Monday Afternoon Musings: The Bears and Overtime Rules
by Kev H on Mar 22, 2010 4:40 PM CDT
in Notes
Email
Print
You may or may not have heard of the absolute travesty (sarcasm injected) last year in the NFC championship game when Brett Favre threw a late pick*** which allowed the Saints to take the ball in overtime and win on the first possession of overtime.
***(Quick side note--this is the third time in three seasons he's done this. One of the other two was also an NFC championship game)
That quickly, of course, brought back the good, solid, conversation-starter that is "Is the NFL Overtime system crap, completely crap, or totally crap?"
It's an interesting topic, and comes up often, especially when big games come down to it. So to note, the owners are discussing it at meetings this week. Let's take a look at the proposed change, and how some feel the Bears should look at it.
First things first, the league commissioner is all for it:
The league's competition committee has proposed changing overtime rules for the postseason only. The proposal would afford the team that loses the coin flip a chance to have a possession if the opening possession doesn't end in a touchdown. Sudden death would resume after both teams had a possession.
Well that's all well and good. Seems fair for competitors--if you don't get a touchdown on the opening possession, the other team gets a chance at it. If they score a touchdown, they win. If they don't score, you win. If they get a field goal, then you go to sudden death.
The general idea, of course is to maintain some of that sudden death impact, but reduce a system where the coin-flip-winning team has won the game nearly 60% of the time since 1994. Says one impact owner from the league:
"The statistics have gotten to the point where it's time to consider making a change," (Giants co-owner John) Mara said. "I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that 60% of the time the coin-toss winner ends up winning. Particularly now with the increased accuracy of field-goal kickers, it sets up an unfair advantage to the team winning the toss."
Kickers have converted field goals with a success rate of 79.8% since 1994.
That's very well and true. The reasoning for only limiting the change to playoff time is simple--injury to players. There's no reason to do too much to risk injury to players during the season, as you'd hate to see a player get hurt in an overtime game in week 2, because he was on the field more than he would typically expect to be. But the playoffs, they are a different beast. Surely, you don't want something like what happened in the NFC championship game to be the way it goes, right? Two tough teams, battling it out, and then something as arbitrary as a coin-flip decides the outcome.
My counter-argument to that would be--you had all game to step up and make a play. In overtime you should feel it even more critical to do so.
I, personally speaking, don't feel too strongly one way or the other. I don't think there will be a change this year, but I could see it happening sometime soon. The movement has been out there for a while. I kind of enjoy the way the situation goes now, but I can understand why some would want change.
Brad Biggs took the time today to lay out why the Bears, in no uncertain terms, should absolutely never want a change. Ever. The highlight:
Let's review the Bears in overtime over the last decade. They've played 14 overtime games in that span and have a record of 11-3. Five of those games were decided on a field goal on the first possession of overtime and they are 4-1 in those games
Check the article out as well to go down a memory-lane trip for those overtime games, brilliantly summed up by Biggs and laying out why the Bears should vote no.
So what do you think? Are you for or against this kind of a shift? Do you think it should cover the regular season? Why? Do you think this is backlash because King Favre suddenly had it work against him, or because it's truly considered a problem?
73 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just because the Queens have horrible special teams
Doesn’t mean they can eliminate the return game.
by DaHamsta on Mar 22, 2010 5:45 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Actually, its not a horrible idea. Not great, but not horrible.
Basically during the course of the game each team is guaranteed one kickoff return, either to start the first half or begin the second. Any other kickoff return is a direct result of the opposition scoring. By giving one team an opportunity for, essentially, a bonus return chance could be viewed as an unfair advantage. Like I said, not a great idea, but not a horrible one….
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
If you're a team
with an accurate kicker, and whose defense is almost always better than it’s offense, the current system is a no brainer.
I wrote that line before I read the Biggs article. I see he writes what I wrote, using more words. Like I said, it’s a no brainer.
Vinny: "[Thrust] means pace, it means getting the ball out, it means getting your back to the sidelines, it means extending your outlets, it means getting the ball up the court into our early offense with plenty of time."
These rule changes would ....
…… seem to penalize you for having a great special teams and a great defense . It seems to want to get rid of two phases of the game so less complete teams ( such as the Vikings suspect special teams when covering kickoffs and punts ) can live off of one area of football . Anytime you get rid of an area of the game your hurting the majority to appease the minority . My opinion leave the rules alone when it comes to overtime and this to the NFL , stop kissin Brett Favres butt with a rule change just for him !
by MidWayMonster54 on Mar 22, 2010 5:35 PM CDT reply actions
I don't see how the rule change would remove two phases of the game
It’s guaranteeing that the offense of the coin flip loser and defense of the flip winner get into the game. ST would get two chances in overtime to impact the game with both a KO and KR/PR, possibly three if it then goes into sudden death. The more complete team would still have the advantage.
Not really a .....
…. sudden death concept anymore now is it . So what your sayin is , in essence , that field goal kickers are now obsolete and are not important enough to win a game ? Another thing here ….. so what if your a team like we were a few years back , a stellar special teams unit that can give you instant field goal range and a clutch kicker who makes everything . The new rules would make it usless to have a great kicker on your team . Add to that a defense that can get you the ball and instantly your in scoring range , but can’t punch it in and settle for 3 . So great the D gets punished for doing their job . Football has prospered under this overtime system and really they just need to need it the way it is . Ever heard the phrase " If it ain’t broke don’t fix it " ? Well OT ain’t broke and it don’t need fixin !!
by MidWayMonster54 on Mar 23, 2010 1:16 AM CDT up reply actions
who says its not broke?
if it wasn’t, 28 owners wouldn’t have voted for it. And if your FG kicker is that good, then he’ll cooly go out and make 2 FG instead of one.
We argue against this change now, but i guarantee you when you have 2 teams in the playoffs, and one has already kicked a FG, and the other team has the ball 4th and 3, we will all be on the edge of our seats, and all talking about the game the next day regardless of the outcome…great move by the NFL.
I'll be the first to say it ......
….. this rule change is utter garbage . It takes away the sudden death aspect and it devalues kickers . Great we got Robbie Gould , one of the best clutch kickers in the game , lining up for the game winner in OT and all it does is give us points when it could have won the game . It subtracts the importance of having a Robbie Gould or an Adam Vinatieri to make that clutch kick and honestly devalues special teams as a whole . All this does is punish the great special teams in the league . And honestly I like the old system even if it gives us a loss .
And lets be honest here this is a rule made for Brett Favre . If not for his choke job this past season this would have never came to the forefront , but god forbid Lord Favre have a faliure on his part cost him anything !
by MidWayMonster54 on Mar 24, 2010 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions
i don't know what Favre has to do with it either way
but then again, i’m not a Bears fan and i’m sure he’s not quite loved in the windy city. Kind of how us Giants fans feel about Tony ho…romo.
i disagree that it devalues special teams midway. and good kickers. to me, it increases the value of having a robbie gould. because any tom, dick, and harry can make one kick under pressure. only the great ones can make 2. so if you have a excellent kicker on your squad, well now he becomes just that more important.
Secondly, it still is sudden death, with a promise that each team gets to touch it. and if you don’t want that team to touch it, well then throw your cajones on the table and go for 6. that’s a win for me. i’m sick of the bogus pass interference to the other teams 20, two runs in the middle of the hashes, and out trots the kicker. YAWN!
I think we as fans are over analyzing this pretty simple rule. there won’t be any “Team A kicked the field goal, then onsides kicked it and recovered”. just ain’t gonna happen, NOT IN THE PLAYOFFS. after that second possession, it’s sudden death as we all once knew. so what’s the hub bub?
No its not still ....
…. sudden death because the first team to score is no longer the winner if they don’t score a TD or a safety . So a two point play is better than a three point play !! Since when ? If your team ain’t good enough to stop the other team from returning a kick 50 + yards and then kicking the field goal then you don’t deserve to win ! Also if your defense can’t stop the other team from scoring on the opening possession then you don’t deserve to win . Sudden death implies stand up and fight or go home , now with the new FUBAR rules it implies stand up and fight but you’ll get another chance so don’t fight so hard it not like a field goal wins anymore .
And if your team , be it yours or mine , commit a stupid pass interference penalty in overtime and it costs them so be it . The new system is garbage period . And this rule was made for Lord Favre , how you ask ? Well which other games does the media refer to when siting that overtime needed to be changed ? The Saints v. Queens & Lord Favre , thats it thats all . They only mention one game because truth be told this rule , in the past 10 post seasons , this rule would have affected a grand total of THREE , count ’em , THREE games ( Thank NFL Total Access for the info , just watch they repeat it over and over ) . So I ask how is this not about Favre and his faliure in this past post season ?
by MidWayMonster54 on Mar 24, 2010 1:38 AM CDT up reply actions
i know why you(and many others) call it the Favre rule
i just am not buying in as freely as some. Hell his owner didn’t even vote for it. plus the NFL was getting what they wanted either way with the Saints or the Vikes in it. People had just as much interest in the Saints as they did with the Vikings.
And 2 points have always been better than 3 in sudden death. that rule was in place before yesterday, in the old system if you sacked the QB for a safety, game was over. so this new rule did not make 2 points better than 3, it was always that way.
you’re right, it is not sudden death anymore. it’s an oxymoron to call it such and give the other team a possession. but from where i’m standing, sudden death was weak. quite boring. i can’t count how many OT games i’ve seen where one team emptied the playbook on a drive, got down to the 20, and turned into pee wee league players. Hey RB, go crash into the line twice for me. hey QB, go take one step back, one step to the right, and kneel down please. that’s boring.
now teams will have to think. now they will have to continue to empty out the playbook past the 20. now there will be that game ending PA pass because the D was sitting on the run thinking the O was going to go conservative. now there’s gonna be that pick 6 because one team chose to go for 6 instead of 3. now there’s going to be that 4th and 1 at the 33 decision that will flood sports radio lines for days. now there will be that water cooler talk of “did you see the ending to that game?” that is all possible because these owners got with it, realized that the system didn’t work, and fixed it. albeit it there can be room for improvement, but this is ABSOLUTELY a step in the right direction.
This league is already so anti D with there rule changes every year, from the 5 yard chuck rule, to the hit the QB in designated areas only rule, to the hey, i’m going to chuck the ball 40 yards down the field, and there’s a good chance that flag happy ref will see the wideout trip over the defenders foot, totally ignore the offensive PI that goes on just as often, and gift wrap some wonderful field position for the O. Yet after every new rule, we still ask the D to be perfect in OT. don’t be good. because only good, even great D’s give up 3 points. BE PERFECT. put up a 0 on that board. i don’t care that you’re exhausted after 60 minutes of football, so is the offense. Ah, but the offense has those extra special rules, to help tip that scale ever so in there favor.
i’m glad we’re done penalizing good D’s for doing what we ask them to do. holding a team to 3 or less. This is change, and i’m all for it. RIP sudden death.
Since when is ....
…. 3 points better than two ? I’ll take 3 any day . As for the rest your on one side of the fence and I’m on the other and we’ll leave it at that rather than repeat my defense .
by MidWayMonster54 on Mar 24, 2010 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Ooops ... got ....
….. that backward should read …… 2 points better than 3 . DUH !!!
by MidWayMonster54 on Mar 24, 2010 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions
a safety always can end an OT game
thus, 2 is better than 3, in sudden death. this is not a new wrinkle added with this new rule.
All i ask is that you give it a chance. it may lead to some exciting finishes. and at the end of the day, we’re getting more football. i love any rule that gives me more football.
Not only do you have the whole game to play...
But the whole game is played with offense AND DEFENSE. If the other team kicks a field goal, it’s because your DEFENSE let them get into field goal range. Maybe if your defense stops the offense, you can get the ball back and kick your OWN field goal on the other team’s defense.
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 22, 2010 5:52 PM CDT reply actions
Maybe the ST stunk and allowed a big return...
that set the other team up in FG range or their was a bogus penality that put the other team there. There’s all kinds of reasons that it could happen and only 1 of them involves a defense not stopping the other team. usually the teams with the worse defenses won’t make the playoffs.
We are who we think we are.
Yet another reason to be able to challenge penalties.
by DaHamsta on Mar 22, 2010 7:22 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
It would be nice
But also impossible and tough on refs. Would you be able to challenge when a penalty WASN’T called? Its all judgement anyways, and the ref would be more likely to stick with his initial assessment
Right.
Special Teams shouldn’t be held accountable as part of the team?
Bogus penalties are bogus, yes, but you can’t bank on the refs not doing their job.
And I guess a turnover or a turnover return shouldn’t be allowed then either because the other team needs a chance to redeem itself.
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 22, 2010 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions
we applaud defenses for holding a team to 3 during regulation
but punish them for doing the same thing in OT? how is that fair?
So any team that loses by less than 3 in regulation
… should complain about it being “fair”?
Want to outlaw last-second GW FGs too?
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 24, 2010 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions
i don't really understand your argument here
are you just making an argument towards fairness? i think life isn’t fair. but we do what we can to make it as close to fair as possible. this is a step closer to doing so.
Okay, clarifying.
bg. We applaud defenses for holding a team to 3 during regulation but punish them for doing the same thing in OT?
By that logic, any team that is losing by 3 or less at the end of the game should get a possession to match, if you’re advocating the new system.
If you want to get around using the new overtime system, you can still kick a GW FG as time expires, which does the exact same damn thing as a FG in sudden death overtime would do.
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 25, 2010 7:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Code fail.
We applaud defenses for holding a team to 3 during regulation but punish them for doing the same thing in OT?
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 25, 2010 7:26 AM CDT up reply actions
ok i see
but my rebuttal would be you had 60 minutes and 10 or more possessions to decide that original final. they’ve had 30+ minutes on O(usually) to avoid being put in that position to get beat by a last second GW FG. The NFL looks at overtime as a seperate entity, almost a new game. therefore, to only get 1 possession in overtime, where in essence it’s probably there 15th possession overall that day, isn’t fair because it’s a whole new ballgame.
If it were just a continuation type deal, then they wouldn’t have a new coin flip, they would just continue possession from where the last team left off at 00:00. So by re flipping the coin, the NFL is saying this is a brand new game, to decide the outcome regulation couldn’t.
Reg. gave each team a fair amount of chance to win or lose it. i think they just want OT to do the same.
And those sixty minutes are more than enough time...
to prove that they don’t need no stinkin’ overtime OR a GW FG.
Now though you’re making a slightly different argument. If it was essentially the start of a new game, why not just play out the whole 15 minutes? What’s stopping them from that? That’s fair too, and ensures both sides possessions.
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 25, 2010 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions
I would agree there
although i see 3 reasons they’ll never do this:
1) broadcast scheduling problems. With this system you can argue that a game can end in 10 seconds, or 20 minutes. with a hard 15 min. quarter, your guaranteed 40-45 minutes that would run into the next game(if it was the 1st of the afternoon)That’s a hard sell to Fox and CBS who realize they’d never be able to show the whole OT, they’re contractually obligated to switch to the second game.
2) The players and there union would argue against it for the same reason. a guaranteed 15 extra minutes could mean more wear and tear and injuries and free bonus football with the same salaries. it would have to be collectively bargained at the next session and i have a feeling the union would never go for it.
3) Goodell is still trying to keep the aura of ‘sudden death’ alive; even tho it’s not truely sudden death anymore.
i could get behind 15 minute OTs, but i think it wouldn’t decide as many games as this system does. we’d be stuck with more ties.
I know it's a huge logistical problem...
But it’s not like 15 minute overtimes haven’t happened before.
1) I know this is hot air and will never happen. Something like this could open up daytime slots for other networks – such as Fox and NBC doing the 1s and CBS and ESPN or ABC doing the 4s. NBC gets its 8, and ESPN can turn around for MNF the next day. *Disclaimer. Will never happen.
2) Overtime is bonus football anyway regardless of how long.
3) Well, yeah.
Obviously, I don’t like the new system, cause it just doesn’t seem right. In regulation it’s ok for a game winning field goal but in overtime it isn’t? And why end it on an opening drive touchdown but not on an opening drive field goal?
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 25, 2010 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Ok so i'm curious about one thing
is your stance the old rule was fine and it shouldn’t have been touched, or is your stance there are better avenues of change if you want to go there?
I was fine with how it was and would have kept it.
But if it were to change, there are better ways than this IMO.
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 25, 2010 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
I can agree that there are other avenues they could've gone down
but in no way do i think they ever should’ve kept it the same. At least you’re not hard set on never changing it, i can respect that.
at this point, i’m gonna say we’re at the point where we both made our points, but neither one is moving off there stance. so, good luck with ‘da bears’ SJS, i’m rooting for y’all. hopefully we’ll see you in the playoffs, renew that old mid ’80’s rivalry!
Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.
I wouldn’t mind a little Bears/Giants in the NFC Championship Game myself, lol. Best of luck on your end too, long as we aren’t playing you. =P
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 25, 2010 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
i still have yet to hear a compelling argument
as to why the rules need to be changed at all. this is supposed to be professional football. kev’s stance of
you had all game to step up and make a play. In overtime you should feel it even more critical to do so.
pretty much sums it up. what’s going to suck the most about the seemingly inevitable changes is it will probably be changed just to bring in more revenue, instead of just a misguided attempt at “fixing” the current overstated emphasis on the coin toss.
+1
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
by Ashley Czuba on Mar 23, 2010 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
You ignore a simple but important point
luck has too much to do with it. That one team can win in OT without the other team even touching the ball is absurd.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Mar 23, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
no
60 percent is in no way “too much” to do with luck or acts of god or anything. maybe if you had stats like 85 percent of cointoss winners win the game, but 60? 10 percent difference from an even chance of victory? nothing absurd about it college fan. next.
by reefermadness3 on Mar 23, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
60 percent and rising
we can’t keep hiding our heads in the sand and not realizing that this is an offensive game now. Goodell is making sure it’s that way, and will stay that way. so how about we even the odds out a little? and to be honest, why are we mad that we may get MORE football in an already too short season? even if it means 5 extra minutes a season, i’d take that.
the only drawback is that they felt it necessary to tie this only to the playoffs. that’s silly, but this rule is a great step in the right direction.
i would have rather
they restore the kickoff line back to the 35 as the same stats showed a virtual tie between teams when they used to kickoff from there instead of the 30. but now it’s old news anyway.
by reefermadness3 on Mar 24, 2010 7:25 AM CDT up reply actions
i hear that but
its still too much power to give to the flip of a coin. there should’ve been another system designed to decide who gets the ball.
Wrong
No way a team loses a game without getting a possession. That is just stupid.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Mar 24, 2010 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions
football
rules have worked well for years,why change them. if all teams play by the same rules ,its fair.
I believe in Harvey Dent
RACHEL!!!
by MetalGearPeaceWalker on Mar 23, 2010 1:49 AM CDT up reply actions
I believe in Richard Dent
Hall of Fame Voters!!!
I'd like to thank the voters
Because without their blinders, this would not have been possible.
one team getting a possession while the other does not
is not fair
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Mar 23, 2010 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
obviously they haven't worked for years
if fans all across sporst talk scream about it everytime an OT game is one possession and done. and owners have been arguing this change for years as well. so my feeling is there was a growing call to change, and it was finally answered.
What's wrong with what we have now
Keep the rules the way they are.
If you’re Defense, make a stand.
If you’re Offense, time is of the essence.
you mean to say
if you’re Defense, be perfect. because holding a team to 3 points is unacceptable in OT, even tho it’s great in regulation.
It's not "Great."
The only thing it’s better than is giving up 6. You’re still giving up points.
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 24, 2010 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions
would you agree with me that if a defense gave up 3 points per the offenses every two possessions, that would come out to an avg. of what? 15? 18 points? If a D avg. 18 points allowed per game for a season, you’re telling me that wouldn’t be a great D?
Of course you’re giving up points. no D has ever allowed 0 points a game. The great ‘85 Bears allowed some points per game. You feel what i’m saying?
I agree as long as 18 is less than what we score.
You feel what I’m saying?
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 24, 2010 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions
Sorry, maybe my reply was too strong.
I understand that points will be scored and I understand that the less points you give up the better.
Problem is, the only thing that matters on the scoreboard IS the points. And whether you give up 3 or 6, they’re still points that your offense needs to make up if you’re going to win. Points are the LEAST desirable result, whether you allow the 3 or the 6 point variety.
by Steven Schweickert on Mar 24, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
none taken at all
i’m just saying that yes, obviously you don’t want to give up any points, but the next goal if that doesn’t happen is to hold them to 3. When a D does it in OT, they’re punished for it. This system will change that, IMO.
Winning the coin toss
Rewarded a 60% win. Not exactly the huge injustice this is being explained as. If it were pushing 75%-80% then I would say yes, give a look at it.
60% means you're 50% more likely to win the game than your opponent if you win the toss (60% versus 40%)
That is HUGE. Much more significant than homefield advantage. I don’t know how you guys can look at and say “oh, that’s not very significant”.
Sure, the Bears are currently built to be a team that gains an advantage of the current format. But how can anyone say that they enjoy football games that end with a team kicking a FG on 2nd down to ensure the victory? It’s awful to watch.
First to 4 points wins is the best proposal I’ve heard.
i just turned on nfl network
i think they passed some excrement similar to what has been outlined here. something like first to 4 points? they are blathering on about it now. just like the overprotection of qb’s, stuff like this to me just weakens a great game little by little.
And oddly enough ....
….. a field goal worth 3 points can’t win you the game , but a safety worth 2 points can ?!?!
by MidWayMonster54 on Mar 23, 2010 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I wonder if they even realized that?
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Mar 23, 2010 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Well if your changing the ....
….. rule one would assume you’ve at least looked at that situation . But evidently in the NFL 2 is now greater than 3 !!!
by MidWayMonster54 on Mar 23, 2010 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
its not about the points
its about each team having an oppty to score. And if your defense is that good to cause a safety on the first possession, then they absolutely deserve the win.
it’s not about the points fellas, just an attempt to take away that cheap run the ball into the middle of the hashes on 1st down and kick it on 2nd down FG that we are so used to.
That does make some sense
If the team on defense wins the game on a safety, that makes a lot more sense than the current system. At least the losing team got a possession.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Mar 24, 2010 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions
The new rule barely addresses the problem
until it is applied to all games and guarantees a possession to each team, the rule is a joke.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Mar 24, 2010 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions
there's one thing we can agree on
about the rule being a joke. a bad one at that.
by reefermadness3 on Mar 25, 2010 7:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Wisconsin state assembly passes resolution declaring 12/12/12 as ‘Aaron Rodgers Day’
- Training Day: Working with the quarterbacks, and not breathing
- Tom Martinez, Tom Brady’s mentor, dead at 66
- Brady Quinn apologizes for Tebow remarks, claims an ‘inaccurate portrayal’
- Stanford Routt’s road to Kansas City could be paved with professional redemption
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
