Playoff overtime rules would help the Patriots

[Froob]

I already gave one significant downside to the new rules. Another is that it allows one team to play one way (Defense can allow for a field goal), while forcing the other team to play differently (offense can't really afford to settle for a field goal).

Also, If you take the OT out of this, and just imagine a tie game with only a couple of minutes left, would you tell the team with the ball that they needed a TD or the other team would get a chance, because they couldn't win on a field goal?

Of course not.

As for the old rules, I'm opposed to any overtime in regular season. It's inherently unfair and unnecessary. Overtime should be used only when a non-tie is absolutely essential, which means only in the playoffs. However, if you're going to have an overtime, sudden death is about as fair as it's possible to get.

There'd be so many ties that'd be really lame. Imagine after all that in the ravens-pats game and just to end in a tie. I don't think there should be any ties ever. I guess we should wait and see how these new rules play out. With the point made earlier....if baseball was sudden death overtime would you be opposed to that?

 

[Wolfpack]

It's not a predetermined preference for a team. It's predetermined preference for a style of play.

If there were a rule barring 5 yard chucks, it would favor teams with great passing offenses. It doesn't mean that the rule was predetermined to favor the Colts, but it would favor the Colts.

This rule and the way it's written obviously favors teams that not only have good offenses, but who have defenses that are good at giving up 3 points rather than 7.

Sound like any team you know?

Actually, no I don't. See my post on the overused "bend but don't break" cliche.

 

[Wolfpack]

You've honestly never heard a football coach use that strategy? Sports cliche? Come on, you can do better than that.

Well, we're talking about the Patriots so some stupid statement made by Wade Philips or Brad Childress doesn't really matter. Has Bill Belichick ever used that term in his tenure as a Patriot coach? Maybe he has, but I can't think of any examples.

 

[Wolfpack]

I think the new rule means we'll be seeing the 2pt conversion less ... and i like the 2pt'er.

Why would the new rule do that? With all but the most rare exceptions, NFL coaches play the 2 pointer to play for a tie. I.E., if a team is trailing by 7 and scores a TD, you will see a 1-point conversion the vast majority of the time. And yes I know Coughlin and Shanahan each played for the win on one occasion.

 

[A.C Vegas]

after reading all this i gotta ask some Deus you (i think if i am wrong i am sorry) said that no team would say "let them go 65 yards and kick a fg" yet you said that it give the team on defense first an advantage by letting them just go for the field goal why would a team do that anyway.

I like the new rule I know that only about half the OT ended on the first possetion but I'd rather see both teams have a chance I'd like the rule even better if it counted for TD. And yes in OT the teams are almost never fight to get into the end zone they don't take risks once the get inside the 30.

 

[upstater1]

Actually, no I don't. See my post on the overused "bend but don't break" cliche.

What are you watching when you watch football? Seriously. Do you even know what's going on out there? Some teams play zone and give up stuff underneath, other teams play more aggressive and blitz.

There are different styles of play.

Some teams run more, others pass more. Just look at the Colts and Saints, for heaven's sake.

Obviously, different rules will tend to favor different teams. And if you don't believe this, you're not watching football. Hell, the players know AND believe this. It's been proven.

 

[upstater1]

Well, we're talking about the Patriots so some stupid statement made by Wade Philips or Brad Childress doesn't really matter. Has Bill Belichick ever used that term in his tenure as a Patriot coach? Maybe he has, but I can't think of any examples.

If you're going to be dishonest enough to claim certain rules don't favor certain styles of play, we have absolutely nothing to discuss.

 

[Wolfpack]

If you're going to be dishonest enough to claim certain rules don't favor certain styles of play, we have absolutely nothing to discuss.

Then please allow me to clarify my comments: Some rules will benefit certain styles of play. I apologize for giving the impression otherwise. But some rules are completely arbitrary and there is no realistic way to predict which teams would benefit. There's no way to know which team will benefit from the tuck rule this January. There's no way to know which team will benefit from the rule you can't advance a fumble inside 2:00. And there's no way to know which teams, if any, may benefit from the OT rule change. That isn't something which benefits any particular style of play.

 

[Wolfpack]

What are you watching when you watch football? Seriously. Do you even know what's going on out there? Some teams play zone and give up stuff underneath, other teams play more aggressive and blitz.

There are different styles of play.

Some teams run more, others pass more. Just look at the Colts and Saints, for heaven's sake.

Obviously, different rules will tend to favor different teams. And if you don't believe this, you're not watching football. Hell, the players know AND believe this. It's been proven.

I watch a lot of football and not once have I seen a game that was decided by a coin toss and not once have I seen a game decided by a team advancing the ball to the 25 yard line. I think you should direct your ire at the individuals who think both those activities are commonplace.

 

[upstater1]

Then please allow me to clarify my comments: Some rules will benefit certain styles of play. I apologize for giving the impression otherwise. But some rules are completely arbitrary and there is no realistic way to predict which teams would benefit. There's no way to know which team will benefit from the tuck rule this January. There's no way to know which team will benefit from the rule you can't advance a fumble inside 2:00. And there's no way to know which teams, if any, may benefit from the OT rule change. That isn't something which benefits any particular style of play.

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.

 

[upstater1]

I watch a lot of football and not once have I seen a game that was decided by a coin toss and not once have I seen a game decided by a team advancing the ball to the 25 yard line. I think you should direct your ire at the individuals who think both those activities are commonplace.

Are you responding to the right person? It had nothing to do with my post.

 

[runswithscissors]

Yes, a big play can decide the outcome of a game. So can a Hail Mary. Or a helmet catch. Or an Immaculate Reception. Or the tuck rule.

Or a "face guarding" call.

 

[Nikolai]

Honestly the only way to completely avoid a stupid scenario is adding a set amount of time and letting whoever scores the most be the winner.

This is the best solution, even if it means a bit more wear and tear on the players. After one OT, you could have each team pick their strongest guy to take part in an arm-wrestling match.

 

[runswithscissors]

How is it fair that only one team has to play defense? In a shootout say 41-41 game, why is it fair to make one team play defense? This rule is nice because the game can still end on any play(again I still would prefer college rules but some people do like this part of it).
I think this will make for some exciting games. Would love to see a situation where its 4th down on the 2 yard line. I really don't understand the logic behide not putting it in regular season unless it's just a time saver which is lame. Regular season should be just as important and have the same rules. PLUS I freakin hate losing in madden after the coin toss .

4th and goal on the 2 on the first possession would be pretty cool. Great post.

 

[Deus Irae]

There'd be so many ties that'd be really lame. Imagine after all that in the ravens-pats game and just to end in a tie. I don't think there should be any ties ever. I guess we should wait and see how these new rules play out. With the point made earlier....if baseball was sudden death overtime would you be opposed to that?

The NFL didn't have overtime games in the regular season until 1974, yet the league managed to survive for decades prior. The Boston Patriots of the AFL did have ties, but the New England Patriots NFL team has never had a tie game. The NFL version of the Jets have only tied twice, which is the same number as the NFL Dolphins and the NFL Bills.

As for baseball, you're looking at a much different sport, one which doesn't involve high energy play and planned man-to-man violence, so the same rules don't apply. The closest game we have to it in the US is hockey, and I'm for sudden death in hockey, during the playoffs, not the regular season. In fact, hockey screwing around with the points system and overtime rules is one of the big reasons I don't follow hockey nearly as much as I used to.

 

[moosekill]

Since they moved the kick offs back 5 yards in the 90's, 60% of the teams that received the kick off have won the game. Since some of the games end in ties, that means that there is greater than a 20% chance you are more likely to win if you win the coin flip. Those are pretty big odds, and I'd say, should be changed.

 

[Nikolai]

In fact, hockey screwing around with the points system and overtime rules is one of the big reasons I don't follow hockey nearly as much as I used to.

Interesting. This does make me feel better about equating Goodell and Bettman, especially in regard to their impact on the fans' perception of the sport.

 

[RayClay]

Another is that it allows one team to play one way (Defense can allow for a field goal),

And that field goal could be the margin of victory, just like in the regular portion

while forcing the other team to play differently (offense can't really afford to settle for a field goal).

They can tie and get another field goal and win the game, just like in theregular portion.

 

[Wolfpack]

Since they moved the kick offs back 5 yards in the 90's, 60% of the teams that received the kick off have won the game. Since some of the games end in ties, that means that there is greater than a 20% chance you are more likely to win if you win the coin flip. Those are pretty big odds, and I'd say, should be changed.

And how many of those were first possession FG's? Because those are the only scenarios the new rule addresses.

 

[Deus Irae]

And that field goal could be the margin of victory, just like in the regular portion



They can tie and get another field goal and win the game, just like in theregular portion.

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.