Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Overtime Rules


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Im ok with the current OT rules but wouldn't be mad if they were changed.  Last night's game was amazing.  I wouldn't mind the game being longer last night. 

 

I don't necessarily agree with the Bills would have won if they won the coin flip argument.  That 13 second drive easily could of lit a fire under the KC defense ass.  I would not have been shocked if that first OT drive would have ended in Bills punt or FG.  Watching the Chiefs march down the field in 13 seconds and tying the game had to be demoralizing for the whole Bills sideline.  The Bills were celebrating that last TD like they just advanced to the title game only for KC to kill all their momentum in 13 seconds.

If they make a change to OT, cool. If they don't, ok.  I don't think that coin flip cost the Bills the game.  I don't think people who feel it did are silly and I don't think people that feel it didn't are silly.  We all got to witness an amazing game which was a hell of a win for us fans.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Both teams had four quarters.

The game ended in a tie.

That's why you have overtime, and it's why the "well, they should have stopped them during regulation" argument is silly.

The question is what you do after the game ends in a tie. And at least for the playoffs, where the game can't end in a tie and double overtime is a possibility (Panther fans of all people should know that) it makes way more sense to ensure that both teams have a shot.

But if both teams score a TD you're right back where you started. The team that wins the coin toss will always have the advantage. 

You could predetermine who will have the ball in OT. Give the away team first possession in OT or something like that.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

But if both teams score a TD you're right back where you started. 

And I'm fine with that.

At least in this scenario, both teams hljave had an opportunity.

It's the second team never even getting to touch the ball thing that's bullsh-t.

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not crazy about the NFL or college overtime.

What I would propose would be a soccer style shootout at the end.

Best out of 5 two-point conversations.  If both teams are still tied after 5 attempts, it goes to sudden death.

Takes the coin toss out of the equation.  Doesn't really matter who goes first.

Takes the kickers out of the equation.

No guessing what the next team will do, you don't have to decide between kicking FGs or giong for TDs.

It would be great drama, awesome tv.

It would be quicker.

It would limit the extra plays for the players and therefore reduce injury.  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, aahainley said:

The chiefs defense had 4 quarters to stop buffalos defense and failed.

Apparently, they did just enough.  Kansas City won.

They actually held buffalos defense to no points!  (I know what you meant.)

Edited by parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mc52beast said:

So basically what guys like Olsen want is for defense to matter thru four quarters but in OT if the defense can’t keep the opposing offense from scoring a TD on their first drive the offense should get a shot at doing the same.

Yes, both teams getting an equal opportunity is what he wants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shotgun said:

But if both teams score a TD you're right back where you started. The team that wins the coin toss will always have the advantage. 

That's why I'm leaning towards college OT or a full OT period that's not sudden death.  The game has been tilted in the favor of the offense, so sudden death doesn't work as well anymore.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

The game ended in a tie.

No. The game ended with a Chiefs victory.  

Quote

it makes way more sense to ensure that both teams have a shot.

Both teams had a shot. Buffalo had two shots and failed on both. 

We saw last week that 14 seconds wasn't enough to run a QB draw. We saw this week that 13 seconds was too long for the Buffalo defense. Hell, earlier in the day we saw a defense make a stand and win the game. 

All I'm hearing are excuses from people who wanted the Bills to win. 

Edited by Chimera
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The bottom line is we saw long stretches this season where T-Mac wasn't even targeted.  He had games where he went an entire half without seeing a pass thrown his way, and it lead to a bunch of games with 5 or less targets.  If he's healthy and we're not up a stupid amount and only running the ball, I can't see him having more than a game or two next year with 5 or less targets. We were also only 22nd this year in pass attempts, and that was with a rookie #1 and no legitimate 2nd option for half the season.  And even then, we were only 46 pass attempts above 31st place. If we go into next season with T-Mac improved in his 2nd season and a healthy Coker for 17 games, there is absolutely no reason for us to not throw it more.  That right away increases both of their target totals without sacrificing any targets from each other or other players, add in them taking targets from the TEs and RBs on top of that, and your argument just doesn't hold water anymore. You can't look at targets/yards in a vacuum and think next year Coker just takes some from T-Mac.  You have to look at the team as a whole and our situations this year and then project what will happen next year. If he's healthy for 17 games, I'd bet my life savings that T-Mac sees increases across the board, targets/catches/yards/TDs.   Just as Coker will also see career highs in all categories, it's not one vs the other, it's shifting offensive strategy given our personnel, which next year will be much better for our passing game (QB issues aside).
    • C'mon now.... First, you can't switch up your argument once someone points out a major flaw in your point. You're saying we shouldn't expect a big increase in targets/yards for T-Mac, but then shift to talking about averages with Chase when I point out the significant leap he took there once you factor in his missing games.  He saw an increase in targets in 5 less games, averages aside, he saw a significant increase in targets in his 2nd season, what he then did with those targets is actually irrelevant in this discussion. Puka seeing no increase is pointless, as he saw such an absurd amount of targets for a rookie, it's near impossible to see an increase. But the real issue in this post is that you think I'm proving your point by showing how Waddle had to share targets with Hill. Tyreek Hill was a 1st team All Pro who was 2nd in the NFL in yards that season. If you think Jaylen Waddle sharing targets with a 1st team All Pro and a future HOFer is even remotely in the same category as T-Mac needing to share targets with Coker... then you are certifiably insane, lol. If anything, you could make the argument that Coker is to Waddle as T-Mac is to Hill in that discussion (which would then lead to a serious increase in targets/yards for T-Mac).  But even that is insane, as neither T-Mac or Coker will be as good as Hill and Waddle respectively that season.  I love both of their potential, but c'mon now, T-Mac isn't getting 119 catches for 1,700 yards and Coker isn't getting 117 for 1,350 next season.
×
×
  • Create New...