Pneumonic

Perhaps if you have enough passive types. If so, then I would also change the extra point rule to allow for 1 point kicks and 3 point conversions. I think you would get much many more coaches eschewing kicking for a single point and going for 3.

The teams coached by passive coaches can still play for ties if they wish. The more aggressive types can strategize around knowing that they won't have any tie possibility to worry about.

It's exactly because few people like ties that a no OT approach will work. Teams will try for wins instead of ties. Tonight Pitt would likely have not gone for the game tying FG, tried for a TD instead, and either won it or lost it outright. You'd get teams trying 2 pointers all the time. Much more exciting.

I would just eliminate OT altogether and allow ties. This way if teams don't wish a tie they'll either go for TD's instead of FG's late or they'll try for 2 points instead of 1.

Of course they will. The traded for him and want him on their team. Otherwise, why bother making the trade in the first place.

If they don't the league will determine that they have acted in poor faith (else why make the trade in the first place) and award the Pats compensation. I suppose it's still possible that Seymour could fail the physical once he arrives to take it. But he aint failing it for not showing up as you suggest.

Negative. Once the Raiders exercise the 5 day letter then Seymour will have to show up for his physical else he's placed on the did not report list which will end his season before it starts. Not only will Seymour forgo his salary for the season if this shoudl happen but he'll also not get credited for an accrued season meaning the Raiders will still hold his rights next season.

The Pats expect consideration for the trading of Seymour and if they don't get that consideration then the they most certainly would expect to have him back in their service else feel disadvantaged.

It's not up to the league to determine players market values and worth. The league needs to tread very carefully should they get involved in this after the Pats play their first game of the season. Surely the Pats would not be pleased if they were to have the trade rescinded meaning that they were disadvantaged in a game by not having a player as valuable as Seymour at their disposal.

If you are speaking of TO then the situation is different. TOs grievance, and ultimate out, was that he had a clause in his contract that made him a FA. Seymour doesn't have such a clause.

The Pats can't say anything in this situation because Seymour is now under contract to the Raiders. They'd be tampering if they did. So, it's up to the Raiders to deal with Seymour however they see fit. The CBA allows the Raiders to expedite the situation by giving them the ability to send Seymour a "5 day notice letter" which requires he show up or get placed on the "Did Not show" list meaning he's out for the season and not only doesn't get paid but which also doesn't allow Seymour to accrue his season meaning the Raider retain his rights the following season. In any event the longer this takes the worse off it's gonna be for the Raiders. The chances of the league getting involved and rescinding the deal after the first game of the season are slim I would imagine.

I suspect the writer, as is far too often the case, simply hasn't thought about the situation enough or with any amount of logic. The league would never rescind the trade and open up a Pandora's box allowing any future contracted player that was traded to dictate where he's traded too simply be refusing to show up to the teams he's not interested in playing for. Further, you can bet your last penny that the Pats wouldn't stand for this especially if the NFL rescinded the trade AFTER the Pats played their first game without the services of their supposed traded player.

Seymour has no way to void the deal. He's under contract to the Raiders pending successfully passing their physical. I suppose the Raiders could void the deal if they wish by failing Seymour come physical time.

That would a least equalize the pick the league stole from the Pats for "spying" like all other teams do.

Twisted logic. So you are suggesting that anytime a traded player wishes not to be traded he simply fails to show up for the physical? OK, if you say so.

Negative. Not showing up isn't grounds for termination of a trade. If it were then every single player in the NFL would have a built-in no trade clause available to them. Upon learning of a trade the player could simply refuse to show up to the new team and be sent back to the old team. That's not a precedent the league will want. Nor is it something the owners would stand for. And the CBA doesn't allow for it. So unless Seymour fails the Raiders team physical he is 100% Oakland's problem to deal with.

If you study NFL history any at all you'll find that almost all of the GREAT HC's had top QB's and, in most cases, never were winning much until such time as they installed top QB into the lineup. Check out Walsh' record minus Montana as starter. Or Landry without Staubach. Or Noll without Bradshaw. So, while it's true that Belicheck is the benefactor of having a great QB, so too are most of the other great HC's of all time.

The Pats have one of the most active and nimble OL in the game. They are forever pulling their interior 3 - Neal, Mankins and Koppen - which is probably why they are perhaps the best screen and misdirection team in the league.

Pencil neck Clayton knows didley squat. Brady's fine. CLICK HERE

No but weeding out those who are only there for the money and not for the love of the game will make you a better team. Sparano sums this up nicely in the quote included: "If your heart isn't in what you're doing, it does not take long with the heat, with the contact, with the intensity of what we're doing out here, and the way we're doing it, to figure out that maybe this isn't for you."

This is incorrect! Burgess played the hybrid OLB/DE spot, and in the Pats defense, while in Oakland, under Raiders DC Rob Ryan who, before joining the Raiders, spent 4 years coaching LB's for Belichick's Patriots.

Terry Fox. One leg and all.

Not really sure how they picked the '99 Rams over the '07 Pats 1999 Rams: 1. 526 points scored. 2. 6,412 total yards. 3. 55 touchdowns scored. 4. Passing - 4,353 yards; 42 TDs; 15 INTs. 5. Rushing - 2,059 yards; 13 TDs. 2007 Patriots: 1. 589 points scored. 2. 6,580 total yards. 3. 67 touchdowns scored. 4. Passing - 4,731 yards; 50 TDs; 9 INTs. 5. Rushing - 1,849 yards; 17 TDs. And if the Pats had played in a dome like the Rams did the statistical advantage would be significantly more in favor of the Pats.

Somehow I don't think $ is a big issue in the Brady household

For those who believe (hope) Brady is thinking retirement and at life after playing football, think again. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...rady/index.html And this is Brady opining whilst bangin' a Vic Secrets hottie and still in honeymoon mode. Wait until the two have been married for a year or two ...... Brady won't be able to leave for work fast enough.