What a surprise - Falcons want to change OT rules

[BTTA]

View attachment 16714 I vote no overtime whatsoever starting last year. Please! I need to walk off the field without putting my tail between my legs. Pretty please Roger.

The look of utter dismay is so mesmerizing, it is easy to look past how ridiculous that outfit is.

 

[BTTA]

You are holding in your true feelings again, PB12.

Yeah, or simply don't be the first team in history to blow a 25-point lead in a SB. This really ****ing upsets me. This league is **** now. It feels we'll just have to look over our shoulders after every Lombardi because butt-hurt owners can't figure out how BB and the bunch keep assaulting them with no Vaseline. They'll never have the grasp on the game and rule book the way BB does. They'll never have a QB like the one we have. ****, WE may never again have a QB like the one we have when he planned when he leaves. But all that be damned. Any try to beat them on the field when you can simply try to beat them in the off season by petitioning rule changes? By the way, how has that really worked out for the league so far? Answer - Not well.

Exactly! Or why not just institute a mercy rule. When I was a kid my cousins and I would end a game of whatever it was - Super Tecmo Bowl, Madden, etc. - if you feel down 21-0, which was later amended to just 21 points down at any point in the game. We have a large family and this was the best way to make sure everyone got to play at least one game during family gatherings. The NFL might as well do it to make sure every team gets a chance to beat the Patriots. Just call the game whenever a team gets up on them by 21 points or so. Then the chances of OT are moot. Oh, and have the rule instituted only during Patriots games.

And I normally don't like to get involved in these conspiracy theories anymore because I feel our fan base has become overly sensitive in recent years, but this reeks too bad to be ignored. That's two rules this off season, the other being jumping over the line on FG's and extra points, that seems to directly correlate to something the Pats executed to win. It's pathetic.

 

[fightingirish595]

My response is what's it's been since the new rule was implemented, its pro football, get a stop. I'd have the same response if the falcons got the ball first and they got a TD

 

[TomPatriot]

Unfair! New rule: No GOATS on the field!

 

[pherein]

..and I think the NFL is also posting Choking instructions in the SB locker rooms for safety. At least teams will now be informed.

 

[MainePatsFan26]

I'm surprised it took this long.

Falcons GM Wants To Change NFL Overtime Rules After Super Bowl Loss To Patriots



Sorry Tom, I know you're a Pats guy and everything, but this reeks of sour grapes..... You knew the rules. You don't want to lose on a coin flip in overtime? Then don't give up 25 unanswered points at the end of regulation.

I was concerned when Atlanta players hadn't moved on from the Super Bowl and focused on the new season. It's even worse for the Falcons that their front office also cannot move forward. I would bet against the Falcons this season. They have the pieces, but these distractions have historically derailed teams coming off a Super Bowl loss.

 

[RayClay]

I would like to have a chance. Ok. How about we spot you 25 points?

 

[1960Pats]

If this passes, I'm one step closer to giving up on the NFL for good. Is this what the league is really coming to now? I don't like how a team won, so let me propose a change and it gets passed just like that? Player safety is one thing, but this is something entirely different. The Colts started this slippery slope and there doesn't seem to be any stopping it. They want parity and they don't care what they have to do to achieve it. I guess what that means now is let's stop the Patriots any way we can.

#integrity #protecttheshield

There is a chance that, somewhere down the line, the Pats could benefit from that rule change. That would be a real hoot if it happened that way.

 

[PatsBoy12]

There is a chance that, somewhere down the line, the Pats could benefit from that rule change. That would be a real hoot if it happened that way.

Hey 1960, of course they would at some point, my friend. But that's not my point. My point is rule changes at the end of every season, especially those that don't derive from an actual real concern such as something like a true player safety issue, but rather teams belly aching because they lost, can and will further hurt the game and are complicit in its eventual demise. Where will it end? This is especially concerning because it really doesn't seem to ever be a true consideration until it's the Pats who have benefited in some way. And that's not the conspiracy theorist in me, I don't believe.

Look at what DB's have to deal with now as a result of the Colts, for example. I watch receivers push off, clutch and grab on a weekly basis. No call. But a DB grazes a WR, and there are flags from every official on the field and the reserve (lol). Thank the Colts. It's ********.

Contrast that, however, to something like the horse collar (the TO rule) or diving at a QB's legs in the pocket (the Brady rule). It made sense to change the rules then. Both are truly defenseless, meaning players can do nothing to protect themselves against the potential dangers of being brought down in those ways. Making the extra point a longer try also, at least to me, made sense. It added to the game by making a non-competitive play more competitive. They removed a player being able to jump over the line to boot.

But a team loses and they ***** about it to the league? The league responds by changing a rule? And in this case, it's a rule that was relatively recently changed in the first place. I'm surprised that more fans, no matter your team, aren't looking at it more critically. As a long-time sports fan I find it outrageous and highly questionable with words like 'integrity' being thrown around willy nilly for two seasons now. Maybe it's just me.

 

[TBR]

Atlanta would've had a full 4 downs to score a TD in OT. As opposed to the 3 the Pats had to play with to score their TD. That's what I don't like about the potential rule.

If they made it so that a team in Atlanta's position could only receive 3 downs to score a TD, that would be fair. Otherwise, you're essentially penalizing the Pats and giving an advantage to ATL.

 

[brdmaverick]

Sorry Tom, I know you're a Pats guy and everything, but this reeks of sour grapes..... You knew the rules. You don't want to lose on a coin flip in overtime?

I realize this is nitpicking, but just because someone knows the rules doesn't mean they necessarily have to like them.

I do disagree with this view of 'not having a chance'. The last I looked his defense 'had a chance' to stop Brady (in theory anyway).

 

[1960Pats]

Hey 1960, of course they would at some point, my friend. But that's not my point. My point is rule changes at the end of every season, especially those that don't derive from an actual real concern such as something like a true player safety issue, but rather teams belly aching because they lost, can and will further hurt the game and are complicit in its eventual demise. Where will it end? This is especially concerning because it really doesn't seem to ever be a true consideration until it's the Pats who have benefited in some way. And that's not the conspiracy theorist in me, I don't believe.

Look at what DB's have to deal with now as a result of the Colts, for example. I watch receivers push off, clutch and grab on a weekly basis. No call. But a DB grazes a WR, and there are flags from every official on the field and the reserve (lol). Thank the Colts. It's ********.

Contrast that, however, to something like the horse collar (the TO rule) or diving at a QB's legs in the pocket (the Brady rule). It made sense to change the rules then. Both are truly defenseless, meaning players can do nothing to protect themselves against the potential dangers of being brought down in those ways. Making the extra point a longer try also, at least to me, made sense. It added to the game by making a non-competitive play more competitive. They removed a player being able to jump over the line to boot.

But a team loses and they ***** about it to the league? The league responds by changing a rule? And in this case, it's a rule that was relatively recently changed in the first place. I'm surprised that more fans, no matter your team, aren't looking at it more critically. As a long-time sports fan I find it outrageous and highly questionable with words like 'integrity' being thrown around willy nilly for two seasons now. Maybe it's just me.

I reached the point a while back that you're at now. I already got fed up and I'll be dumping the NYFL the moment Brady is done. Because of that I seemed to have resigned myself to the fact that the game is already gone and won't be coming back. Luckily for me Brady is still going strong and I don't care.

 

[brdmaverick]

If this gets passed I defer every single time in OT.

HUGE advantage knowing what you need to do to win or tie.

and if the team defering wins by converting a fourth down with their added advantage people will STILL be saying the game was decided by a coin flip.

 

[brdmaverick]

They wish they had "a chance."

Okay... but their offense had quite a few "chances" to put the game away with another TD between 2 minutes remaining in the 3rd through the end of the 4th. They couldn't score a single point, and allowed Brady to score 25 unanswered to take it to OT.

It seems beyond pathetic to me that a team would whine about "not getting a chance to score" in OT when they blew so many chances to do just that in over a quarter's worth of time just prior to OT on offense, while simultaneously blowing so many chances to just stop Brady from scoring in that same time period as well.

It's like saying "well, we had a ton of chances to score, and a ton of chances to stop the other team from scoring, but forget all that - we didn't get ANOTHER chance in overtime, so it's not fair!!"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[lurker1965]

Two years left for the J E T S....

Patriots propose relegation. Jets to CFL and Argonauts to NFL.

 

[PatsBoy12]

I was concerned when Atlanta players hadn't moved on from the Super Bowl and focused on the new season. It's even worse for the Falcons that their front office also cannot move forward. I would bet against the Falcons this season. They have the pieces, but these distractions have historically derailed teams coming off a Super Bowl loss.

It's pretty overwhelming the statistical data that shows that SB hangovers are real. The Pats and Seahawks are perhaps the only two teams that seem to consistently even make the playoffs after losing in the previous year's playoffs and/or SB.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole this as sour grapes. For all we know,
Thomas Dimitroff has been in favor of changing overtime for years (lots of players/coaches have). The article makes it sound like Dimitroff issued a press release demanding change. In reality, someone probably asked him about it and he responded with a topical answer.

If Dimitroff was in favour of changing overtime for years, he certainly didn't bring it up in 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or 2011. Or 2012. Or 2013. Or 2014. Or 2015. Or 2016.

But lose the Super Bowl in early 2017 in OT and then propose the change, and I'm supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt?

No no no. Nobody is that naive. Come on.

 

[GodBrady]

If Dimitroff was in favour of changing overtime for years, he certainly didn't bring it up in 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or 2011. Or 2012. Or 2013. Or 2014. Or 2015. Or 2016.

But lose the Super Bowl in early 2017 in OT and then propose the change, and I'm supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Come on, dude, this is common sense. If Dimitroff brought this up before it wouldn't have been headline news. Nobody would've bothered reporting on it.

Chances are he was interviewed, was asked a topical question ("hey, the Falcons lost the SB in overtime -- on that topic, what's your opinion on the rules?"), and he gave his response.

With Deflategate, everyone here trumps how we can't use circumstantial evidence as proof of something. Now, Dimitroff gives his opinion on OT rules, and suddenly everyone is using circumstantial evidence to crucify him because he's supposedly bitter and a poor sport.

You can't have it both ways. If our organization gets the benefit of the doubt, then so do other teams and executives.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Come on, dude, this is common sense. If Dimitroff brought this up before it wouldn't have been headline news. Nobody would've bothered reporting on it.

Chances are he was interviewed, was asked a topical question ("hey, the Falcons lost the SB in overtime -- on that topic, what's your opinion on the rules?"), and he gave his response.

With Deflategate, everyone here trumps how we can't use circumstantial evidence as proof of something. Now, Dimitroff gives his opinion on OT rules, and suddenly everyone is using circumstantial evidence to crucify him because he's supposedly bitter and a poor sport.

You can't have it both ways. If our organization gets the benefit of the doubt, then so do other teams and executives.

Nobody is asking for it both ways. This is not related to, nor anything like Defamegate. How you connect those two, I don't even know.

But honestly, how the hell do you think it's circumstantial? He specifically referenced the Super Bowl when discussing this. He makes no other mention of any other situation other than the Super Bowl. He never brings it up until his team loses in the Super Bowl. And you think he isn't talking about the Super Bowl??? That's your conclusion???

If Dimitroff brought this up before, of course it would have been headline news. All the rule change proposals are in the news, regardless of how good or bad they are.

This year alone, you heard about alternate helmets. You heard about leaping over the line. You heard about kickoffs leading to extra yards. You heard about teams wanting to opt out of the colour rush uniforms.

So all of the "logic" you're trying to piece together makes zero sense. Yes, proposed rule changes are news and we hear about them. Yes, Dimitroff has not made any proposal until after his team lost in the Super Bowl. Yes, he specifically references the Super Bowl, and nothing else but the Super Bowl. So yes, this is in response to the Super Bowl.

I don't know how much clearer this can be, and yet you still don't seem to get it.

 

[GodBrady]

But honestly, how the hell do you think it's circumstantial? He specifically referenced the Super Bowl when discussing this. He makes no other mention of any other situation other than the Super Bowl. He never brings it up until his team loses in the Super Bowl. And you think he isn't talking about the Super Bowl??? That's your conclusion???

That's not what I said at all. Dimitroff is clearly upset about the Super Bowl. I am not disputing that. What you, and many in this topic, are doing is making a logical leap, and saying that the only reason Dimitroff wants the rules changed is because his team lost. Yes, that is absolutely coming up with a narrative and "confirming" it circumstantially.

Generally-speaking, one of the following situations is true:

1) Dimitroff originally was okay with the overtime rules, but now, suddenly, he's humming a different tune because he's a sore loser, or,

2) Dimitroff has not been satisfied with the overtime rules -- even pre-dating the SB -- and seeing his team lose irks him and reinforces the belief that he already had.

If you listen to the interview (which I'm sure you didn't, you probably just read a one-line, quote-mined snippet from it), he doesn't bring the overtime issue up. Florio brings it up by asking him a question. Dimitroff even tries to sidestep the question, but Florio presses him to get a response.

He then says, "I think a coin flip has too much influence... back when I was a young GM, I won a coin flip to get the #1 pick in the draft and was able to draft Matt Ryan out of it. I understand what it's look to be on both sides of a 'coin flip' decision."

The fact that you are making grand declarations like "we didn't hear about Dimitroff lobbying for rule changes before, so clearly he didn't support it until now" is preposterous. The only reason we know about Dimitroff's views on OT now is because he was interviewed and asked a very specific, topical question, because the Super Bowl went to overtime and he was general manager of one of the Super Bowl teams. Do you think Mike Florio is going to have Thomas Dimitroff on his radio talk show in 2006 and just randomly bring up overtime rules out of the blue? There are a million things to talk about. Just because we haven't heard Dimitroff's views publicly is hardly proof of anything. Don't be obtuse.

And you're right, this has nothing to do with Deflategate. It's called an "analogy".