OT: Redskins coach is an idiot

[Kontradiction]

They should go back to sudden death right from the get go but, instead of a coin flip, the team with possession at the end of the game maintains possession at the same field position.

 

[Deus Irae]

New way is far better, did you really enjoy seeing teams get to the 15 and kicking a field goal?

The new way is horrible. The people who suggested it should be in prison, and anyone who defends it should lose both their citizenship and their rights to vote for anything, ever.

 

[Deus Irae]

They should go back to sudden death right from the get go

Yes

but, instead of a coin flip, the team with possession at the end of the game maintains possession at the same field position.

That may be the only idea I've ever heard that's worse than the current college OT.

 

[Froob]

The new way is horrible. The people who suggested it should be in prison, and anyone who defends it should lose both their citizenship and their rights to vote for anything, ever.

Now Skeeter he ain't hurting nobody

 

[Kontradiction]

Yes



That may be the only idea I've ever heard that's worse than the current college OT.

I think it's pretty good. Overtime is essentially extended time anyway. That's basically what that idea would be. Either way, they shouldn't have changed it in the first place.

 

[Deus Irae]

The old system:

First score wins.


The new system:

First score wins, BUT

Only if it's some scores. If not, then your opponent:

gets a chance to tie or win, AND

gets to do it knowing the full time that he has all 4 downs to use until he gets into field goal range, which is obviously a huge advantage compared to the first team to get the ball.

AND

If both teams fail to score on their first drives, or both teams score field goals on their first drives, then you've got a sudden death situation with a whole lot of the overtime already gone.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think it's pretty good.

In what distorted reality is it more 'fair' to give the ball to the team that happened to have it last than it is to give both teams an even shot at the ball (50/50 coin flip) to start the OT?

 

[SVN]

Many of you knew that already. But the most obvious evidence is this:



We're talking about a head coach in the National Football League not knowing how games end in ties. And it just happened the week prior, he acknowledges seeing it, and still doesn't know how it happens.

Some of you haters pick on BB for this draft bust or that bad trade or this bad play call. You have no idea how the other side lives.

IMO he probably was shocked a nfl game could end in a tie with the probability being low. Not that he didnt know the rules.At least thats how I read it.

 

[Kontradiction]

It's not. It's awful.

Better than another coin flip. That way treats it as if it's a new quarter and puts sudden death back into play.

 

[Deus Irae]

Better than another coin flip. That way treats it as if it's a new quarter and puts sudden death back into play.

You haven't thought this through. You're way too good for this.

 

[Tunescribe]

Part of me doesn't like that there's ties, but I think having ties (reg. season, obvi) is a better solution than a hockey shootout

But don't you think they should allow ties in championship games as well? That way, both teams can lay claim to being the best and their fans aren't disappointed.

 

[Nehalem]

When D. McNabb said this exact same thing, everyone was shocked at how stupid he was. Players play and might not know every rule. For a coach not to know, that is just bad. How do you teach situational football if you don't know the situation?

Since there is a "T" column in the standings its pretty embarrassing for anyone who even casually follows football to not know. Let alone an actual player or coach

 

[SlowGettingUp]

The old system:

First score wins.


The new system:

First score wins, BUT

Only if it's some scores. If not, then your opponent:

gets a chance to tie or win, AND

gets to do it knowing the full time that he has all 4 downs to use until he gets into field goal range, which is obviously a huge advantage compared to the first team to get the ball.

AND

If both teams fail to score on their first drives, or both teams score field goals on their first drives, then you've got a sudden death situation with a whole lot of the overtime already gone.

I have a simple proposal:

One coach (loser of coin flip) spots the position of the ball, and the other coach decides whether to defend or to take the ball and to try to score. First score wins (sudden death).

So a typical spot might be just short of the 10-yard line. On the 5-yard line I think most coaches would choose to defend.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

IMO he probably was shocked a nfl game could end in a tie with the probability being low. Not that he didnt know the rules.At least thats how I read it.

Hi Mrs. Gruden! Thanks for joining Patsfans!

 

[n1997y]

I guess at least when OT rules were sudden death coaches couldn't overthink themselves into kicking off in OT after winning the toss.

why, that's crazy. what coach in their right mind would choose to kick off to start OT?

 

[Tuck]

I think a tie should count as a loss for both teams in tie breaker scenarios. you'd get fewer ties that way.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Saw a post on The Ringer which had an interesting proposal (not necessarily one I'd agree with, but interesting):
1) Keep existing OT rules as they are except the coin flip is eliminated.
2) The team who scored first in the game gets to choose whether to take the ball or the direction.

The writer had this come to mind from his high school wrestling league. It had a 2-stage OT. The first stage started with both wrestlers on their feet and was sudden-death -- first takedown wins. If no takedowns it went to double-OT. There one wrestler would start on top, one on the bottom. If the top man controlled the bottom man for 30 seconds the top man won. If the bottom man escaped the bottom man won.

Anyhow, the writer asserted that having the team who scored first in the game make the OT decision would have some positives:
1) Teams would be more aggressive on their initial drives in the game.
2) Late in the 4th quarter the team that knew it would not be getting the ball first in OT may be more aggressive to try to avoid OT in the first place.

Personally I think the current "each team gets a possession" waters this down. If "first team to score in the game gets the OT decision" ever became the rule (which it never would, of course), I'd like to see OT go back to true sudden death.

Of course, if I was made dictator of the NFL, then as an econ geek I'd eliminate the OT kickoff and make the coaches bid for starting field position on the initial possession of OT, with the coach willing to accept the most unfavorable field position getting the ball first "We can score from our own 25." "Well, we can score from our own 20." "We can do it from our own 17." "Then name that tune. I mean, go ahead and try."