Each team should be guaranteed one possession in OT

[nukin]

No no, your all wrong.

The best OT scenario would be this:

1. All the players on each team line up on either end of the field. They are all given very large swords. The coaches ride out on horses, and lead the charge towards the other team.
2. After this, the field opens up and lava spouts all over the place.
3. Shortly thereafter, acidic rain falls from the sky.
4. Tigers are unleashed. Mutated Tigers. With laser beams attached to their heads.
5. As a home field advantage, automated machine guns that where mounted on the goal posts fire on all Jets players.
6. As a visiting team advantage, BB's horse has three legs.
7. The team with the last player, coach, or field personal alive wins the game.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

In the past BB's stated he'd like to see the OT rules changed so that each team gets a shot, playing out the allotted 15 minutes. Keep in mind he'd said this after we'd nailed a game or 2 in OT ourselves , but his reasoning was that scenario lends itself less to luck and FG's and more to playing football. I wish I could find the link but it's somewhat of an oldie, quoted around the time of the owner's meetings or something.

The downside of that is increased odds for injury and 2 exhausted teams, but at least it hinges on skill,playcalling and execution more than just a coin toss. It's tough for any D to step it up so much at the end of a game when all the other team needs is a FG. All a team needs is a decent/good kicker who has a shot of nailing one from 40 something yards or even more. We know, we've been on the good end of that scene a few times ourselves

But when you lose the toss your D needs to really be alert and sparked up in order to have a chance.That or you pray your opponent screws up.

 

[SoCalPatsfan90]

Where does that 60% come from? CHFF says it's 53.2.

"But the team that wins the toss does not have the advantage many think. According to official NFL statistics, the team that has won the OT toss has won just 53.2 percent the time (222 victories in 417 OT games from 1974 to 2007).

See, the thing about overtime is that, even though the team that won the toss gets to play offense, the team that lost the toss gets to play defense. So it helps if you actually make a stop or two."

lol, they made 2 stops; it was that 3rd and 15 that killed 'em

 

[VJCPatriot]

Mike Shannahan found a way to avoid the 'chance' of a coin or the 'unfairness' of not getting a chance. He went for 2 with the game on the line. Herm did the same last week with lesser results.

I think the Jets were reeling after Moss's TD and we should have stuffed down their throats. Perhaps I am saying this out of frustration...but that's how I feel.

Hehe in hindsigt a 2 pt conversion attempt would have been the way to go. But hindsight is 20/20.

I think there is an excitement factor to 'sudden death' overtime. But there's also a logical argument for giving both teams a chance. Why not handle it like the NBA does. Let the teams play until the FULL period of the overtime is over? Maybe you'd want to reduce how long the OT lasted in that case (10 minutes perhaps), but it makes sense to me and is perfectly fair. Who can score the most points in the remaining OT period should be the winner.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

it's like the running up the score arguement pats fans used alot last year

if you don't wanna take a chance at not winning the OT coin toss, don't let the game get to OT

I agree.

Other than the current system there are really two possibilities.

1) Play a full quarter. Problem with that over current system. Increases the likelihood that the game will end in a tie. The purpose of OT is to avoid that.

2) The guaranteed one possession rule. Like the above -- increases the likelihood the game will end in a tie. Plus huge flaws. Team who starts with the ball get stopped with 4 and 8 on the 30. Kick the FG? Risk the other team getting a TD? Go for it? Punt and pin in the 1 yard line?

Also the big difference between football and say baseball is injury risk as the game wears on.

If you want a screwed up method of resolving a tie -- check out soccer.

 

[tombonneau]

Hehe in hindsigt a 2 pt conversion attempt would have been the way to go. But hindsight is 20/20.

I think there is an excitement factor to 'sudden death' overtime. But there's also a logical argument for giving both teams a chance. Why not handle it like the NBA does. Let the teams play until the FULL period of the overtime is over? Maybe you'd want to reduce how long the OT lasted in that case (10 minutes perhaps), but it makes sense to me and is perfectly fair. Who can score the most points in the remaining OT period should be the winner.

Another posted commented about that BB a few years back when asked BB expressed an opinion that he wouldn't mind seeing OT change and go to a full extra period, and with your recommendation, I almost seem to recall that he advocated changing it to an 8 or 10 minute period? 10 minutes I think would work. Certainly there would be a lot more strategy when it comes to just kicking straight away, and any team that gives up a 9 min drive for a FG can't complain too much.

Which in fact pretty much would have been what would have happened to the Pats last night.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Stop crybaby whining !!!

If the defense cannot stop the other offense that team deserves to lose

Like it or not the Patriots deserved to lose because the defense could not stop a 38 year old QB who was gassed after playing in 5 quarters

The defense of an NFL team is not playing for free like Collegiate athletes and are getting paid very well to win games by stopping the opposition

End of freaking story.....

 

[SubSaferJohn]

OK, obviously this is totally knee jerk, but the OT rules have been a hot topic with the league and owners for a few years, and I don't think anyone is in love with the current format.

I don't think the college system is the way to go, too many NFL records would get screwed, but I think if they simply guaranteed each team one possession in OT, this would solve the problem.

I knew (as did everyone else) that they way the offenses were moving the ball for both teams against the respective gassed defenses, that the winner of the toss probably had an 80% chance of winning the game.

Just a shame that after such a hard fought game on both sides, that a large percentage of the game's outcome is predicated on pure chance.

/bitter rant

Knee Jerk?!?! You were 7 & 0 before Thursday and now you want to change the rule? You *****, how dare you call yourself a football fan? Go follow tennis where *****ing IS the rule

 

[southparkcpa]

i love the OT rule

it's like the running up the score arguement pats fans used alot last year

if you don't wanna take a chance at not winning the OT coin toss, don't let the game get to OT

simple as that


people who want each team to have a guaranteed possession in OT = soccer moms, and little league parents who want every child to get some playing time...because it's "fair"

+1, whiners wouldn't be whining had the PATS won the toss. The rule is pretty bad but you lost. Let's move on. Perhaps BB can figure a way to spy on the toss....