I mean its a team sport right? The defense needs to stop the offense. I dont care if they are gassed or tired, its a team sport.
plus the defense had 13 seconds to stop the chiefs. sorry but its just dumb. Or maybe someone should cover Kelce and stop playing prevent defense.
before you know it, the game will be going on forever.
what are your thoughts?
100% agree with this for the playoffs, though not reg season
I hadn't seen this one, but it's intriguing.
If you have a team on the ropes, like KC did with Buffalo, maybe you do go for two on the opening drive and just end it. But if you fail, you leave yourself open to your opponent being able to go for the win on their possession knowing that the worst case scenario is remaining tied with the ball going back the other way, but you could also go for a FG to make it 6-3 and hope for a stop.
Interesting. I still think there's an inherent advantage to winning the coin toss (so there will remain a skew in the results due to the toss), but this adds some curious strategy options.
1. it shows that the two teams are pretty even, and
2. there have probably been lucky and unlucky bounces and good and bad calls that have influenced the game more than the play of the two teams.
Basing the winner on the toss of a coin is just one more uncontrollable event in the game. At least it is 50-50.
With today's offenses, it's a lot easier to say "just make a stop" than to do it. Most teams allocate more resources to their offense, most teams have offensive-minded HC's, ad in all of the rules that benefit passing offenses, it is no surprise that offenses rule the roost.
"Just cover Kelce" is a lot harder to do when Tyreke Hill is lined up opposite him, and Andy Reid is one of the most creative play callers in NFL history (sometimes to his own detriment!).
Adding one more possession doesn't mean that the games would go one forever, it means they would probably last one more possession. You know make games last forever? Going to the college OT system, which some have called for. The current OT system is better than the one before it, but I think it would be even better by allowing the team that loses a random coin flip to have one more chance.
With today's offenses, it's a lot easier to say "just make a stop" than to do it. Most teams allocate more resources to their offense, most teams have offensive-minded HC's, ad in all of the rules that benefit passing offenses, it is no surprise that offenses rule the roost.
"Just cover Kelce" is a lot harder to do when Tyreke Hill is lined up opposite him, and Andy Reid is one of the most creative play callers in NFL history (sometimes to his own detriment!).
Adding one more possession doesn't mean that the games would go one forever, it means they would probably last one more possession. You know make games last forever? Going to the college OT system, which some have called for. The current OT system is better than the one before it, but I think it would be even better by allowing the team that loses a random coin flip to have one more chance.
Ok, but if this is the solution, does it remove any of the advantage of winning the coin toss?
Agreed, the rules favor offense. Important to note that the current rules also feel more unfair in a shootout than they do in a game where the defenses are dominating.
So both teams get a possession. Let's say they both score a TD. Now the team that won the toss gets the ball in an unencumbered sudden-death scenario. FG wins. They don't even need a TD this time around.
The coin toss would still be a huge advantage in this case.
Example, if it goes
Team 1: TD
Team 2: TD
Team 1: FG
Team 2: TD wins, FG continues the cycle, no points, Team 1 wins.
One more quarter, One more 2 minute warning and all the excitement that goes with it. If they're still tied then you can go with the sudden death rules. But maybe alot of these ties could be settled with just one extra quarter of real football. The kind of football that put the whole country on the edge of thier seats Sunday night.
+1
With stuff like that, you really have to ask yourself if the real problem was that buffalo's defensive coaching just couldn't hold up. The better team won.
Quote:
both defense and offense had a chance to succeed. Now, of course, the rules are so bent toward offense that it seems wrong not to give the other team a chance. So, I am all for expanding the rules to. make sure each team gets the ball once.
+1
Then the solution needs to fit the scenario.
With the rules so bent toward offense, giving both teams a possession and then going to sudden death if that's still a tie means that the team who wins the toss will get the ball twice unless they get stopped on their first possession, the same exact coin toss dynamic would exist.
If the point is that the team who wins the toss has a massive advantage, they'd still have that same advantage. Let's say both teams trade TDs in their first possessions, now the team who won the toss is getting the ball needing only a FG. And if the team who won the toss only gets a FG (or is stopped or turned over) on their first possession, then we're looking at the exact same situation as the current rules.
How does a guaranteed possession actually remove the coin toss advantage other than an appeal to "fairness" via optics?
There is a completely different strategy employed regarding substitutions with each one. You're not rotating out your key players as much in a playoff game, especially during crunch time. That is definitely going to affect their stamina at the end of a game and play a significant role come overtime.
To me, it's about entertainment. Who doesn't want to watch another 10 min quarter in a game that has been a war?
Take a 10 min intermission, play a 10 min quarter where they have to go for 2 after a TD, and entertain the hell out of us. Is there really anyone that would not want to have watched 10 mins more of that game?
As per the rules KC won and deserved it. Yes, it was silly that the Bills couldn't get a stop with KC having so little time left but I just don't get why the NFL has IMO such absurd OT rules in the playoffs.
Ok, but if this is the solution, does it remove any of the advantage of winning the coin toss?
Agreed, the rules favor offense. Important to note that the current rules also feel more unfair in a shootout than they do in a game where the defenses are dominating.
So both teams get a possession. Let's say they both score a TD. Now the team that won the toss gets the ball in an unencumbered sudden-death scenario. FG wins. They don't even need a TD this time around.
The coin toss would still be a huge advantage in this case.
No it definitely doesn't eliminate the advantage of winning the coin toss, but it minimizes it a bit. Even if the NFL was smart enough to adopt my scenario, you can be sure that people would complain about it the first time the losing team didn't get a matching possession. I get it, it's far from a perfect solution because there isn't a perfect solution, just less imperfect ones.
To me, it's about entertainment. Who doesn't want to watch another 10 min quarter in a game that has been a war?
Take a 10 min intermission, play a 10 min quarter where they have to go for 2 after a TD, and entertain the hell out of us. Is there really anyone that would not want to have watched 10 mins more of that game?
There are people that would have wanted to play six overtimes who wouldn't ever get enough. It's entertainment, as you said.
But what's the old adage? Leave 'em wanting more?
We got an amazing weekend of wild games. People are going to complain no matter what because complaining about stuff on twitter has become america's #1 export.
There is prevent defense and there is nonsense like this that only resulted in Buffalo losing the game...
Quote:
To me, it's about entertainment. Who doesn't want to watch another 10 min quarter in a game that has been a war?
Take a 10 min intermission, play a 10 min quarter where they have to go for 2 after a TD, and entertain the hell out of us. Is there really anyone that would not want to have watched 10 mins more of that game?
There are people that would have wanted to play six overtimes who wouldn't ever get enough. It's entertainment, as you said.
But what's the old adage? Leave 'em wanting more?
We got an amazing weekend of wild games. People are going to complain no matter what because complaining about stuff on twitter has become america's #1 export.
That is a valid counterpoint. I think you just make it sudden death after the first OT period and that would eliminate the game going on forever. But I do agree with the "Leave them wanting more".
How mad would you be if a Giants coach chose to kick after winning the OT coin toss? The nice way to describe it would be "unthinkable." If that is the case then it must be because there is a distinct advantage given based on pure luck.
If you would choose to receive the ball (All of you), then I ask you why...?
Your specific answer does not matter because it boils down to the fact that you know that it gives you an advantage. And so does every coach in the history of the league.
There is no way to eliminate all random advantages (ie weather) but this is an easy one.
How mad would you be if a Giants coach chose to kick after winning the OT coin toss? The nice way to describe it would be "unthinkable." If that is the case then it must be because there is a distinct advantage given based on pure luck.
If you would choose to receive the ball (All of you), then I ask you why...?
Your specific answer does not matter because it boils down to the fact that you know that it gives you an advantage. And so does every coach in the history of the league.
There is no way to eliminate all random advantages (ie weather) but this is an easy one.
But you still don't eliminate the inherent advantage because the coin toss only works in regulation with two halves and a full game.
Give each team one guaranteed possession? Great, now the team that won the toss is guaranteed the first crack at the first sudden-death possession and just as big of an advantage due to the coin toss.
Go to a fixed-length full quarter? Great, now the team that won the toss has the opportunity to work the clock twice to ensure that they can be playing for the win or the tie at the end of the quarter.
The issue is that the coin toss itself is inherently a huge piece of luck, but in regulation, all it does is decide which half each team receives first, not which team is guaranteed more chances to win.
For the people saying the rules now favor offense so its unfair in OT - change the rules back so they dont favor offense. Saying "we changed these rules so now we have to change those rules" is ridiculous. When does it end?
They already changed the rule so a FG doesnt win it right away. Why bother having defense on the field if they no longer matter?
I hate the college rules or any of the other gimmicks.
Most points wins.
Bam!
As someone suggested, team 2 can always match the score (if any) that team 1 did:
crackerjack465 : 11:23 am : link : reply
both teams get a possession. If both teams score a TD, it goes again until one team doesn't score.
Example, if it goes
Team 1: TD
Team 2: TD
Team 1: FG
Team 2: TD wins, FG continues the cycle, no points, Team 1 wins.
This would lead to many teams kicking, rather than receiving. In fact, knowing what team 1 did, team 2 would have an advantage since they would have 4 downs to score rather than 3.
No, its a fact
Quote:
Zero, thats how many.
How mad would you be if a Giants coach chose to kick after winning the OT coin toss? The nice way to describe it would be "unthinkable." If that is the case then it must be because there is a distinct advantage given based on pure luck.
If you would choose to receive the ball (All of you), then I ask you why...?
Your specific answer does not matter because it boils down to the fact that you know that it gives you an advantage. And so does every coach in the history of the league.
There is no way to eliminate all random advantages (ie weather) but this is an easy one.
But you still don't eliminate the inherent advantage because the coin toss only works in regulation with two halves and a full game.
Give each team one guaranteed possession? Great, now the team that won the toss is guaranteed the first crack at the first sudden-death possession and just as big of an advantage due to the coin toss.
Go to a fixed-length full quarter? Great, now the team that won the toss has the opportunity to work the clock twice to ensure that they can be playing for the win or the tie at the end of the quarter.
The issue is that the coin toss itself is inherently a huge piece of luck, but in regulation, all it does is decide which half each team receives first, not which team is guaranteed more chances to win.
Im only half kidding about this - eliminate the coin toss for OT.
Have each coach submit a "silent bid" on where they are willing to start their drive if given the ball first. The coach that bids the closest to their own goal line gets the ball first. If the bids are a tie (only whole numbers accepted) then you do it again but cannot pick the same yard line again.
Then you play it out under the current rules.
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
By all means feel free to support this argument.
Then play football.
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
exactly!!!!!!!
you want a chance, tell your defense to stop them. period.
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
I cant believe that I have to explain this to a someone with a brain stem.
The point is that you could say the exact same thing about any team that has ever play overtime in any sport so it is completely irrelevant when making rules for overtime.
By definition both teams played equally well/poorly so why should one get an advantage?
Quote:
In comment 15574059 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
exactly!!!!!!!
you want a chance, tell your defense to stop them. period.
You dont have to write period. The dot at the end of the sentence is a period.
Also, fine tell the Buffalo defense to stop them but why does the KC defense get let off the hook?
People who want the rules changed wouldn't face quite so much resistence if they didn't insist on insulting the intelligence of the rest of us.
Quote:
In comment 15574059 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
I cant believe that I have to explain this to a someone with a brain stem.
The point is that you could say the exact same thing about any team that has ever play overtime in any sport so it is completely irrelevant when making rules for overtime.
By definition both teams played equally well/poorly so why should one get an advantage?
Conversely if both teams played equally poorly/well for 4 quarters, why should both teams get more time to keep playing equally poorly/well.
6 =/= half a dozen.
The motivation to NOT leave it up to a coin flip should be enough.
Conversely if both teams played equally poorly/well for 4 quarters, why should both teams get more time to keep playing equally poorly/well.
6 =/= half a dozen.
The motivation to NOT leave it up to a coin flip should be enough.
Because its the playoffs and you need a winner.
My point is that you cant justify giving Team X a distinct advantage just because Team Y made mistakes. Team X made mistakes too.
Quote:
In comment 15574089 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574059 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
exactly!!!!!!!
you want a chance, tell your defense to stop them. period.
You dont have to write period. The dot at the end of the sentence is a period.
Also, fine tell the Buffalo defense to stop them but why does the KC defense get let off the hook?
They are off the hook because the Bills defense didnt do their job.
Again, if the change was made to a TD and 2 pt to end the game and the Chiefs did it first, Bills wouldnt have a chance. Then what? i mean when will it end.
Quote:
In comment 15573940 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
Zero, thats how many.
How mad would you be if a Giants coach chose to kick after winning the OT coin toss? The nice way to describe it would be "unthinkable." If that is the case then it must be because there is a distinct advantage given based on pure luck.
If you would choose to receive the ball (All of you), then I ask you why...?
Your specific answer does not matter because it boils down to the fact that you know that it gives you an advantage. And so does every coach in the history of the league.
There is no way to eliminate all random advantages (ie weather) but this is an easy one.
But you still don't eliminate the inherent advantage because the coin toss only works in regulation with two halves and a full game.
Give each team one guaranteed possession? Great, now the team that won the toss is guaranteed the first crack at the first sudden-death possession and just as big of an advantage due to the coin toss.
Go to a fixed-length full quarter? Great, now the team that won the toss has the opportunity to work the clock twice to ensure that they can be playing for the win or the tie at the end of the quarter.
The issue is that the coin toss itself is inherently a huge piece of luck, but in regulation, all it does is decide which half each team receives first, not which team is guaranteed more chances to win.
Im only half kidding about this - eliminate the coin toss for OT.
Have each coach submit a "silent bid" on where they are willing to start their drive if given the ball first. The coach that bids the closest to their own goal line gets the ball first. If the bids are a tie (only whole numbers accepted) then you do it again but cannot pick the same yard line again.
Then you play it out under the current rules.
This is the best option I have seen - well played Captain and thanks for stretching our thinking here! GD is right that the desire to simply give both teams a possession does nothing to change the inherent advantage of winning the coin toss.
Getting rid of the coin toss and getting back to pure sudden death in overtime makes the most sense. And in this approach that you have described, teams would have very different bidding strategies depending on their relative strengths. You could imagine the Chiefs bidding much lower than the Bills and starting at their own five yard line perhaps. Then it becomes more of a "fair fight" given the strong Buffalo defense.
You could even argue that this might also be a better approach for both the start of the game and the start of the second half if they want to reduce the number of kick offs which they have been trying to do. So perhaps the coin toss is eliminated from the game altogether.
Good stuff.
All these changes we cry about and then in 5 years the same wads will be bitching that the games are too long or too legislated or too many penalties.
The bills made their bed.
If the defense can’t do their job, they don’t deserve to win.