NFL Playoffs 2022

[WrigleyField 22]

Saw someone tweet in favor of just a "continuation rule" and I gotta say I don't hate it after mulling it over.

 

Basically you'd add a full OT period, say 5 minutes and you'd continue to play until one team was leading at the end of a 5 minute period. This does away with a coin flip and kickoff to start OT. You just pick up where you left off.

 

While this gives a team with a tie late the opportunity to extend out their drive, it doesn't do away with the strategic element completely. Yea you could stall out your drive and then score in the first minute of OT, but then you've given the other team ample time. That said, if you can milk out a 5 minute drive, good for you.

 

I think too many people approach it with a "fairness" doctrine about trading possessions. But at the end of the day, sometimes teams get an extra possession. It's not strictly a equal possession game in the vain of say baseball. But we could eliminate a random coin flip from determining that possible extra possession. The kickoff at halftime is already designed to even out those odds. So we just continue on.

 

The only real tough part I think is how to treat TO. One timeouts? No timeouts? A standard 2 minute stopage? And coming up with an appropriate minute time on the OT period that isn't arbitrary. Maybe like median drive times in 4th Q for a team with a tie or down by 7 or less?

[Andy]

I like the two five minute half idea instead of a single 10 minute period. Eliminates any coin flip luck. But also realistically ends up making many OTs somewhat college like in nature. But without eliminating whole aspects of the game, including the clock.

 

But as long as we're brainstorming ideas I'll add one new rule to tack onto the 5 minute half OT. A 11 point mercy rule. Basically game ends if either goes up by 11 in OT. I'd maybe even consider 10, but any way to make teams go for 2 more is good by me. But still can't be a one possession game then.

I think the OT rules are fine as is and this is all a tempest in a teapot, but the best suggestion I've seen so far was to not change anything except the first team can only walk it off with 8 points instead of 6. Then they have to weigh the 2-point conversion against the possibility of losing if the other team scores a TD too, and that gives the defense another chance to not fail and extend the game.

[raw]

Saw someone tweet in favor of just a "continuation rule" and I gotta say I don't hate it after mulling it over.

 

Basically you'd add a full OT period, say 5 minutes and you'd continue to play until one team was leading at the end of a 5 minute period. This does away with a coin flip and kickoff to start OT. You just pick up where you left off.

 

While this gives a team with a tie late the opportunity to extend out their drive, it doesn't do away with the strategic element completely. Yea you could stall out your drive and then score in the first minute of OT, but then you've given the other team ample time. That said, if you can milk out a 5 minute drive, good for you.

 

I think too many people approach it with a "fairness" doctrine about trading possessions. But at the end of the day, sometimes teams get an extra possession. It's not strictly a equal possession game in the vain of say baseball. But we could eliminate a random coin flip from determining that possible extra possession. The kickoff at halftime is already designed to even out those odds. So we just continue on.

 

The only real tough part I think is how to treat TO. One timeouts? No timeouts? A standard 2 minute stopage? And coming up with an appropriate minute time on the OT period that isn't arbitrary. Maybe like median drive times in 4th Q for a team with a tie or down by 7 or less?

 

So with a continuation in the game last night, the Chiefs have to kick the FG to tie the game, but then kick off to the Bills in normal continuation. Or are you saying they have a choice to not tie at the end of regulation, but instead could run out the time in the continuation period and potentially win on a walk off TD? Is that basically having a 65 minute game instead of 60?

[Brian707]

Looking ahead to Championship Sunday.

 

AFC Bengals at Chiefs(-7)

 

NFC 49ers at Rams (-3.5)

 

I think the Chiefs roll the Bengals but that 9ers-Rams game should be a good one.

[UMFan83]

Looking ahead to Championship Sunday.

 

AFC Bengals at Chiefs(-7)

 

NFC 49ers at Rams (-3.5)

 

I think the Chiefs roll the Bengals but that 9ers-Rams game should be a good one.

 

My first thought was that if any team can keep up with the Chiefs like the Bills did, its the Bengals. But I also see they've only scored 19 and 26 points in their playoff games and have only been average at moving the ball (and both the Raiders and Titans are average defenses at best). They could break out though...the Chiefs defense is even worse and the Bengals did put up 34 on them a few weeks ago.

 

I'm taking both underdogs against the spread but only one underdog to win outright - the Niners

[imb]

i dont understand any argument against extending the OT in the playoffs. Regular season I couldn't care less. But postseason OT is super high stakes, it's the most compelling football possible. And you want less of it? Both teams need a chance to have the ball in the playoffs. I've seen people this morning saying "well the bills should have stopped them." But that's the point, if the toss had been the other way, the Bills are gonna go down and score too. KC wasn't going to stop them. There's no argument against not letting both teams have a possession.

[WrigleyField 22]

Saw someone tweet in favor of just a "continuation rule" and I gotta say I don't hate it after mulling it over.

 

Basically you'd add a full OT period, say 5 minutes and you'd continue to play until one team was leading at the end of a 5 minute period. This does away with a coin flip and kickoff to start OT. You just pick up where you left off.

 

While this gives a team with a tie late the opportunity to extend out their drive, it doesn't do away with the strategic element completely. Yea you could stall out your drive and then score in the first minute of OT, but then you've given the other team ample time. That said, if you can milk out a 5 minute drive, good for you.

 

I think too many people approach it with a "fairness" doctrine about trading possessions. But at the end of the day, sometimes teams get an extra possession. It's not strictly a equal possession game in the vain of say baseball. But we could eliminate a random coin flip from determining that possible extra possession. The kickoff at halftime is already designed to even out those odds. So we just continue on.

 

The only real tough part I think is how to treat TO. One timeouts? No timeouts? A standard 2 minute stopage? And coming up with an appropriate minute time on the OT period that isn't arbitrary. Maybe like median drive times in 4th Q for a team with a tie or down by 7 or less?

 

So with a continuation in the game last night, the Chiefs have to kick the FG to tie the game, but then kick off to the Bills in normal continuation. Or are you saying they have a choice to not tie at the end of regulation, but instead could run out the time in the continuation period and potentially win on a walk off TD? Is that basically having a 65 minute game instead of 60?

No, KC still would have to score in 13 seconds to force the tie. But then yea, game continues from last spot. In that case the spot is the kickoff.

 

The theory behind it is that the halftime KO already gave each team equal chances to gain the possession edge at one of the halves. After that point, any possession edge is only time based which is game flow dependent and reliant on strategy and execution. But we don't have to guarantee equal possession because that's not football.

 

As it played out theres no valid reason for KC to get back to back possession, its 100% luck.

[Andy]

 

If that first number includes the playoffs, interestingly enough, that means in the regular season it's 76-66-10, or the coin-toss winner wins the game exactly half the time.

[WrigleyField 22]

i dont understand any argument against extending the OT in the playoffs. Regular season I couldn't care less. But postseason OT is super high stakes, it's the most compelling football possible. And you want less of it? Both teams need a chance to have the ball in the playoffs. I've seen people this morning saying "well the bills should have stopped them." But that's the point, if the toss had been the other way, the Bills are gonna go down and score too. KC wasn't going to stop them. There's no argument against not letting both teams have a possession.

I agree except I think game clock management should still be a component, IMO. No one argues that if the 2nd half receiving team wins the game on an ending possession that the loser should get to respond, even though the other team got an extra possession. The clock just falls that way sometimes where teams dont posses equal number of times. As long as OT is a timed play that goes to the end, then we get more football and don't alter the gameplay. Just a matter on the right length of extension and how many TO or stoppages to include.

 

But the coin flip is total nonsense and that should be the primary goal, eliminating a coin flip to alter who might get an extra possession. KC actually ended up with two extra possessions on the night (although one was a 13 second possession so kudos to them).

[WrigleyField 22]

Or let's just go fully on making NFL a possession based game.

 

9 innings with two halves. Each half inning is capped at 4 minutes and the game ends at 9 innings unless its tied and we trade innings until there is a winner.

 

Think of how many ugly Bears games this could save us from, we could never see more than 9 3 and outs! End the terrible slogs of a game way before 3 hours and the shootouts can go on for like 5 as Allen and Mahomes led offenses trade possessions forever.

[raw]

Saw someone tweet in favor of just a "continuation rule" and I gotta say I don't hate it after mulling it over.

 

Basically you'd add a full OT period, say 5 minutes and you'd continue to play until one team was leading at the end of a 5 minute period. This does away with a coin flip and kickoff to start OT. You just pick up where you left off.

 

While this gives a team with a tie late the opportunity to extend out their drive, it doesn't do away with the strategic element completely. Yea you could stall out your drive and then score in the first minute of OT, but then you've given the other team ample time. That said, if you can milk out a 5 minute drive, good for you.

 

I think too many people approach it with a "fairness" doctrine about trading possessions. But at the end of the day, sometimes teams get an extra possession. It's not strictly a equal possession game in the vain of say baseball. But we could eliminate a random coin flip from determining that possible extra possession. The kickoff at halftime is already designed to even out those odds. So we just continue on.

 

The only real tough part I think is how to treat TO. One timeouts? No timeouts? A standard 2 minute stopage? And coming up with an appropriate minute time on the OT period that isn't arbitrary. Maybe like median drive times in 4th Q for a team with a tie or down by 7 or less?

 

So with a continuation in the game last night, the Chiefs have to kick the FG to tie the game, but then kick off to the Bills in normal continuation. Or are you saying they have a choice to not tie at the end of regulation, but instead could run out the time in the continuation period and potentially win on a walk off TD? Is that basically having a 65 minute game instead of 60?

No, KC still would have to score in 13 seconds to force the tie. But then yea, game continues from last spot. In that case the spot is the kickoff.

 

The theory behind it is that the halftime KO already gave each team equal chances to gain the possession edge at one of the halves. After that point, any possession edge is only time based which is game flow dependent and reliant on strategy and execution. But we don't have to guarantee equal possession because that's not football.

 

As it played out theres no valid reason for KC to get back to back possession, its 100% luck.

 

"That's not football" is the argument I have seen a bunch since yesterday. But you can't have sudden death and then give only 1 team the opportunity for the kill. It's like 1 team getting penalty kicks, penalty shots, a chance to score a basket, a chance to bat. That's the difference between regulation, it's not sudden death. You have a clear ending to regulation. You don't have a clear ending to OT. It's not even true sudden death. It's sudden death, if you do this (score a TD). And it gets magnified when you have one of the best offensive teams in the history of the sport. I get it, and you can't have 1 offs, but seems disingenous to say, "welp, should have stopped them" when nobody is very good at stopping them. Same if the shoe was on the other foot and Buffalo got the ball.

[CubinNY]

The NCAA overtime rules should be established in the NFL. They create so much excitement and fun.

[minnesotacubsfan]

The NCAA overtime rules should be established in the NFL. They create so much excitement and fun.

 

they are better then what the NFL has

[jumbo]

i dont understand any argument against extending the OT in the playoffs. Regular season I couldn't care less. But postseason OT is super high stakes, it's the most compelling football possible. And you want less of it? Both teams need a chance to have the ball in the playoffs. I've seen people this morning saying "well the bills should have stopped them." But that's the point, if the toss had been the other way, the Bills are gonna go down and score too. KC wasn't going to stop them. There's no argument against not letting both teams have a possession.

I agree except I think game clock management should still be a component, IMO. No one argues that if the 2nd half receiving team wins the game on an ending possession that the loser should get to respond, even though the other team got an extra possession. The clock just falls that way sometimes where teams dont posses equal number of times. As long as OT is a timed play that goes to the end, then we get more football and don't alter the gameplay. Just a matter on the right length of extension and how many TO or stoppages to include.

 

But the coin flip is total nonsense and that should be the primary goal, eliminating a coin flip to alter who might get an extra possession. KC actually ended up with two extra possessions on the night (although one was a 13 second possession so kudos to them).

 

I want a 10 minute period, whoever leads at the end wins. But, what if there was no coin flip for overtime - whichever team received the first quarter kick off gets the ball first. This would go against the current league tendency to kick off the game and receive the second half kick off in hope to score twice in a row (finishing first half and starting second half). Minor wrinkle, but could add another layer of strategy to the first decision of the game.

[jumbo]

 

So with a continuation in the game last night, the Chiefs have to kick the FG to tie the game, but then kick off to the Bills in normal continuation. Or are you saying they have a choice to not tie at the end of regulation, but instead could run out the time in the continuation period and potentially win on a walk off TD? Is that basically having a 65 minute game instead of 60?

No, KC still would have to score in 13 seconds to force the tie. But then yea, game continues from last spot. In that case the spot is the kickoff.

 

The theory behind it is that the halftime KO already gave each team equal chances to gain the possession edge at one of the halves. After that point, any possession edge is only time based which is game flow dependent and reliant on strategy and execution. But we don't have to guarantee equal possession because that's not football.

 

As it played out theres no valid reason for KC to get back to back possession, its 100% luck.

 

"That's not football" is the argument I have seen a bunch since yesterday. But you can't have sudden death and then give only 1 team the opportunity for the kill. It's like 1 team getting penalty kicks, penalty shots, a chance to score a basket, a chance to bat. That's the difference between regulation, it's not sudden death. You have a clear ending to regulation. You don't have a clear ending to OT. It's not even true sudden death. It's sudden death, if you do this (score a TD). And it gets magnified when you have one of the best offensive teams in the history of the sport. I get it, and you can't have 1 offs, but seems disingenous to say, "welp, should have stopped them" when nobody is very good at stopping them. Same if the shoe was on the other foot and Buffalo got the ball.

 

Nobody's great at just stopping them partly because the NFL continues to change the rules so you can't stop them. The OT rules do not fit the long term shift in the game to offense.

The NFL had to be thrilled with that shootout, though. Amazing back and forth that the must have imagined at some point in the past

[WrigleyField 22]

 

So with a continuation in the game last night, the Chiefs have to kick the FG to tie the game, but then kick off to the Bills in normal continuation. Or are you saying they have a choice to not tie at the end of regulation, but instead could run out the time in the continuation period and potentially win on a walk off TD? Is that basically having a 65 minute game instead of 60?

No, KC still would have to score in 13 seconds to force the tie. But then yea, game continues from last spot. In that case the spot is the kickoff.

 

The theory behind it is that the halftime KO already gave each team equal chances to gain the possession edge at one of the halves. After that point, any possession edge is only time based which is game flow dependent and reliant on strategy and execution. But we don't have to guarantee equal possession because that's not football.

 

As it played out theres no valid reason for KC to get back to back possession, its 100% luck.

 

"That's not football" is the argument I have seen a bunch since yesterday. But you can't have sudden death and then give only 1 team the opportunity for the kill. It's like 1 team getting penalty kicks, penalty shots, a chance to score a basket, a chance to bat. That's the difference between regulation, it's not sudden death. You have a clear ending to regulation. You don't have a clear ending to OT. It's not even true sudden death. It's sudden death, if you do this (score a TD). And it gets magnified when you have one of the best offensive teams in the history of the sport. I get it, and you can't have 1 offs, but seems disingenous to say, "welp, should have stopped them" when nobody is very good at stopping them. Same if the shoe was on the other foot and Buffalo got the ball.

Well to be clear, the argument is to play a full timed period, not sudden death. But with no caveat for equal possession/response.

 

If it's a 5 minute continuation and KC can milk a 5 minute drive, that IS just football. Not sure what the ideal continuation time would be. In last night's game 6 possessions went over 5 minutes and 7 went under 2 (excluding two that ended at the half). So there's still a wide range of possible outcomes with a full timed OT period, none of which have to guarantee exact equal score and response action.

[WrigleyField 22]

i dont understand any argument against extending the OT in the playoffs. Regular season I couldn't care less. But postseason OT is super high stakes, it's the most compelling football possible. And you want less of it? Both teams need a chance to have the ball in the playoffs. I've seen people this morning saying "well the bills should have stopped them." But that's the point, if the toss had been the other way, the Bills are gonna go down and score too. KC wasn't going to stop them. There's no argument against not letting both teams have a possession.

I agree except I think game clock management should still be a component, IMO. No one argues that if the 2nd half receiving team wins the game on an ending possession that the loser should get to respond, even though the other team got an extra possession. The clock just falls that way sometimes where teams dont posses equal number of times. As long as OT is a timed play that goes to the end, then we get more football and don't alter the gameplay. Just a matter on the right length of extension and how many TO or stoppages to include.

 

But the coin flip is total nonsense and that should be the primary goal, eliminating a coin flip to alter who might get an extra possession. KC actually ended up with two extra possessions on the night (although one was a 13 second possession so kudos to them).

 

I want a 10 minute period, whoever leads at the end wins. But, what if there was no coin flip for overtime - whichever team received the first quarter kick off gets the ball first. This would go against the current league tendency to kick off the game and receive the second half kick off in hope to score twice in a row (finishing first half and starting second half). Minor wrinkle, but could add another layer of strategy to the first decision of the game.

Yea, saw someone suggest that. Don't hate it. I guess part of teams choice to defer is heavily influenced by the desire to have a shot at the extra possession in the second half and this makes them "pay" for that advantage. But still makes a coin flip very influential. Today, the coin flip is more formality since halftime will flip possession odds.

 

The other benefit of two 5 minute timed halves would also be limiting any potential directional weather advantages, but I'm not as worried about that cuz weather can change and it only impacts non-domed teams (or Dallas lol)

[UMFan83]

How about this OT proposal from John Harbaugh?

 

One team picks the spot of the ball to start it off, and the other chooses whether to take the ball. The game proceeds for another seven minutes and 30 seconds.

[OleMissCub]

How about this OT proposal from John Harbaugh?

 

One team picks the spot of the ball to start it off, and the other chooses whether to take the ball. The game proceeds for another seven minutes and 30 seconds.

 

why would a team ever NOT take the ball, regardless of where it is spotted. I can't think of any scenarios.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How about this OT proposal from John Harbaugh?

 

One team picks the spot of the ball to start it off, and the other chooses whether to take the ball. The game proceeds for another seven minutes and 30 seconds.

 

why would a team ever NOT take the ball, regardless of where it is spotted. I can't think of any scenarios.

 

I don't know a ton about the specific expected value from various drive starting points, but I would guess that there's a point where the expected points from each team's first drive tip in the favor of the team without the ball to start because of field position. And with the time it takes for 2 drives you'd be signing up to likely be ahead with only a couple minutes left at most. The prisoner's dilemma of one team picking spot and the other team picking ball would keep that advantage from being too extreme though, if you pick the 1 your opponent is gonna stick you there, but if you pick the 10? The 15? Probably closer to a coin flip(again, with the caveat that I know nothing about football probabilities)

[WrigleyField 22]

How about this OT proposal from John Harbaugh?

 

 

why would a team ever NOT take the ball, regardless of where it is spotted. I can't think of any scenarios.

 

I don't know a ton about the specific expected value from various drive starting points, but I would guess that there's a point where the expected points from each team's first drive tip in the favor of the team without the ball to start because of field position. And with the time it takes for 2 drives you'd be signing up to likely be ahead with only a couple minutes left at most. The prisoner's dilemma of one team picking spot and the other team picking ball would keep that advantage from being too extreme though, if you pick the 1 your opponent is gonna stick you there, but if you pick the 10? The 15? Probably closer to a coin flip(again, with the caveat that I know nothing about football probabilities)

Yea, this sounds right. Probably would end up being highly opponent dependent, but if I'm facing Mahomes or Allen I'm probably chosing the 1 yard line and fully expecting them to take the ball. But we'd have zero data the first year. It would be great to have decisions with no conventional wisdom to back up the choice.

[UMFan83]

How about this OT proposal from John Harbaugh?

 

One team picks the spot of the ball to start it off, and the other chooses whether to take the ball. The game proceeds for another seven minutes and 30 seconds.

 

why would a team ever NOT take the ball, regardless of where it is spotted. I can't think of any scenarios.

 

I could see it if the other team picks the 1 yard line. Even for an elite offense like the Chiefs it can be hard to get out of your own end zone and if they can't get a 1st, suddenly the other team gets great field position.

 

Also its not sudden death so it helps the team that gets the ball 2nd unless the other team goes on a 99 yard drive that eats up the entire 7:30

[UMFan83]

 

why would a team ever NOT take the ball, regardless of where it is spotted. I can't think of any scenarios.

 

I don't know a ton about the specific expected value from various drive starting points, but I would guess that there's a point where the expected points from each team's first drive tip in the favor of the team without the ball to start because of field position. And with the time it takes for 2 drives you'd be signing up to likely be ahead with only a couple minutes left at most. The prisoner's dilemma of one team picking spot and the other team picking ball would keep that advantage from being too extreme though, if you pick the 1 your opponent is gonna stick you there, but if you pick the 10? The 15? Probably closer to a coin flip(again, with the caveat that I know nothing about football probabilities)

Yea, this sounds right. Probably would end up being highly opponent dependent, but if I'm facing Mahomes or Allen I'm probably chosing the 1 yard line and fully expecting them to take the ball. But we'd have zero data the first year. It would be great to have decisions with no conventional wisdom to back up the choice.

 

I also think that it gives the other team at least some control over the outcome of the game, being able to choose the yard line. If they are too aggressive and get stuck with the ball and ultimately lose, its on the coach for making the wrong choice. Compared to a coin flip which is literally random luck and no human involvement.

[OleMissCub]

How about this OT proposal from John Harbaugh?

 

 

why would a team ever NOT take the ball, regardless of where it is spotted. I can't think of any scenarios.

 

I could see it if the other team picks the 1 yard line. Even for an elite offense like the Chiefs it can be hard to get out of your own end zone and if they can't get a 1st, suddenly the other team gets great field position.

 

Also its not sudden death so it helps the team that gets the ball 2nd unless the other team goes on a 99 yard drive that eats up the entire 7:30

 

Ok I guess I’m just confused about this, so help me out.

 

Team A picks the 1 yard line. If Team B defers does Team A get the ball at that spot wherein they’d only have to go 1 yard to score? That’s how I read that proposal, thus my confusion about why a team would ever defer.

[UMFan83]

 

why would a team ever NOT take the ball, regardless of where it is spotted. I can't think of any scenarios.

 

I could see it if the other team picks the 1 yard line. Even for an elite offense like the Chiefs it can be hard to get out of your own end zone and if they can't get a 1st, suddenly the other team gets great field position.

 

Also its not sudden death so it helps the team that gets the ball 2nd unless the other team goes on a 99 yard drive that eats up the entire 7:30

 

Ok I guess I’m just confused about this, so help me out.

 

Team A picks the 1 yard line. If Team B defers does Team A get the ball at that spot wherein they’d only have to go 1 yard to score? That’s how I read that proposal, thus my confusion about why a team would ever defer.

 

Team A wins the toss

Team B chooses the 1 yard line

Team A can choose whether to take the ball at their own 1 yard line OR have Team B start at their own 1.

 

Rest of the game proceeds as normal.