WrigleyField 22

I had to go relook up the new GM was again, honestly.

Wow really?!? That's so crazy, could have sworn that was the rule. Honestly though, there's no need to even have a coin toss. What purpose does it serve? Why not just continue play? It seems utterly pointless to reset play and then go Sudden death. Why?

Another gimmick idea. But saw someone suggest a spin on the blind bid for field position: Instead of chosing the starting yard line, chose that starting distance. So Reid would chose say 18. So it would be 1 and 18 and Bills can elect to start with ball or defer (from whatever fixed yard line, say own 25). True sudden death from there. I normally hate OT gimmicks but anything is better than a coin toss and all these prisoner dilemma gimmicks at least will create hours of Monday morning QB second guessing :lol:

Lol George

Also Minn is supposedly high on Poles and Denver on Quinn. If they landed a Poles/Quinn pairing that would be very nice that they landed guys away from those spots, IMO.

Tons of people saying Quinn would be expected to bring in a killer staff :dontknow: If he can bring in a great staff I'm open to it. Hopefully he's learned from ATL (which sound weird since he made a SB and all, but his run didn't end well there)

What about Denver?

Seems like a bad process tbh probably, but at this point who cares Hopefully Soup, Tanesha, Bill, Ted, and George.

Based on current names I agree. Ireland was a big one I didn't want but haven't heard much there. Part of that is its too hard to judge GMs. All first timers, but all seem reasonable so let's roll the damn dice. at this point my process would go do you like justin fields? yes - cool. no - eliminated will you hire Daboll? yes - cool. no eliminated should get there pretty quickly Seems like a bad process tbh

Based on current names I agree. Ireland was a big one I didn't want but haven't heard much there. Part of that is its too hard to judge GMs. All first timers, but all seem reasonable so let's roll the damn dice.

And a PFF Brad rumor with DBB confirmation for Ossenfort and Wolf:

Buried in a reply, but DBB says Rick Smith is not in consideration. He was "my guy" but I'll wait and see at this stage. Certainly wasn't the only compelling choice.

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 I thought the Ravens proposal was still sudden death? Also a similar prisoners dilemma sudden death proposed here (along with the Ravens one) https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/three-best-ways-to-fix-nfl-overtime-after-chiefs-wild-playoff-win-over-bills-brings-ot-rules-under-scrutiny/ I don't love these kind of gimmicks, but better than a coin toss. Would still much prefer a "continuation" or "two halves" solution with no sudden death (unless it's a 2 score mercy rule). Also my most controversial take is to end regular season ties at regulation.

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.

What context are you hearing it in? The question was about Payton's future with NO. The speculation is him possibly retiring and the Saints have no reason to let him out of his contract to join another team unless he forced his way out but as has been discussed on the internet, Payton will probably be linked to Chicago if he leaves NO I know its gasping at straws but this GM/coaching search is boring me right now. There's also speculation he would have big broadcast offers waiting for him. Wouldn't be the first guy to retire from coaching relatively young and leave the grind behind while he's still young enough to enjoy his millions and make comparable (or more?) money talking football 17 times a year for 3 hours.

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)

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.

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.

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).

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.

Eh? It's not the worst thing in the world, yet. If they don't have one until the super bowl, that's a problem. But there's nothing wrong with waiting until this week. There is if Daboll gets hired while Geo is pondering what salad to have at his next GM interview. He's had time, in fact this year he's had more time then in past Well one team has hired their GM and two teams have not (not counting LV since they got a late start). If given the choice I'm happy if their search looks more like Minny than NYG.

Fwiw

Yea I imagine at this point they've gotten through almost all their GM interviews and they haven't gotten enough positive feedback of Frazier as an option. Breer wrote an article about the Beads having multiple HC they are narrowing in on, and Frazier is one of them https://www.si.com/nfl/2022/01/24/mmqb-divisional-round-mcvay-stafford-mahomes-burrow So there's a lot of talk at this point. Trying to remain patient. I feel like GM search goes out to Thursday or Friday still.

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?

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.