/dev/null Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: How about switching from a Coin Flip to... Rock, Paper, Scissors? Now THAT would be cool! Or thumb wrestling
4_kidd_4 Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: Hey, 7-on-7, just like the country high schools too small to field a full team. I like it. Could always go FG competition like a shootout. For real though, I think a timed extra period is the answer and if it’s still locked up after that then you go sudden death. There is no perfect answer, but the current format is definitely very flawed.
Mr. WEO Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: I have been saying this same argument over 20 years, has nothing to do with yesterdays game. I’m only citing that game as that’s the one in discussion. Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Montana, Elway, Kelly, Manning, Warner, Marino, etc almost always had an advantage having the ball first vs most defenses. It’s a rare defense when those guys aren’t on an offense that is Better than the opposing defense. Again, anytime a random event can determine an advantage it’s not a fair and balanced sysytem. Both teams getting the ball once, is 100% of the time fair. Coin flip, not always a fair outcome. Brady bs Chiefs D not a fair competition as Pats O > Chiefs D. So only way to balance is give both teams one possession, then always fair and results are based on contributions of the full teams, not one unit of it. The rule was changed 9 years ago. The Chiefs could have gotten a possession if their D had only allowed a FG. That was the change. Ok let's just get to it. Had the Chiefs won the coin flip and scored a TD to win the game, you would not be posting on this. You would not be arguing that NE got screwed by not having Brady get a chance to tie it up. Edited January 21, 2019 by Mr. WEO
Livinginthepast Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 I don't see what the big fuss is about slightly changing the overtime rule. Just guarantee 1 possession for each offense in OT UNLESS the Defense scores a TD then the game is over right there, no need for the scoring offense to have their possession. If both teams were guaranteed one possession and they both scored the same FG or TD, THEN it becomes sudden death with whoever scores the next pts winning it. If they applied these rules yesterday, the Chiefs would have got the ball after NE had scored their TD and probably scored themselves to tie it. They probably eventually lose the game anyway because their defense couldn't have stopped a tumble weed by the end of last night's game.
row_33 Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 I refuse to take the troll pedant's interest in watching sports, always hoping someone gets hurt or the refs mess up or the rules aren't perfectly fair or whatever it is you want to continue endlessly complaining about..... It's just a ***** game so relax and watch and stop complaining.
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 I got back and forth on this. I hate the game getting decided by a coin flip and the MVP of the league not touching the ball. However, it’s still a team game. If KC’s defense wasn’t total ?, they could have stopped NE and gotten good field position like the Rams did. Id say leave it the way it is. KC needs to get a better defense. They wasted a SB year by their qb and offense.
Chris66 Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, TheTruthHurts said: What do you have against each offense getting their chance? 1% advantage or whatever it is shouldn't be OK. Football has never been like that. If they would have held them to a fieldgoal. They would have had a chance Whats up with everyone needing a turn. This is proffesional. I dont want it to be like amateur.
Beast Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) Nope. Because the team that has the ball second will always have the advantage. First, they will always go for it on 4th down whereas the first team probably wouldn’t. And, secondly, they could go for the win on their xtra point conversion. No matter what, some team will be at a disadvantage. The only fair option, IMO, is playing an extra quarter and cutting that quarter in half so at 7:30 the clock stops and the team that kicked off to start OT now gets to receive a kickoff. Edited January 21, 2019 by Binghamton Beast
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 or, as has been said a thousand times already, you can leave it like it is and actually play defense. You know, defense? That thing that all the kids think isn't important?
GoBills808 Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 22 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said: Nope. Because the team that has the ball second will always have the advantage. First, they will always go for it on 4th down whereas the first team probably wouldn’t. And, secondly, they could go for the win on their xtra point conversion. No matter what, some team will be at a disadvantage. The only fair option, IMO, is playing an extra quarter and cutting that quarter in half so at 7:30 the clock stops and the team that kicked off to start OT now gets to receive a kickoff. ^best OT idea yet
Alphadawg7 Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: The rule was changed 9 years ago. The Chiefs could have gotten a possession if their D had only allowed a FG. That was the change. Ok let's just get to it. Had the Chiefs won the coin flip and scored a TD to win the game, you would not be posting on this. You would not be arguing that NE got screwed by not having Brady get a chance to tie it up. Not true at all. I’m not someone whose life is miserable because of the Pats. I appreciate greatness, so has no Bills fan biased in my opinion. I’ve made this argument for OT on this board for as long as I have been on it regarding OT discussions. I hated the old OT rules, and while what we have is better than before, it’s still not balanced and needs to be adjusted. For over 20 years I have said both teams need to have the ball once, and even was critical of this when they made the rule change. Sorry to disappoint, but I would have felt the same and always felt this way if it was reversed and Chiefs got ball first and won on TD. The only difference is you would be calling me a Pats fan for making this argument in that case. 2
KD in CA Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said: I got back and forth on this. I hate the game getting decided by a coin flip and the MVP of the league not touching the ball. However, it’s still a team game. If KC’s defense wasn’t total ?, they could have stopped NE and gotten good field position like the Rams did. Id say leave it the way it is. KC needs to get a better defense. They wasted a SB year by their qb and offense. It also might have helped if the MVP and the rest of the offense had shown up in the first half. Seems like teams make a habit out of playing a solid 2 or 3 quarters against NE. That rarely is sufficient. Edited January 21, 2019 by KD in CA 1
LabattBlue Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 6 hours ago, Rico said: No, don’t need to change any OT rules. PS. ***** the Chiefs, ***** Andy Reid, ***** Mahomes, ***** Sammy, and most especially ***** each and every one of those a-holes doing the tomahawk chop. Agree. lol
Just Joshin' Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 Leave the regular season alone or eliminate the regular season OT entirely. For the playoffs play a complete 10 minute quarter until you have a winner. If you hold the ball the whole 10 minutes, so be it.
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Just Joshin' said: Leave the regular season alone or eliminate the regular season OT entirely. For the playoffs play a complete 10 minute quarter until you have a winner. If you hold the ball the whole 10 minutes, so be it. The Pats gladly would have taken ten minutes to score the TD the first series
Turk71 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 Ridiculous that a Championship is decided by a coin toss. The 'play better defense' argument is just straight up stupid. The Patriots didn't play better defense, the game was tied in regulation. Did the Patriots play better defense in overtime? They didn't have to play any defense, they just had to win a coin toss and play offense. If the Chiefs had won the toss and scored it would obviously be just as unfair. People pretending these overtime rules are fair are just willfully ignorant or straight up stupid imo. 1
row_33 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, Turk71 said: Ridiculous that a Championship is decided by a coin toss. The 'play better defense' argument is just straight up stupid. The Patriots didn't play better defense, the game was tied in regulation. Did the Patriots play better defense in overtime? They didn't have to play any defense, they just had to win a coin toss and play offense. If the Chiefs had won the toss and scored it would obviously be just as unfair. People pretending these overtime rules are fair are just willfully ignorant or straight up stupid imo. Yeah right your dudgeon would be the same if the Chiefs won........?
Turk71 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, row_33 said: Yeah right your dudgeon would be the same if the Chiefs won........? Regardless of who won, the overtime rules are dumb and I have felt that way all along. That said, I definitely would have preferred a Chiefs victory but that wouldn't change my opinion of the OT rules. Good use of the word dudgeon. Edited January 22, 2019 by Turk71
Prickly Pete Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 The OT rule is pretty much perfect. When they changed it from whoever scores first to the present rule, that was a great move. It's as good as it can get, don't ***** with it just because the Pats won again.
BuffaloButt Posted January 22, 2019 Author Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Turk71 said: Ridiculous that a Championship is decided by a coin toss. The 'play better defense' argument is just straight up stupid. The Patriots didn't play better defense, the game was tied in regulation. Did the Patriots play better defense in overtime? They didn't have to play any defense, they just had to win a coin toss and play offense. If the Chiefs had won the toss and scored it would obviously be just as unfair. People pretending these overtime rules are fair are just willfully ignorant or straight up stupid imo. Perfect summary to my point!
Recommended Posts