Well the Chiefs can win everything

SammyBlueCat · May 22, 2019

The Proposal was sour grapes from the Chiefs

SammyBlueCat · May 22, 2019

Alas, somehow, some way, reason prevailed. It turns out, even if a team loses a coin toss, it still “has a chance” to possess the football. (The fact that the coin toss winners end up winning just 52.7 percent of the time might have made that an already-established point.) All that’s required is holding the opponent to a field goal, or forcing a punt, or forcing a turnover, or making a fourth-down stop. Any one of those avenues will lead to the poor team that didn’t “have a chance” to get the football.

In other words, a football team has to play football moderately well in order to win a football game. What a novel concept.

Lavictoire · May 22, 2019

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.

Teams can throw jump balls looking for pass interference review with the new rules and get a cheap field goal.

Kontradiction · May 22, 2019

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.

???

The final score of the Super Bowl was 13-3. The rules may favor the offense, but that doesn't mean that defense is dead in this league. It is still possible to play defense. If any fan base should know that, and have it fresh in their memory, it is this one.

Kontradiction · May 22, 2019

Lavictoire said:
Teams can throw jump balls looking for pass interference review with the new rules and get a cheap field goal.

On top of the clarification that was issued a few years ago which no doubt hurt Jump Ball Joe's career, there is this...

How NFL's new P.I. rule could have altered 49ers history

Kontradiction · May 22, 2019

Sicilian said:
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.

I get what you're saying but the game can also end that way during regulation, too. That's one of the bright sides of PI being reviewable.

Wheelman · May 22, 2019

KontradictioN said:
???

The final score of the Super Bowl was 13-3. The rules may favor the offense, but that doesn't mean that defense is dead in this league. It is still possible to play defense. If any fan base should know that, and have it fresh in their memory, it is this one.

They keep making it more difficult to play defense in the name of "safety". Time to give the defense something that wouldn't compromise "safety".

Ice_Ice_Brady · May 22, 2019

KontradictioN said:
Good. Now go back to sudden death.

I really like the idea of sudden death but just playing on from the end of regulation. Not coin toss. The team that has the ball just continues with it whatever down and distance. I don’t see how anything could be more fair than this, and it would make the fourth quarter even more strategic.

chris_in_sunnyvale · May 22, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
I really like the idea of sudden death but just playing on from the end of regulation. Not coin toss. The team that has the ball just continues with it whatever down and distance. I don’t see how anything could be more fair than this, and it would make the fourth quarter even more strategic.

Be careful what you wish for. The end of regulation in both the Snow Bowl and SB51 play out much differently under those rules.

Regards,
Chris

Joker · May 22, 2019

Tom Brady retires and this "issue" disappears....big picture, people...the Patriots BEAT KC by the rules...therefore..."it's bad!!! all bad!! never fair!!! Cheatriots!!! KC was the better team!!! Never got a chance!!!". Anybody check the air pressure in the balls since Dehategate? Any of these jilted losers like KC even care that the whole fiasco was a trumped up farce? No, they cry like ****in' 2 year old girls because they didn't get their promised winner's tiara. Stupid, selfish, self absorbed MORONS. I hope somebody shiver shots that punkazz QB of theirs right in the ****in' grill...hard...smash his jawbone so it has to be wired...maybe THAT will stop the biatch crying.

BobDigital · May 22, 2019

I think the rules are fine as is. I had an idea of how to fix it to make everyone happy but I doubt it will ever be passed cause it probably seems a bit 'school yard'.

The idea is simply keep the same rules, except the teams bid on position with the visiting team able to bid first. The bidding is done by saying you'll take the ball at such a yard marker.

For instance.

Visitors: We'll take the ball at the 20
Home: We'll take it at the 15
Visitor: We'll take it at the 10... ect...

The first team to say they'll take it at the 1 yard line gets it or if the other team decides to let them take the ball at such a yard marker. This way no one would complain.

Even if the visiting team says they'll take it at the 1 on the first bid, if you can't stop a 99 yard TD drive at home you deserve to lose.

Ice_Ice_Brady · May 23, 2019

chris_in_sunnyvale said:
Be careful what you wish for. The end of regulation in both the Snow Bowl and SB51 play out much differently under those rules.

Regards,
Chris

Don’t know how those would have played out, but I think it’s a fair rule. In both games Pats had gained tremendous momentum. Anyway, it’s not about the rules which, if retroactively applied give the Patriots the advantage. It’s about rules that make sense. Either this rule or old sudden death are good. The new rules are okay as well, but it would ridiculous to go beyond this level of ensuring the team losing the toss has a fair chance.

Ice_Ice_Brady · May 23, 2019

BobDigital said:
I think the rules are fine as is. I had an idea of how to fix it to make everyone happy but I doubt it will ever be passed cause it probably seems a bit 'school yard'.

The idea is simply keep the same rules, except the teams bid on position with the visiting team able to bid first. The bidding is done by saying you'll take the ball at such a yard marker.

For instance.

Visitors: We'll take the ball at the 20
Home: We'll take it at the 15
Visitor: We'll take it at the 10... ect...

The first team to say they'll take it at the 1 yard line gets it or if the other team decides to let them take the ball at such a yard marker. This way no one would complain.

Even if the visiting team says they'll take it at the 1 on the first bid, if you can't stop a 99 yard TD drive at home you deserve to lose.

It’s not that I don’t agree with the logic and strategy behind scenarios like this, but it just seems like it’s not professional sports.

Winning the coin toss and getting the ball at your own 15, 10, or whatever makes it a data-based 50/50 split with sudden death wouldn’t be terrible.

Sicilian · May 23, 2019

BobDigital said:
I think the rules are fine as is. I had an idea of how to fix it to make everyone happy but I doubt it will ever be passed cause it probably seems a bit 'school yard'.

The idea is simply keep the same rules, except the teams bid on position with the visiting team able to bid first. The bidding is done by saying you'll take the ball at such a yard marker.

For instance.

Visitors: We'll take the ball at the 20
Home: We'll take it at the 15
Visitor: We'll take it at the 10... ect...

The first team to say they'll take it at the 1 yard line gets it or if the other team decides to let them take the ball at such a yard marker. This way no one would complain.

Even if the visiting team says they'll take it at the 1 on the first bid, if you can't stop a 99 yard TD drive at home you deserve to lose.

Interesting take. Not sure I'm in favor because it feels... odd? But perhaps one tweak to streamline it a bit would be to have each team submit ONE bid, arbitration style. Whoever bid the lowest gets the ball. So it would create a gamble situation, where you want to bid low enough to win, but not so low that your drive has too low a chance of success. I also feel this would benefit Belichick because he'd have charts worth of data on the gambling tendencies of other coaches

Sicilian · May 23, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
I really like the idea of sudden death but just playing on from the end of regulation. Not coin toss. The team that has the ball just continues with it whatever down and distance. I don’t see how anything could be more fair than this, and it would make the fourth quarter even more strategic.

I've always thought that as well. Seems fair, and also makes the final <30 seconds of a tie game play out more like real football. So many times teams are playing for overtime (while hoping for a slip or weird play that gets them in FG range), and the last 30 seconds just becomes a couple safe plays or kneel downs. Now the offense would have reason to play normal, and the defense would have to make actual plays in those final moments, not just prevent.

SHOWTIME15 · May 23, 2019

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.

With all the rule changes these days it’s easy to get a FG

Kontradiction · May 23, 2019

TommyBrady12 said:
With all the rule changes these days it’s easy to get a FG

Tell that to the Rams in the Super Bowl.

Triumph · May 23, 2019

I remind the Chefs lovers that they were shut out in the 1st half.

When they whine that they would have scored if they had a chance with the ball.

Triumph · May 23, 2019

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

That may not be so far fetched this season.

No way that Godell wants to be standing next to massage parlor Bob on the evening of 2/2/2020

neuronet · May 23, 2019

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
I really like the idea of sudden death but just playing on from the end of regulation. Not coin toss. The team that has the ball just continues with it whatever down and distance. I don’t see how anything could be more fair than this, and it would make the fourth quarter even more strategic.

In a way they do, but since the end of the game is the end of a half, that means they need to do another kickoff. I guess instead of redoing a coin flip, they could kick to the team that got the kickoff in the first half.

Then I think literally nobody would defer anymore, at least in big games.

Well the Chiefs can win everything

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

On my retirement tour.

On my retirement tour.

On my retirement tour.

Pro Bowl Player

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

No asterisks

On my retirement tour.

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Homer Little

Similar threads