New OT rule is approved for postseason

[What a Tuel]

19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Yeah, Chiefs last D stand in regulation has nothing to do with OT. 

 

The Bills O walked off the field with a 3 point lead and 13 seconds.  Only 1 D had to play hard and smart for 13 seconds to avoid OT and preserve the win.

 

Your point that the Bills deserved another possession because they choked twice in a row on D is poorly made.

 

 

 

 

The game was tied at the end of regulation. You keep flip flopping and misrepresenting it by saying "the bills should have stopped them with 13 seconds" which no one disagrees with but full stop game is TIED at that point. Not lost.

 

Then you come to the coin flip and we say both teams should get opportunity on offense and you revert back to regulation "no because the bills should have stopped them in regulation".

 

One is not related to the other when discussing the OT rules.

Edited March 29, 2022 by What a Tuel

[Patrick Duffy]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Certainly that argument has been well made.

 

But in OT, the D absolutely just laid down---drove the field in under 5 minutes, getting 3 more 1st downs and Mahomes went 6/6 (to 5 different receivers) 63 yards.

Oh for sure, I won't argue that. I just meant regulation last 13. As we all know neither defense could stop both offenses that day. Although I do feel like Bills D could have and should have in 13 seconds with right play calls.

[Steptide]

There seems to be alot of talk about how the bills defense just stunk in the last 13 seconds and in ot, and I'll pretty much agree. However, there's no talk of how the kc defense also sucked, the big difference was that kc didn't have to play defense on the last 2 possessions. I mean kc gave up 2 tds to the bills in 2 mins on the bills last 2 possessions. I think that's the big argument. When your defenses are gonna suck, you at least have to give the offenses both a chance 

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

The game was tied at the end of regulation. You keep flip flopping and misrepresenting it by saying "the bills should have stopped them with 13 seconds" which no one disagrees with but full stop game is TIED at that point. Not lost.

 

Then you come to the coin flip and we say both teams should get opportunity on offense and you revert back to regulation "no because the bills should have stopped them in regulation".

 

One is not related to the other when discussing the OT rules.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying that the Bills "deserved" another possession in OT.  You tried to bolster (somehow) that by saying, hey, the Chiefs gave up the lead to the Bills with almost no time on the clock in regulation. 

 

The game is also played by Defense.  The Bills had 2 defensive opportunities to stop the Chiefs---back to back.  After the embarrassment of the 13 second collapse to send it to overtime, the "number 1 Defense in the League" regroups.  All they need to get is one 3 and out in OT and the Bills get their "OT possession" to possibly win it.  Those have been the rules for years. 

 

But instead, the Chefs got 3 more 1st downs and steamrolled the Bills.  Game over.  

13 minutes ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

Oh for sure, I won't argue that. I just meant regulation last 13. As we all know neither defense could stop both offenses that day. Although I do feel like Bills D could have and should have in 13 seconds with right play calls.

 

 

After some time to reflect on that.....they had ample opportunity in OT to "execute" the right call.  It wasn't even close.

6 minutes ago, Steptide said:

There seems to be alot of talk about how the bills defense just stunk in the last 13 seconds and in ot, and I'll pretty much agree. However, there's no talk of how the kc defense also sucked, the big difference was that kc didn't have to play defense on the last 2 possessions. I mean kc gave up 2 tds to the bills in 2 mins on the bills last 2 possessions. I think that's the big argument. When your defenses are gonna suck, you at least have to give the offenses both a chance 

 

 

Well, that's because they won the game.  

 

Suck?--the Bills D was the best in the NFL.  They were given 2 chances to demonstrate this in a do or die playoff game on a team that is supposed to be a legit SB contender against a team they could not get past one year prior.

 

Come on--this isn't college boy football.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Mr. WEO

[Patrick Duffy]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

After some time to reflect on that.....they had ample opportunity in OT to "execute" the right call.  It wasn't even close.

Yes I agree, but defending with 13 left in game is different than start of OT. 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

Yes I agree, but defending with 13 left in game is different than start of OT. 

 

should be much easier, yes.

[What a Tuel]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

You keep saying that the Bills "deserved" another possession in OT.  You tried to bolster (somehow) that by saying, hey, the Chiefs gave up the lead to the Bills with almost no time on the clock in regulation. 

 

The game is also played by Defense.  The Bills had 2 defensive opportunities to stop the Chiefs---back to back.  After the embarrassment of the 13 second collapse to send it to overtime, the "number 1 Defense in the League" heads to the locker room to regroup.  All they need to get is one 3 and out in OT and the Bills get their "OT possession" to possibly win it.  Those have been the rules for years. 

 

But instead, the Chefs got 3 more 1st downs and steamrolled the Bills.  Game over.  

 

The Bills didn't "deserve another possession in OT" because they are the bills. Zero people are arguing that.

 

In the context of any OT game not just the Bills, both teams deserve to have the opportunity to field the entirety of their team in OT. 

 

But even if you want to argue the point, when the game is tied 36-36, why did the chiefs defense not have to prove itself? The sole reason is a coin flip which is an awful way to decide that and i am glad they changed it although they should have changed it all the way to time expires, or first team to not score.

 

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

The Bills didn't "deserve another possession in OT" because they are the bills. Zero people are arguing that.

 

In the context of any OT game not just the Bills, both teams deserve to have the opportunity to field the entirety of their team in OT. 

 

But even if you want to argue the point, when the game is tied 36-36, why did the chiefs defense not have to prove itself? The sole reason is a coin flip which is an awful way to decide that and i am glad they changed it although they should have changed it all the way to time expires, or first team to not score.

 

 

 

 

 

This was not a new OT rule.  It was how everyone understood the game is played.

 

The Chiefs D did have to prove itself--it failed and the Bills had the game in hand with seconds left.  

 

If the Bills had tied the game in the last 13 seconds, won the coin toss and scored a TD in OT, absolutely no one here would be saying that Chiefs "deserved another possession" or "the Bills D should have to  prove itself in OT"..

 

That's all just as silly as it sounds.

 

 

[What a Tuel]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

This was not a new OT rule.  It was how everyone understood the game is played.

 

The Chiefs D did have to prove itself--it failed and the Bills had the game in hand with seconds left.  

 

If the Bills had tied the game in the last 13 seconds, won the coin toss and scored a TD in OT, absolutely no one here would be saying that Chiefs "deserved another possession" or "the Bills D should have to  prove itself in OT"..

 

That's all just as silly as it sounds.

 

 

 

No doubt the forum would be happy just like the chiefs forum was. However I disagree that people wouldn't or don't think the OT rules are dumb regardless of the outcome. I don't have to put my bills goggles on to think they are dumb. There are dozens on here that complain about it every time a primetime or notable OT game happens and results in this situation or a tie. I know I think about it every time it happens.

 

It is and always has been ridiculous that they do not give both teams the opportunity to field their entire team. It is also ridiculous there are ties in a 17 game season. Didn't an OT tie against the Lions for the steelers put them in the playoffs over an indy team with the same amount of wins?

 

There has been a history of proposed changes to this. They just keep kicking the can down the road though. First it was field goal ended it. Then it was TD ended it, FG gave the team another chance. Now it is sudden death occurs if both teams score on their opening drives. 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

16 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

No doubt the forum would be happy just like the chiefs forum was. However I disagree that people wouldn't or don't think the OT rules are dumb regardless of the outcome. I don't have to put my bills goggles on to think they are dumb. There are dozens on here that complain about it every time a primetime or notable OT game happens and results in this situation or a tie. I know I think about it every time it happens.

 

It is and always has been ridiculous that they do not give both teams the opportunity to field their entire team. It is also ridiculous there are ties in a 17 game season. Didn't an OT tie against the Lions for the steelers put them in the playoffs over an indy team with the same amount of wins?

 

There has been a history of proposed changes to this. They just keep kicking the can down the road though. First it was field goal ended it. Then it was TD ended it, FG gave the team another chance. Now it is sudden death occurs if both teams score on their opening drives. 

 

 

we can all quibble about rules but the rule didn’t change right before that game and the rule didn’t force the game  into OT nor did the rule ensure the OT outcome.  The Bills were in control of their fate on every down. Simple as that 

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yea…. I’m sure the Bills would’ve lost regardless. The 13 seconds of *****ery took the wind out of the entire teams sails. 

 

Who knows?   But you can't make a serious argument by beginning with "OK so forget about the Defenses....", which that guy is trying to do (in a playoff game, no less).

 

It's nuts.

[BillMafia716ix]

Not a big fan of this. What’s next? If both teams score and we go to sudden death and the opposing team scores again, fans will  complain about not having another opportunity to match lol. 
 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BillMafia716ix

[Chandler#81]

Wow, Mr. WEO, What a tuel! 😉

So, the team who wins the OT coin toss, defers. Right? Nearly every game starting team who wins the coin toss defers as it provides the chance to double dip at/after halftime. Now in OT, deferring allows whether you need a TD to continue the game or a FG wins for you.

 

[Coach Tuesday]

[Warcodered]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Who knows?   But you can't make a serious argument by beginning with "OK so forget about the Defenses....", which that guy is trying to do (in a playoff game, no less).

 

It's nuts.

The way people arguing the rule didn't need to change because defense is important as if this rule somehow makes defense less relevant annoys the hell out of me.

The defense of the kicking team in OT with the new rule can absolutely still win the game, the only difference is now the other defense has to do something too.

[Chandler#81]

Doubt this will happen, but win the OT coin toss, take the ball and score a TD. Then Onsides Kickoff. Don’t recover it and give them possession near midfield? Fine. They score then you get the ball back and drive to a FG to win or recover the ball. Or recover the kick. Either way, game over, you win.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Chandler#81

[FireChans]

8 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

Doubt this will happen, but win the OT coin toss, take the ball and score a TD. Then Onsides Kickoff. Don’t recover it and give them possession near midfield? Fine. They score then you get the ball back and drive to a FG to win or recover the ball. Or recover the kick. Either way, game over, you win.

You would almost certainly never onside kick in that scenario. Higher chance for a tipped pick, fumble or just a turnover on downs driving 80 yards.

 

And if you don’t, you still need to score twice to win. 

[Coach Tuesday]

#1 defense in the NFL with a lead and 13 seconds on the clock - should not need a rule change to close that out.

 

Sorry to be that guy (but you all expect it from me anyhow so...)

[Mr. WEO]

43 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

The way people arguing the rule didn't need to change because defense is important as if this rule somehow makes defense less relevant annoys the hell out of me.

The defense of the kicking team in OT with the new rule can absolutely still win the game, the only difference is now the other defense has to do something too.

 

 

This was true before the rule change.  

 

[Warcodered]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

This was true before the rule change.  

 

That would be the definition of the word "still".