Unpopular Opinion: Last night showed that the NFL OT rules are great as-is

[ET80]

4 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

You're looking at it wrong. Impartial doesn't mean going either way, it means NOT going either way

I think we're arguing semantics at this point, so I'll define my stance as such - the coin is flipped, could mean you lead off on offense or defense. You need to be prepared for either outcome. If you're not, you'll lose. 

Hold a team to a FG, and you get your shot.

5 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

Of course they wouldn't

And this is what's so frustrating. I'm just as tired of the Patriots, but I don't think a fundamental reworking of the rules is the answer - unless it's some egregious miss (Rams v Saints PI no-call).

6 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

But the rules shouldn't be changed because one QB or team did or didn't get a chance, the rules should be changed because the rule is bad every single time.

Once again, I disagree - if the rule was bad then we'd have a disproportionate amount of Ws for the team that won the coin toss, and I think someone showed where the win rate is 50% - about as down the middle as you can draw it (heck, this past weekend was a 50% split on winning the coin toss). 

How is that a bad rule? If it's figuratively not slanted in one direction or another, if there is no documented advantage from every game outside of this game (and highly questionable that this was an advantage to begin with) what's the issue?

[TXsteeler]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

the coin is flipped, could mean you lead off on offense or defense. You need to be prepared for either outcome. If you're not, you'll lose. 

Would it be fair if the home team was guaranteed to get the ball first every time? Both teams would have plenty of time in advance to be prepared to play.

 

2 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Once again, I disagree - if the rule was bad then we'd have a disproportionate amount of Ws for the team that won the coin toss, and I think someone showed where the win rate is 50% - about as down the middle as you can draw it (heck, this past weekend was a 50% split on winning the coin toss). 

How is that a bad rule? If it's figuratively not slanted in one direction or another, if there is no documented advantage from every game outside of this game (and highly questionable that this was an advantage to begin with) what's the issue?

How often do teams elect to defer the ball in OT? If it's basically 50/50, why is that number 0?

[ET80]

10 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

Would it be fair if the home team was guaranteed to get the ball first every time? Both teams would have plenty of time in advance to be prepared to play

...what are you even talking about? Tell me an instance where this has ever happened at the college or pro level.

You're creating hypotheticals that have absolutely zero base in reality. In the meantime, OT possession has been determined by a coin toss since the beginning of the SB era (and probably before that) and nobody has complained about it until this discussion (and that one time Jerome Bettis called heads, got heads, but the ref thought he said tails). 

10 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

How often do teams elect to defer the ball in OT? If it's basically 50/50, why is that number 0?

If what is basically 50/50? The W/L rate for teams that win the coin toss? It's because the team that lost the coin toss played defense.

Teams don't defer because they want to score first. It's not illegal to stop them... which is my point.

[btfd16]

34 minutes ago, ET80 said:

If what is basically 50/50? The W/L rate for teams that win the coin toss? It's because the team that lost the coin toss played defense.

Teams don't defer because they want to score first. It's not illegal to stop them... which is my point.

 

[Jotun_Fan]

I think the current system is the best of the other options we've seen.

How would you guys feel about:  Current rules are the same in terms of first possession TD scoring or first to score after that, but instead of a coin toss each team puts in a bid 1-50.  Lowest bid gets the ball first, but they start with the ball at that yardline.  If bids are equal then it's a coin toss I guess.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

3 minutes ago, btfd16 said:

 

So you’re saying there’s statistical proof you have a nearly 3 percent better chance of winning if you win the toss?

And you’re ok with this?!?!?!?

 

 

 

Kidding, of course.....

[Tetsujin]

3 hours ago, ET80 said:

Well, if the leading defense in sacks bothered hitting the field on any of those third downs, you would have got what you wanted.

Alas, they didn't. They got walked on, in fact. Trying to re-write the rules because of that reeks of "everyone gets a medal" culture.

If KC wanted to get their offense on the field, they should have played defense. Period.

"Everyone gets a medal." LOL

NE gave up 24 points in the 4th quarter and couldn't stop KC. You just gave NE a medal for playing one half of the ball for one drive and not having to play defense. You still can't provide a justification why New England's defense shouldn't have had to go up against Mahomes in OT, if we're trying to come up with a just scenario.

You state PLAY DEFENSE, but New England's defense never had to literally show up in overtime, aside from not showing up in the 4th quarter (figuratively). There's a reason no other major sport has an OT system like this.

[Tetsujin]

That W% stat is meaningless. Different teams, different matchups. What would the W% be by the coin-toss winning team if the matchup was KC/NE done 100 times? 65%+?

[FrantikRam]

I prefer to kick off in OT. Then when you stop the other team you just need a FG to win. I wouldn't change it.

[Tetsujin]

10 minutes ago, Jotun_Fan said:

I think the current system is the best of the other options we've seen.

How would you guys feel about:  Current rules are the same in terms of first possession TD scoring or first to score after that, but instead of a coin toss each team puts in a bid 1-50.  Lowest bid gets the ball first, but they start with the ball at that yardline.  If bids are equal then it's a coin toss I guess.

Here's my crazy idea, which still has a few kinks in it:

Whoever has the ball, when it's tied towards the end of the game, can choose to play fast and win it in regulation or not. If not. after the clock hits 0:00, they'll still keep the ball and the game will continue as normal, but any score after that can be countered by the other team. Keeps the flow of the game going and creates a lot of interesting strategy options.

[ET80]

10 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

NE gave up 24 points in the 4th quarter and couldn't stop KC. 

... but they managed to hold that KC offense pretty much for three quarters. So, there's that. Had that KC offense did anything before halftime, maybe it ends differently. Had Dee Ford not been offsides, maybe KC wins. 

None of those things happened. Kudos to Mahomes and Co. for making a game if it, but they had 45 minutes to do something. It's not on anyone other than KC that they waited for the last 15 minutes to make their push.

10 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

You just gave NE a medal for playing one half of the ball for one drive and not having to play defense. 

Not really - NE scored a TD on the opening drive. They converted three 3rd and 10s on that drive. That drive should have been stopped, but it wasn't. 

What more do I need to know? The game was already 60 minutes long, the first half and 3rd quarter was very pro-NE, KC made a run of it late, but couldn't end it in regulation and couldn't gain a possession in OT because their defense could not make one play.

10 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

There's a reason no other major sport has an OT system like this.

Hockey and soccer have "golden goal" rules that end the game on the first  goal scored in OT. So, not sure where you're getting your information from.

[ET80]

13 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

That W% stat is meaningless. Different teams, different matchups

But all of them played under the same rule - score a TD, game over. Force a turnover/punt, kick a FG, game over.

It's not like the underlying rules of the situation changed, so that stat has much more meaning then you're giving it credit for.

[Tetsujin]

6 minutes ago, ET80 said:

 

Hockey and soccer have "golden goal" rules that end the game on the first  goal scored in OT. So, not sure where you're getting your information from.

Offense and defense is played by both teams during OT.

You said the drive "should've been stopped". Why? Was KC's defense better than New England's offense? Maybe NE "should've scored", which they're more likely to do. I think they scored on exactly half of their drives during the game, anyhow.
 

[dtait93]

Imagine this: Scoring more points than your opponent in regulation so it doesn’t have to go to OT. Crazy I know.

KC had ample opportunity to win the game. It is their fault that they didn’t. It is their fault for putting up a donut in the first half. It is their fault for not stopping Brady and co. in the 4th quarter when the offense finally started clicking. It is their fault for lining up offsides after an interception that would have ended the game. It is their fault for not stopping Brady and co. in OT. Don’t want to go to a coin toss because you think it’s unfair? Then shut up and win the damn game in regulation when it’s, “fair.”

[ET80]

44 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

Offense and defense is played by both teams during OT.

And if a soccer/hockey team plays bad/no defense out there, they're gonna lose - no matter how good their offense is.

Same with NE/KC.

44 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

You said the drive "should've been stopped". Why? Was KC's defense better than New England's offense?

They forced a turnover on downs on a 4th and 2, they picked off Brady in the middle of the 4th in a deflection and they nearly ended the game on a pick (had Dee Ford not lined up offsides). 

So they were good enough to get that far, that comeback isn't just "Pat Mahomes playing Madden on rookie" football, that defense stepped up BIG in th 4th. Then, they didn't.

They just weren't good enough to finish the job. 

45 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

Maybe NE "should've scored", which they're more likely to do. I think they scored on exactly half of their drives during the game, anyhow

Three 3rd and 10s in a ROW. So the KC defense did what was asked of them on 1st/2nd down, they held the Patriots to disadvantages on 3rd down - but on those third downs, they let Julian Edelman get open twice and they single covered Gronk (which is just an unforgivable game plan, regardless of how much Gronk has regressed). Why should we reward such incompetent game planning and execution on defense? 

If KC could muster up on ANY of those 3/10s with the same execution as the 4th and 2 or the interception, then they get the ball and only have to kick it with a guy who has a great leg. So, we're crying about this TD scored, but nobody is pining over how KC simply has to drive 50 yards to end it IF that KC defense made a stop on one of the 3/10s?

Again - this whole argument has an "everyone gets a medal" mentality. KC doesn't get anything for showing up on 1/2 down and taking a break on 3rd down three times in a row.