say that a scoring system that you admit you didn't even set up that way on purpose was "retarded". Ooh, now the gloves are off. So you, and others, started down this path of justifying something that you did by accident and trying to claim that this thing that you did by accident and, actually were probably going to ditch before next year if you could convince the other owners, was "just as good" as scoring systems that have evolved with intention to improve the game. Because, "hey, any idea is as good as the next if it's the one you like", right? Or, in this case, is not even the one you like but you'll be damned if anyone is going to judge any of your league rules, even the ones you don't like and didn't set up that way on purpose. The other funny thing is, I think DoG is so butt-hurt by this whole thing that I'm afraid he's going to try and adopt this stupid idea just because. That pretty much sums it up. Edited December 20, 2012 by electricrelish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 20, 2012 Author Share Posted December 20, 2012 I see you're still not trying to prove a point. Which is good, actually, because you're not. I actually explained the safety deal more than what you repeated, but then you know that. The funny thing is, you actually started this whole tangent. You were already in a crappy mood because you had a pissed off owner (who really didn't have a limb to stand on) and then someone dared to say that a scoring system that you admit you didn't even set up that way on purpose was "retarded". Ooh, now the gloves are off. So you, and others, started down this path of justifying something that you did by accident and trying to claim that this thing that you did by accident and, actually were probably going to ditch before next year if you could convince the other owners, was "just as good" as scoring systems that have evolved with intention to improve the game. Because, "hey, any idea is as good as the next if it's the one you like", right? Or, in this case, is not even the one you like but you'll be damned if anyone is going to judge any of your league rules, even the ones you don't like and didn't set up that way on purpose. The other funny thing is, I think DoG is so butt-hurt by this whole thing that I'm afraid he's going to try and adopt this stupid idea just because. Thanks for not disappointing me. The only reason anybody was trying to justify why these wouldn't be counted is because you basically asked for it. As if this is the one scoring category in all of FF that is so cut and dried that nobody could argue it shouldn't be scored. You're the one that took an extreme position very early on, and doesn't want to back down. And yes I did read your more complete and reasonable explanation of why safeties should be more than two points. So I'm not sure why you even mentioned that it was cooler than 2 sacks so you give it more than 2 points. Just trying to point out how retarded that sounded in light of all your other hi-horse antics in this thread. Its clear to me from this and a few other threads that you just like to argue. I do sometimes too, but never held that one way or the other was better. You continue to hold that certain scoring options are better than others, because they are born out of some great analysis or debate, or to make the scoring more fair or balanced by position. Again, I'm going to try to be done here. Honestly probably won't be on the Huddle much over the next week as I have stuff to do for the holidays. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. Good luck in your playoffs if still alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 OK, so I had to peek. 7 pages of discourse on this topic got me curious. I, for one, am completely shocked that detleftbreathless is at the core. Shocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) OK, so I had to peek. 7 pages of discourse on this topic got me curious. I, for one, am completely shocked that detleftbreathless is at the core. Shocked. Detleftnoworduntyped is good like that Edited December 21, 2012 by Delicious_bass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 WELL, PRINCE, Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family. No, I warn you, that if you do not tell me we are at war, if you again allow yourself to palliate all the infamies and atrocities of this Antichrist (upon my word, I believe he is), I don't know you in future, you are no longer my friend, no longer my faithful slave, as you say. There, how do you do, how do you do? I see I'm scaring you, sit down and talk to me." :takesabowandgiveslilstevieawetwilliewhilstgoosingDoG: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Christ dude, I think the lack of meat is making you crazy.... Er umm, even moreso... Whatever it is you think you won, congrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) I will say that the argument about not scoring fumble recoveries could possibly be considered a legitimate argument, but here's the problem that I have with it. The explanation is one that was brainstormed from the mind of DoG as a possible reason. It's not a reason that anyone actually uses in any FF leagues that we know of for their justification to not score fumble recovery TD's. If we had a real-life reason used in a FF league today, then I'd like to hear it. The reality of the situation is that most leagues accept the default scoring or never even thought about it, which is why this discussion is a good one, so folks will think about it. Really is my last post because I'll be busy and gone for a week, so you can declare whatever victory you want then, but this is the thing that actually kinda pisses me off, even when at post #6 before this debate I already made my longstanding view very clear (despite my indifference), and yet you continue to accuse me of just making up chit for the sake of being devil's advocate, as if my arguments are just baseless, even though you relish agreed about the good point about how only rewarding recovery TDs isn't consistent, you just took a different route to make it consistent. See Det, where you're logic falls apart in comparing a safety and fumble recovery score, that they both only happen on one place in the field, is that it is not possible to have a safety anywhere else on the field, whereas fumbles and recoveries can happen anywhere, so why are they not scored? Further compounding that is that a safety is a stated goal of the defense (hence clear performance), whereas a fumbling and happening to have a guy fall on it does not fall under typical offensive performance. Apples and oranges. Anyways, I really don't want to get back into this, but every qualifying justification I made was in response to him making more qualifying justifications, so don't act like I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing... Yes, I like debating, but you two know me well enough to know that I only argue about things I feel strongly enough about to not just drop it, so stop with the condescending BS. With that, fine, I will declare you to have won, since even I admitted earlier I would likely vote for this if my league wanted it.. I'll just continue to remain baffled that you're so gung-ho on your way being the only way that you automatically assume I'm either wrong or playing devil's advocate to possibly take a different view of a category that really isn't so clear cut like you want to make it. Edited December 21, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Christ dude, I think the lack of meat is making you crazy.... Er umm, even moreso... Whatever it is you think you won, congrats. Dude, relax, that was just a joke for the "fans" of my verbose style. I wasn't trying to "win" anything. Rather, showing you all the courtesy of addressing any potential argument in favor of this scoring system. It's really the least I could do, considering I asked for them. ETA: Edited December 21, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 funny. If you go to NFL.com and search under scoring in the stats dept. there's a column for fumbles. Sort by that. You'll see Frank Gore listed along with every other player who has a fumble recovery TD. Some offensive, some defensive. Next? And? So he recovered a fumble. Who cares? Do you award points for that? The NFL does not say it was an offensive rushing TD. Period. Under rushing attempts it does not list a TD. Gore has 7 rushing TDs and I can show you where they were scored in other games. Here's the official NFL scoring leaders page: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&statisticCategory=SCORING&season=2012&seasonType=REG&experience=&tabSeq=0&qualified=false&Submit=Go It's a fumble recovery TD and not an offensive TD. A league needs to specifically state that offensive fumble recoveries are awarded in order for a player to get points for it. It's really quite simple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) And? So he recovered a fumble. Who cares? Do you award points for that? The NFL does not say it was an offensive rushing TD. Period. Under rushing attempts it does not list a TD. Gore has 7 rushing TDs and I can show you where they were scored in other games. Here's the official NFL scoring leaders page: http://www.nfl.com/s...false&Submit=Go It's a fumble recovery TD and not an offensive TD. A league needs to specifically state that offensive fumble recoveries are awarded in order for a player to get points for it. It's really quite simple. Yes it is, which is why the player in the original issue has no case. Steve's league is not set up to allow them and had not earlier this season. Case closed. The discussion had moved on to the notion of why you would or would not set up your league that way. Edited December 21, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.