Re: NFL offseason thread

[dew1679666265]

I'm one of the rarities who don't have a problem with the current OT system in the NFL. That said, I don't mind changing it either. I don't understand this change, though. If you're that set on giving both teams the extra opportunity, then just do that.

 

Go with a system like college football does, but move the starting point across the 50 or something.

 

That is a horribly stupid idea.

 

The only thing they want to prevent is idiots like Peter King crying about how unfair it is for a team to lose a game via FG without touching the ball in OT. It's a stupid complaint, but the idioits complain loud enough so they are addressing it. You have 60 freaking minutes to win, it's perfectly fair. There's nothing unfair about the current system.

 

I agree with the bolded 100%. I see no need to change the current system, but if they're completely set on changing it, I don't like this change. All the new system does is make field goals a bad thing. They're not a bad thing, they're a part of football.

 

Again, I don't think there's a need for a change as I don't see any unfairness in the current system. But if they're that determined to change it, I think a system closer to the college system would be better than what they're implementing.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm one of the rarities who don't have a problem with the current OT system in the NFL. That said, I don't mind changing it either. I don't understand this change, though. If you're that set on giving both teams the extra opportunity, then just do that.

 

Go with a system like college football does, but move the starting point across the 50 or something.

 

That is a horribly stupid idea.

 

The only thing they want to prevent is idiots like Peter King crying about how unfair it is for a team to lose a game via FG without touching the ball in OT. It's a stupid complaint, but the idioits complain loud enough so they are addressing it. You have 60 freaking minutes to win, it's perfectly fair. There's nothing unfair about the current system.

 

I agree with the bolded 100%. I see no need to change the current system, but if they're completely set on changing it, I don't like this change. All the new system does is make field goals a bad thing. They're not a bad thing, they're a part of football.

 

Again, I don't think there's a need for a change as I don't see any unfairness in the current system. But if they're that determined to change it, I think a system closer to the college system would be better than what they're implementing.

 

I completely disagree with the closer to college system. The college system is just plain goofy nonsense. A FG can still win it. The myth that every OT game ends in the first team with possession kicking a FG is wrong, but if you do get the ball and kick a FG, you are probably going to still win, so it doesn't make FG a bad thing. It makes it less important in OT only. But it's still important to score, and if all you can get is a FG, that's what you will take.

[Soul]

I'm not sure what to think about this change. I do agree that the level of criticism of the current (now, old) system was a little out of whack though.

[dew1679666265]

I completely disagree with the closer to college system. The college system is just plain goofy nonsense. A FG can still win it.

 

The reason I bring up the college system is that it generally tends to be very exciting. If the first team scores, then the second team must drive down and score as well, which makes for a very exciting drive. The problem I have with the collegiate system is that it artificially pumps up scoring (since it's so easy to score from your opponents' 25). That is solved, however, if you start each drive at your own 25 (or something like that).

 

And yes, a field goal can still win the game, but it can in the system they've just implemented too. The focus is on making sure both teams touch the ball in OT and fixing this perceived "unfairness." The collegiate system tweaked does that.

 

The myth that every OT game ends in the first team with possession kicking a FG is wrong, but if you do get the ball and kick a FG, you are probably going to still win, so it doesn't make FG a bad thing. It makes it less important in OT only. But it's still important to score, and if all you can get is a FG, that's what you will take.

 

A bad thing may have been hyperbole, but you're going to see less exciting games because teams are going to be punting from deep in the opponents' territory on fourth and long because they're not going to want to try a long field goal. Thus, you're going to turn overtime into a field position battle more often than I think supporters of the system want.

 

You're telling teams not to attempt to score in a way that has been part of football for decades. I don't understand the dislike for field goals winning games.

[Banedon]

The change is ok, but I think they should have just gone to a 6 or 7 minute OT period without sudden death. You play the full OT and go from there. You'll have some tired guys without a doubt, but you do in other sports too, and they manage double and triple OT's. And it makes it so you don't have special rules for OT.

 

That's a bad idea. Other sports aren't like football. Football players are dead after games. You can't play back to back in that sport, or even 2 days later. The uproar against sudden death is the stupidest media/fan criticism of how a sport is run I have ever heard.

 

Well I wasn't suggesting they play back to back games...just a few more minutes. I realize they're tired...so are basketball players and hockey players in the 3rd OT or whatever. They're paid well to play while tired.

 

I understand the criticism of the current system...and I do think a change was needed. But I think the change as implemented is clunky.

[jersey cubs fan]

The change is ok, but I think they should have just gone to a 6 or 7 minute OT period without sudden death. You play the full OT and go from there. You'll have some tired guys without a doubt, but you do in other sports too, and they manage double and triple OT's. And it makes it so you don't have special rules for OT.

 

That's a bad idea. Other sports aren't like football. Football players are dead after games. You can't play back to back in that sport, or even 2 days later. The uproar against sudden death is the stupidest media/fan criticism of how a sport is run I have ever heard.

 

Well I wasn't suggesting they play back to back games...just a few more minutes. I realize they're tired...so are basketball players and hockey players in the 3rd OT or whatever. They're paid well to play while tired.

 

I understand the criticism of the current system...and I do think a change was needed. But I think the change as implemented is clunky.

 

That non sudden death system will inevitably lead to multiple OTs, which will effectively create back to back game sitautions.

 

A change was not needed. The only need was for idiots to shut up about how unfair it was, when there was nothing remotedly unfair about it.

[jersey cubs fan]

You're telling teams not to attempt to score in a way that has been part of football for decades. I don't understand the dislike for field goals winning games.

 

 

Dew, your plan makes no sense. First off, teams are still going to score FG. This just makes teams think twice about not even trying for a TD. Second, you complain about the untrue notion that teams are being told to not do something that has been a part of football for decades, and then suggest removing something that has been a part of football for decades - special teams. You take out kickoffs and complain about a punt fest that isn't going to happen.

 

Sudden death OT is good. Adding the two possession thing doesn't make it any better, but if it shuts up the Peter Kings of the world, it makes the discussion about football more enjoyable. So I'm fine with it.

[dew1679666265]

You're telling teams not to attempt to score in a way that has been part of football for decades. I don't understand the dislike for field goals winning games.

 

 

Dew, your plan makes no sense. First off, teams are still going to score FG. This just makes teams think twice about not even trying for a TD. Second, you complain about the untrue notion that teams are being told to not do something that has been a part of football for decades, and then suggest removing something that has been a part of football for decades - special teams. You take out kickoffs and complain about a punt fest that isn't going to happen.

 

That's a valid point on taking out special teams. However, I could definitely see a field position battle taking place in a few OT games. I don't know that it'd even be most, but I tend to think there would be some times that teams would punt instead of going for it, pin a team deep and then that team would end up punting, etc.

 

Sudden death OT is good. Adding the two possession thing doesn't make it any better, but if it shuts up the Peter Kings of the world, it makes the discussion about football more enjoyable. So I'm fine with it.

 

This was basically my original point in this thread.

[Derwood]

College OT is fantastic

 

NFL OT is terrible

[Banedon]

A change was not needed. The only need was for idiots to shut up about how unfair it was, when there was nothing remotedly unfair about it.

 

Sorry man, I completely disagree. Both teams play to a tie, and all a team needs to do to win is win a coin toss, move the ball...what 30-40 yards for a field goal? That's dumb.

 

Like you pointed out, these guys are exhausted by then, especially the defense. The odds are very much in favor of the team that wins the coin flip, and all the numbers bear that out. And any fan is going to feel like their team lost unfairly if their QB never even gets to get on the field during OT.

 

Even if you forget about fairness (you and I obviously disagree on that point)...it's just not exciting. The NFL has the most boring OT of the "big 4" professional sports.

[jersey cubs fan]

A change was not needed. The only need was for idiots to shut up about how unfair it was, when there was nothing remotedly unfair about it.

 

Sorry man, I completely disagree. Both teams play to a tie, and all a team needs to do to win is win a coin toss, move the ball...what 30-40 yards for a field goal? That's dumb.

 

Except for the fact that this isn't nearly as easy as people are suggesting, and of course, not a problem.

 

There is nothing unfair. They had 60 minutes to win the game, and they didn't. A coin toss does not determine the winner, and taking possession does not win the game.

 

There is no perfect ending, and suggestions that they should just keep playing non-sudden death overtimes periods are just incredibly stupid.

[Derwood]

well if YOU say so

[Banedon]

A change was not needed. The only need was for idiots to shut up about how unfair it was, when there was nothing remotedly unfair about it.

 

Sorry man, I completely disagree. Both teams play to a tie, and all a team needs to do to win is win a coin toss, move the ball...what 30-40 yards for a field goal? That's dumb.

 

Except for the fact that this isn't nearly as easy as people are suggesting, and of course, not a problem.

 

There is nothing unfair. They had 60 minutes to win the game, and they didn't. A coin toss does not determine the winner, and taking possession does not win the game.

 

There is no perfect ending, and suggestions that they should just keep playing non-sudden death overtimes periods are just incredibly stupid.

 

Both teams had 60 minutes to win the game, and neither did. So why should one team be provided with an advantage?

We can debate how big the advantage is, but there is one...there's no debating that...and I'm all for striving to eliminate that advantage.

[dew1679666265]

Research was done by the NFL Network staff and George Li figuring out just how often the team that won the coin toss won the game on the opening possession. Here's the link to the article about it.

 

Results from 1994-2009:

 

244 regular-season overtime games

146 times the team which won the toss won the game (59.8%)

94 times the team which lost the toss won the game (38.5%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Possessions from 1994-2009:

 

160 times both teams had at least one possession (65.6%)

84 times the team which won the toss drove for winning score — 64 FG, 20 TD (34.4%)

 

Scoring from 1994-2009:

 

177 games were decided by a field goal (72.5%)

62 games were decided by a touchdown (25.4%)

1 game was decided by a safety (0.4%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Most of the time, both teams get possession in OT, going by these figures.

[Soul]

College OT is fantastic

 

NFL OT is terrible

 

You really like that college system?

 

I guess it provides some exciting moments, but I hesitate to call it.......football, exactly.

[SpongeWorthy]

goony, what do the previous 60 minutes have to do with anything in terms of how fair the overtime system is?

 

Using your logic the overtime system is completely fair no matter what it is because regulation is fair. That's inane.

[mhuber92211]

Research was done by the NFL Network staff and George Li figuring out just how often the team that won the coin toss won the game on the opening possession. Here's the link to the article about it.

 

Results from 1994-2009:

 

244 regular-season overtime games

146 times the team which won the toss won the game (59.8%)

94 times the team which lost the toss won the game (38.5%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Possessions from 1994-2009:

 

160 times both teams had at least one possession (65.6%)

84 times the team which won the toss drove for winning score — 64 FG, 20 TD (34.4%)

 

Scoring from 1994-2009:

 

177 games were decided by a field goal (72.5%)

62 games were decided by a touchdown (25.4%)

1 game was decided by a safety (0.4%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Most of the time, both teams get possession in OT, going by these figures.

 

But it also proves that 35% of the OT games were competitively one sided. When you have a test of skill where only 1 team/person is able to provide the outcome, it no longer becomes a competition.

[dew1679666265]

Research was done by the NFL Network staff and George Li figuring out just how often the team that won the coin toss won the game on the opening possession. Here's the link to the article about it.

 

Results from 1994-2009:

 

244 regular-season overtime games

146 times the team which won the toss won the game (59.8%)

94 times the team which lost the toss won the game (38.5%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Possessions from 1994-2009:

 

160 times both teams had at least one possession (65.6%)

84 times the team which won the toss drove for winning score — 64 FG, 20 TD (34.4%)

 

Scoring from 1994-2009:

 

177 games were decided by a field goal (72.5%)

62 games were decided by a touchdown (25.4%)

1 game was decided by a safety (0.4%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Most of the time, both teams get possession in OT, going by these figures.

 

But it also proves that 35% of the OT games were competitively one sided. When you have a test of skill where only 1 team/person is able to provide the outcome, it no longer becomes a competition.

 

The defense had a chance to stop the offense in those 35% of games and couldn't do it. Obviously, most of the time defenses can force at least one possession for their offense, so there is a competition. It's just that 35% of the time, the offense was better than the defense on the first drive.

[dew1679666265]

Two points of interest today:

 

The NFL is considering making the Weeks 16 and 17 games divisional contests to dissuade teams from resting starters.

 

"It is still an issue and I spoke to the competition committee about it on Sunday," Goodell said today at the Ritz-Carlton Grande Lakes. "One of the key things we're doing in the short term is in our scheduling. We're trying to schedule, potentially, week 17 will be all division opponents. And maybe even a large part of week 16.

 

and

 

The Eagles are "listening" to offers for McNabb and Kolb.

 

Although virtually no one is apparently interested in Michael Vick since he wants to be a starter, there is significant interest in Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb.

Per the report, the Eagles are willing to do a deal for a second-round pick or a package of high picks rather than demanding a first-rounder.

[dew1679666265]

Per a report from Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the St. Louis Rams have offered the Eagles their second-round pick (No. 33 overall) in exchange for the 33-year-old McNabb.

 

In addition, McLane has sources that have told him McNabb would agree to the deal if it came with a long-term contract extension.

 

Link

[mhuber92211]

Research was done by the NFL Network staff and George Li figuring out just how often the team that won the coin toss won the game on the opening possession. Here's the link to the article about it.

 

Results from 1994-2009:

 

244 regular-season overtime games

146 times the team which won the toss won the game (59.8%)

94 times the team which lost the toss won the game (38.5%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Possessions from 1994-2009:

 

160 times both teams had at least one possession (65.6%)

84 times the team which won the toss drove for winning score — 64 FG, 20 TD (34.4%)

 

Scoring from 1994-2009:

 

177 games were decided by a field goal (72.5%)

62 games were decided by a touchdown (25.4%)

1 game was decided by a safety (0.4%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Most of the time, both teams get possession in OT, going by these figures.

 

But it also proves that 35% of the OT games were competitively one sided. When you have a test of skill where only 1 team/person is able to provide the outcome, it no longer becomes a competition.

 

The defense had a chance to stop the offense in those 35% of games and couldn't do it. Obviously, most of the time defenses can force at least one possession for their offense, so there is a competition. It's just that 35% of the time, the offense was better than the defense on the first drive.

 

So you would be OK if the Top of the 10th inning ends with the winning run scoring because the defense/Pitcher allowed it to happen? Shouldn't the defense of the team winning the coin toss have the same oppoetunity to prove it is competitive just like the offense or is competition only offensive?

[dew1679666265]

So you would be OK if the Top of the 10th inning ends with the winning run scoring because the defense/Pitcher allowed it to happen?

 

Sure. If that was the rule in place, I'd be ok with it. It would make every pitch, every defensive play and every at-bat that much more important.

 

That said, baseball tends to be a game with much more variance to it and can be more influenced by luck over skill - at least in my view. For that reason, having a bit more drawn out overtime makes more sense than in football where pure skill tends to dominate.

 

Shouldn't the defense of the team winning the coin toss have the same oppoetunity to prove it is competitive just like the offense or is competition only offensive?

 

Every unit has already proven it is competitive by forcing an overtime period. We already know both sides are very even (at least on that day). And competition isn't only offensive because there is a defense on the field for every play that the offense runs. If the offense/special teams of the team winning the coin toss is successful in driving into scoring range and executing whatever scoring attempt it needs (be it a field goal or a TD), then I have no problem with that team winning the game.

[ELCABALLO45]

College OT is terrible.

 

I don't mind the new change, I also didn't mind sudden death either.

[Banedon]

Research was done by the NFL Network staff and George Li figuring out just how often the team that won the coin toss won the game on the opening possession. Here's the link to the article about it.

 

Results from 1994-2009:

 

244 regular-season overtime games

146 times the team which won the toss won the game (59.8%)

94 times the team which lost the toss won the game (38.5%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Possessions from 1994-2009:

 

160 times both teams had at least one possession (65.6%)

84 times the team which won the toss drove for winning score — 64 FG, 20 TD (34.4%)

 

Scoring from 1994-2009:

 

177 games were decided by a field goal (72.5%)

62 games were decided by a touchdown (25.4%)

1 game was decided by a safety (0.4%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Most of the time, both teams get possession in OT, going by these figures.

 

Hooray for "most of the time"!

 

So, 27% of the time the team that won the flip, went down and scored a FG on the first posession and won the game in OT. That sucks. That's a huge number of times that the other teams offense isn't even getting on the field for an overtime game. And don't forget, the defense is already gimped in OT thanks to the kickoffs being at the 30 instead of the 35. So the team that wins the flip doesn't even have to go as far to get a FG in OT as they would in regulation.

[CubColtPacer]

Research was done by the NFL Network staff and George Li figuring out just how often the team that won the coin toss won the game on the opening possession. Here's the link to the article about it.

 

Results from 1994-2009:

 

244 regular-season overtime games

146 times the team which won the toss won the game (59.8%)

94 times the team which lost the toss won the game (38.5%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Possessions from 1994-2009:

 

160 times both teams had at least one possession (65.6%)

84 times the team which won the toss drove for winning score — 64 FG, 20 TD (34.4%)

 

Scoring from 1994-2009:

 

177 games were decided by a field goal (72.5%)

62 games were decided by a touchdown (25.4%)

1 game was decided by a safety (0.4%)

4 games ended tied (1.6%)

 

Most of the time, both teams get possession in OT, going by these figures.

 

Hooray for "most of the time"!

 

So, 27% of the time the team that won the flip, went down and scored a FG on the first posession and won the game in OT. That sucks. That's a huge number of times that the other teams offense isn't even getting on the field for an overtime game. And don't forget, the defense is already gimped in OT thanks to the kickoffs being at the 30 instead of the 35. So the team that wins the flip doesn't even have to go as far to get a FG in OT as they would in regulation.

 

The kickoff is at the 30 in regulation as well.