Playoff overtime rules would help the Patriots

[TruthSeeker]

Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.

• If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.

I'm thinking that this rule may increase the odds of an onside kick - at least until other teams figure it out. If an opening onside kick is successful, you only need to score a field goal to win (since the other team "had an opportunity" to possess the ball) but the opponent would need a TD to win (since kicking off is not considered "an opportunity to possess the ball").

Interesting thought anyway.

 

[Wolfpack]

The rule, as written, says that games can't end if a team kicks a field goal on its first possession after the coin toss. But the game CAN end on a TD after the coin toss.

So, a team like the Patriots, which plays defense in a way that protects against the TD while ceding the FG, will benefit from the rule if this team also has an offense that scores TDs.

That's all I'm saying.

The rule itself, as Deus is pointing out, seems unbalanced. By its very nature it's kind of arbitrary.

And I see no evidence that the Patriots play defense in such a manner anymore than any other team in the league. If someone has some statistics to support what I am calling just an overused cliche, then please by all mean feel free to present them.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

have not honestly read the whole thread....but I buy into the OP logic concerning our young defense gives up alot of yards and 3rd down conversions.....meaning greater likelyhood of opponents FG in OT (but with the new rule the game is not over).

Furthermore (if this not already been posted) - as Gostkowski is on IR and has a stronger leg than Graham, that new rule also helps the Pats as we are not as in good a shape of kicking a long FG with our new kicker.

 

[upstater1]

And I see no evidence that the Patriots play defense in such a manner anymore than any other team in the league. If someone has some statistics to support what I am calling just an overused cliche, then please by all mean feel free to present them.

Countless threads in the past have focused both on the Patriots D showing that they give up a lot of yards (and always have through the years) relative to the rest of the league while at the same time being top 3 with the Steelers and Ravens in giving up fewest points. Other than last year, the Patriots red zone production in preventing TDs has been phenomenal. When the other team is in the red zone, the Patriots give up fewer TDs. They give up FGs of course.

So there have been countless threads on this with stats.

Beyond that, you don't even need stats. More aggressive defenses are going to get burned downfield for TDs. While the type of defense that Belichick plays is going to give up lots of yards (and thus the opposition has a good chance of getting into FG position) while preventing the long bomb.

Surely you agree that this is the type of defense that the Patriots play.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Other than last year, the Patriots red zone production in preventing TDs has been phenomenal.

Actually the red zone defense has been a problem since 2007. Only in the second 1/2 if this year has there been marked improvement in this area.

Beyond that, you don't even need stats. More aggressive defenses are going to get burned downfield for TDs. While the type of defense that Belichick plays is going to give up lots of yards (and thus the opposition has a good chance of getting into FG position) while preventing the long bomb.

Spot on. This defense wants offenses to dink and dunk.

 

[RayClay]

I imagine you have a point here, but it certainly doesn't seem to apply to the current discussion, since it never happens in "the regular portion" that a 3 point win isn't good enough but a 2 or 6 point win is, unless you're talking about gambling spreads, which we're not.

In a regular game, you can be down by three points, tie the game and win later.

It's not exactly like the regular game, but the two points I made responding to your 2 points are valid.

Why not directly quote yourself and say my response is wrong, instead of making up something else?

 

[patchick]

I'm thinking that this rule may increase the odds of an onside kick - at least until other teams figure it out. If an opening onside kick is successful, you only need to score a field goal to win (since the other team "had an opportunity" to possess the ball) but the opponent would need a TD to win (since kicking off is not considered "an opportunity to possess the ball").

Interesting thought anyway.

Agreed, in fact this strikes me as the most interesting thought in the whole thread. Hmmm.

 

[RayClay]

By the way, any method of deciding a whole game based on some formula will be artificial. I do think this encourages TDs instead of cheap field goals off a runback or a couple pass plays, so it's more valid.

Could take a long time, maybe that's why it's just playoffs.

 

[RayClay]

Agreed, in fact this strikes me as the most interesting thought in the whole thread. Hmmm.

Sounds like a loophole.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Sounds like a loophole.

Perhaps, but a necessary one. If a team scores a field goal, do you want to then deny them the opportunity to do a surprise onside kick? That is, if it was successful and kicking off wasn't an "opportunity to possess the ball", then the game would just continue.

Or how about this scenario which has happened to the Patriots just this year. A kickoff is made 50 yards downfield but no one catches (or even touches?) it for the receiving team and the kicking team recovers. The receiving team never "possessed" the ball. Should the kicking team then be punished by not winning the game (that they are already leading by 3) immediately? It's not their fault the receiving team didn't take advantage of the opportunity to field the ball and put their offense on the field.

 

[brdmaverick]

Anybody else thinks that it's odd it was implemented for the playoffs and not tested in the regular season?

I think the reason is due to the fact that the liklihood of ties would go up. That is not a possibility in the playoffs.

 

[Triumph]

Sorry, but fact is we have no idea what would have happened. Did you see Arizona-GB last year? AZ's defense was totally spent. They played the entire second half getting stomped on. They couldn't stop GB to save their lives.

I guess you stopped watching when GB won the coin toss. After all, that decided the game, huh?

What we do know is that NE held the Rams offense to 3 points for 3 quarters. In the last quarter, the Rams scored 14 points and their last score took 21 seconds to go 55 yards for a TD.

I havent seen 1 Pats fan that wanted to see the Rams get the ball again in that game. You must be the first.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I'm thinking that this rule may increase the odds of an onside kick - at least until other teams figure it out. If an opening onside kick is successful, you only need to score a field goal to win (since the other team "had an opportunity" to possess the ball) but the opponent would need a TD to win (since kicking off is not considered "an opportunity to possess the ball").

Interesting thought anyway.

It is a very interesting though. But the rule says: "If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball." If you recover an onside kick, has the non-kicking team ever "possesse[d]" the ball? I'm not sure. Would the recovering team really only need a field goal here? I don't think it's clear. I had thought of a variation -- what happens if the receiving team muffs the ball on the kick off and the kicking team recovers? What must that team now do to win? I would argue that it has not yet "possesse[d]" the ball. But that's weird. What if you kick it off, the receiver catches it and takes two steps then fumbles. I think that would be "possess[ion]" within the meaning of the rule. I think the rule should say that the team that does not kick off may not win with a field goal -- that is the intent of the rule, but by focusing on posession it makes it unclear.

One other thought about this rule -- I actually think it's worse than the original rule in terms of percentages. I think if you did a study, you'd find that the kicking team has a significant advantage. If I won the toss, I'd kick if that's allowed.

 

[Deus Irae]

In a regular game, you can be down by three points, tie the game and win later.

It's not exactly like the regular game, but the two points I made responding to your 2 points are valid.

Why not directly quote yourself and say my response is wrong, instead of making up something else?

I didn't make up anything. Your argument is completely inapplicable.

 

[Wolfpack]

Countless threads in the past have focused both on the Patriots D showing that they give up a lot of yards (and always have through the years) relative to the rest of the league while at the same time being top 3 with the Steelers and Ravens in giving up fewest points. Other than last year, the Patriots red zone production in preventing TDs has been phenomenal. When the other team is in the red zone, the Patriots give up fewer TDs. They give up FGs of course.

So there have been countless threads on this with stats.

Beyond that, you don't even need stats. More aggressive defenses are going to get burned downfield for TDs. While the type of defense that Belichick plays is going to give up lots of yards (and thus the opposition has a good chance of getting into FG position) while preventing the long bomb.

Surely you agree that this is the type of defense that the Patriots play.

Call me crazy, but no I don't believe Belichick huddles the defense and says, "OK, men, now go out there and give up a field goal!!"

 

[Wolfpack]

What we do know is that NE held the Rams offense to 3 points for 3 quarters. In the last quarter, the Rams scored 14 points and their last score took 21 seconds to go 55 yards for a TD.

I havent seen 1 Pats fan that wanted to see the Rams get the ball again in that game. You must be the first.

Now you're putting words in my mouth, which shows the bankruptcy of your argument. All I'm saying is you don't have the first clue what would have happened if they went to overtime. If there was ever a game where the defense couldn't stop a team it was last year's AZ-GB game. GB won the coin toss. How'd that work out for them?

 

[upstater1]

Call me crazy, but no I don't believe Belichick huddles the defense and says, "OK, men, now go out there and give up a field goal!!"

Are you always this intellectually dishonest?

Your post is beyond ridiculous. It's assinine.

 

[upstater1]

Now you're putting words in my mouth, which shows the bankruptcy of your argument. A

This is absolutely hilarious coming from you.

 

[Wolfpack]

Are you always this intellectually dishonest?

Your post is beyond ridiculous. It's assinine.

I asked people to give me an example of Belichick discussing a "bend, don't break" strategy and no one replied. I asked for statistical evidence supporting that notion and no one gave any.

Newsflash: I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Wolfpack]

This is absolutely hilarious coming from you.

Now, now. Don't get snippy just because I called someone out for putting words in my mouth.

What I said: "There is no way to know what would have happened if (Super Bowl 36) went to overtime."

What another individual claimed I said: "I havent seen 1 Pats fan that wanted to see the Rams get the ball again in that game. You must be the first."

What planet do you live on where I'm the one being intellectually dishonest in that exchange?