Mr. WEO Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Sorry, thought my sarcasm was more noticeable. I was mocking the notion that the coin toss is what lost the game for GB. I agree with you, GB lost the game because their defense gave up a TD drive, not because of the coin toss. Actually, they gave up 3 TD drives, nearly in a row. GB choked--it is there own fault. They blew this game. They made bad choices early. They were outcoached. They don't belong in the SB.
Talley56 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I think it's fine as is. I can understand to some extent saying that if a team gives up a FG they should have a shot on offense but giving up a TD then getting a chance? Sorry, that's on the defense for losing it. And, while I know this wouldn't apply for every OT situation, GB had a number of chances to put Seattle away in regulation yesterday and didn't. No one to blame but themselves for that one.
NoSaint Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 The problem is the 2nd team (in this case greenbay) would have a huge advantage. Seattle drove down legit and using a 3 downs and punt philosophy to do so If greenbay (down by 7) got a kickoff on their own 20 they would attempt to drive 80yards but using 4 down philosophy... thats a huge advantage. If greenbay converted 3 4th down attempts to score a TD to tie - thats fair to seattle??? no way.... If perfect fairness in all situations is the goal, fans will often be upset. Football has a ton more to govern situationally than a sport like baseball. The comparisons between the two overtimes is silly.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 19, 2015 Author Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) How did the TD screw GB? They gave up the TD so I don't see how it screws them when all they had to do was prevent a TD to guarantee a possession in OT Play a little defense and give yourself a chance to win What? How does winning the coin toss guarantee Seattle scores a touchdown? If playing defense is so equal playing offense, why don't teams choose to play defense first? Obviously teams want to go on offense first because you're more likely to score, hence it's not fair to only get to play defense. How would you feel if MLB made a rule in extra innings that if you hit a home run in the top of the inning, the game ends? After all the other team could have pitched better, right? Edited January 19, 2015 by PromoTheRobot
NoSaint Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 If playing defense is so equal playing offense, why don't trans choose to play defense first? Obviously teams want to go on offense first because you're more likely to score, hence it's not fair to only get to play defense. How would you feel if MLB made a rule in extra innings that if you hit a home run in the top of the inning, the game ends? After all the other team could have pitched better, right? Comparing to baseball is ridiculous. That's how I would feel about discussing mlb rules in football
BuffOrange Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 It wouldn't be fair to let GB know they need a TD and thus have 4 downs after Seattle scored a TD with 3 downs. It's not fair that holding & illegal contact are arbitrarily enforced. It's not fair that fumble recoveries are 100% random and yet don't always even out during a game/season. College is lame and manufactured. In keeping with the baseball analogy it's giving each team a baserunner to start the inning.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 19, 2015 Author Posted January 19, 2015 Comparing to baseball is ridiculous. That's how I would feel about discussing mlb rules in footballNot really. Like I said before, no team in their right mind would defer the coin toss in OT, which means there must be a distinct advantage to the offense. It's just like not giving a baseball team their up in the bottom of the inning. It wouldn't be fair to let GB know they need a TD and thus have 4 downs after Seattle scored a TD with 3 downs. It's not fair that holding & illegal contact are arbitrarily enforced. It's not fair that fumble recoveries are 100% random and yet don't always even out during a game/season. College is lame and manufactured. In keeping with the baseball analogy it's giving each team a baserunner to start the inning. You are taking simple fairness to an illogical extreme.
BuffOrange Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 You are taking simple fairness to an illogical extreme. Only if your definition of 'illogical' is "things/facts not talked about by espn blowhards".
NoSaint Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Not really. Like I said before, no team in their right mind would defer the coin toss in OT, which means there must be a distinct advantage to the offense. It's just like not giving a baseball team their up in the bottom of the inning. You are taking simple fairness to an illogical extreme. But I'm saying there's no 100% fair answer here. Heck, it might already be pretty darn close though if weighing the first shot vs knowing what you need and no coach is willing to risk the wrath of the fan base even if it were the right choice to defer. I'd guess it's an advantage to receive but I don't think its huge and I think there's no perfect system available where an extra inning in baseball is much easier to regulate. The two sports are completely different in how they operate.
BackInDaDay Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 i'm fine with the OT rules, but i'd add a little wrinkle - "if the Buffalo Bills are participating, play will continue until they lead."
BillsFan130 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Bill belichick choose to kick off last year against peyton manning because he took the wind. It is a very slight advantage too get the ball first but it is pretty fair overall
PromoTheRobot Posted January 19, 2015 Author Posted January 19, 2015 But I'm saying there's no 100% fair answer here. Heck, it might already be pretty darn close though if weighing the first shot vs knowing what you need and no coach is willing to risk the wrath of the fan base even if it were the right choice to defer. I'd guess it's an advantage to receive but I don't think its huge and I think there's no perfect system available where an extra inning in baseball is much easier to regulate. The two sports are completely different in how they operate. We'll have to disagree. Going on offense first is a huge advantage, IMO. And not being able to be perfect is no reason not to try.
Dan Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 If playing defense is so equal playing offense, why don't teams choose to play defense first? Obviously teams want to go on offense first because you're more likely to score, hence it's not fair to only get to play defense. How would you feel if MLB made a rule in extra innings that if you hit a home run in the top of the inning, the game ends? After all the other team could have pitched better, right? In football, you can score on offense, defense, and special teams. In baseball, the defensive team can not score. The comparison is ridiculous. If Seattle kicks off, GB fumbles the runback and Seattle scores. Should they have to give GB another chance? Because, ya know, it wasn't fair that Rodgers didn't get his chance. When does it end? What if you play a full (or reduced time) OT period, but the coin toss winner goes on an epic 14 minute drive? Should we extend play, so the other team gets a fair chance?
NoSaint Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 We'll have to disagree. Going on offense first is a huge advantage, IMO. And not being able to be perfect is no reason not to try. I think the try portion requires something more than "but this isn't fair" and a "this is more fair because of this and despite that" Every option given here has big weaknesses that would have the same thread posted following the first time they came to light on the field. And baseball is still a ridiculous comparison.
Mr. WEO Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 We'll have to disagree. Going on offense first is a huge advantage, IMO. And not being able to be perfect is no reason not to try. Tell that to the Houston Oilers...
earthtobrint Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 The problem is the 2nd team (in this case greenbay) would have a huge advantage. Seattle drove down legit and using a 3 downs and punt philosophy to do so If greenbay (down by 7) got a kickoff on their own 20 they would attempt to drive 80yards but using 4 down philosophy... thats a huge advantage. If greenbay converted 3 4th down attempts to score a TD to tie - thats fair to seattle??? no way.... I was going to mention this exact thing after reading OP. The second team would be able to use all 4 downs. However, I still prefer that proposal over the current one. IMO If there are any scenarios at all that one team can lose without having an offensive possession, then that is a major problem and is putting way too much of the advantage into a coin flip. Most importantly, before any special overtime rules come into play, they should play an overtime as if it's another 4th quarter, even if it's an abbreviated quarter time (And this extra quarter is only for playoffs). After that quarter, then they can use some special overtime rules.
jahbonas Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I was going to mention this exact thing after reading OP. The second team would be able to use all 4 downs. However, I still prefer that proposal over the current one. IMO If there are any scenarios at all that one team can lose without having an offensive possession, then that is a major problem and is putting way too much of the advantage into a coin flip. Most importantly, before any special overtime rules come into play, they should play an overtime as if it's another 4th quarter, even if it's an abbreviated quarter time (And this extra quarter is only for playoffs). After that quarter, then they can use some special overtime rules. It could be offset by having the team that gets the ball start on their own 10yard line.... also maybe not allowing FG attempts unless you reach 20 yrd line etccc
Not at the table Karlos Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Why do people feel the rules need to be changed every week? Waa waa it's not fair. I have an idea let's not keep score and play for fun. Everybody wins nobody's feelings get hurt and we can pass out trophies to every team at the end and tell them what a great job they did... smfh
Prickly Pete Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 "Let's change the rules, because the team I wanted to win, lost."
Campy Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 No way. I was thinking they should take the OT rules and implement them during the regular season. Particularly so that there's never a tie. They didn't play defense. That's their problem. All they had to do was keep them out of the end zone and they'd have had their chance. Yep. Defense is still part of the game. Force a turnover, hold them to a punt.
Recommended Posts