Well the Chiefs can win everything

SBLIII said:

Owner meetings also mean Josh Gordon news coming soon.

Click to expand...

Why and what news from the owners meeting regarding Josh Gordon?

They should have went for the win instead of the tie. Never would have had to ***** about it.

If someone with gif skills could edit this to Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes, it would be fantastic

KontradictioN said:

Defense’s job to stop those plays just like it was the defense’s job to stop those plays in the prior 60 minutes (clock time) of football.

Click to expand...

Those OT rules sure don’t bode well for “bend, don’t break” then.

Sicilian said:

If someone with gif skills could edit this to Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes, it would be fantastic

Click to expand...

15yd penalty, though.

Regards,
Chris

Brewskies said:

Why and what news from the owners meeting regarding Josh Gordon?

Click to expand...

If and if yes what length of suspension is going to be determined at the owner meeting, every indefinite suspension will be discussed in the league.

SBLIII said:

If and if yes what length of suspension is going to be determined at the owner meeting, every indefinite suspension will be discussed in the league.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the league made that decision, not the owners who would be biased.

Why would the owners want the Pats to have Gordon this season, bad for their teams?

Brewskies said:

I was under the impression that the league made that decision, not the owners who would be biased.

Why would the owners want the Pats to have Gordon this season, bad for their teams?

Click to expand...

I guess you are right. I read they would be discussion it at some meeting end of May so I assumed it would be this.

SBLIII said:

I guess you are right. I read they would be discussion it at some meeting end of May so I assumed it would be this.

Click to expand...

I don't know for sure, just my thoughts.

On the other hand the owners should and will discuss the Kraft situation. I hope they fine Kraft, I am tired of Money Talks, Wealthy Walk.

“Let's wait for one more year/ If the Pats wins on the first possession in OT AGAIN, we are definitely changing it"

Sicilian said:

I like the current system better personally, but I would absolutely go back to sudden death 100 times out of a 100 rather than keeping inching the games longer and longer. Where does it stop? "No fair! The Pats scored a touchdown, then we scored a touchdown, then they won with a field goal! Shouldn't we get a chance to match?!?!"

Click to expand...

Exactly. It wouldn’t stop, until it reached the “fairness” of college OT, which isn’t even real football.

Froob said:

Meh, only one team has to play defense though. The touchdown to win is a fair compromise and has created more exciting games.

Click to expand...

Not really. For every "exciting game" where teams with no defense just trade touchdowns in OT, you can name just as many exciting games from the sudden death era. You get 60 minutes to beat the other team. If you can't get it done in that time, you get a 50/50 shot to possess the ball first. If you don't get to possess the ball first, there are three phases of the game and you have to go out, play one, and get a stop. If you don't, you have nobody to blame but yourself because you had 60+ minutes to change that outcome. That's as fair as it gets.

Joey007 said:

Those OT rules sure don’t bode well for “bend, don’t break” then.

Click to expand...

Don't bend, then. Do your job. If you do, and they score, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. We've seen numerous instances where the BBDB Patriots held on defense when they needed to in key moments (including OT).

KontradictioN said:

Not really. For every "exciting game" where teams with no defense just trade touchdowns in OT, you can name just as many exciting games from the sudden death era. You get 60 minutes to beat the other team. If you can't get it done in that time, you get a 50/50 shot to possess the ball first. If you don't get to possess the ball first, there are three phases of the game and you have to go out, play one, and get a stop. If you don't, you have nobody to blame but yourself because you had 60+ minutes to change that outcome. That's as fair as it gets.

Click to expand...

I’ve always suggested Roger Goodell decides the winner. Would be the fairest way.

reflexblue said:

I just finished reading it, it was pretty entertaining and the truth. Outside of the pats and a few other teams defense and special teams aren't taken a seriously as offense these days.

Click to expand...

Michael Hurley is always good for a few mic drops.

Awesome article thanks for posting it. Devastating.

PS thread title is confusing

Brewskies said:

I don't know for sure, just my thoughts.

On the other hand the owners should and will discuss the Kraft situation. I hope they fine Kraft, I am tired of Money Talks, Wealthy Walk.

Click to expand...

That's the only language the corrupt 32 understand. It's never going to change as long as we keep being ok with it.

KontradictioN said:

Not really. For every "exciting game" where teams with no defense just trade touchdowns in OT, you can name just as many exciting games from the sudden death era. You get 60 minutes to beat the other team. If you can't get it done in that time, you get a 50/50 shot to possess the ball first. If you don't get to possess the ball first, there are three phases of the game and you have to go out, play one, and get a stop. If you don't, you have nobody to blame but yourself because you had 60+ minutes to change that outcome. That's as fair as it gets.

Click to expand...

While I agree with the bolded the only way your true sudden death works is if they stop favouring offenses. They need to make a concession to the defense. Allowing contact within 10 yards would be my suggestion.

Wheelman said:

While I agree with the bolded the only way your true sudden death works is if they stop favouring offenses. They need to make a concession to the defense. Allowing contact within 10 yards would be my suggestion.

Click to expand...

I think this is why I like the current system ultimately. I agree with @KontradictioN in principle in regards to the "You had 60 minutes to win it. Whatever injustice fate has in store for you is tough sh*t." I'm not shedding any tears for teams in the past that got screwed by it for sure.

But with the rules tipping the way they have been for the past decade, I think it's a good thing that there's a bit of a trade off for starting with the ball. Obvious pro: You can end the whole thing right now, no questions, with a touchdown. Downside: If you get stopped, your opponent gets a much easier road to victory on their response. Still puts the onus on the defense to play some damn football. But doesn't end a game on a ticky-tack PI call, or a 35 yard drive, which (while again, not crying for the team that couldn't seal the deal in regulation) leaves a weird taste in a lot of fans mouths.