TecmoSuperJoe Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 9 minutes ago, Xenos said: Go for two then. Didn't the Ravens a few months ago get a bunch of **** for doing that against the Packers? Damned either way I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said: Didn't the Ravens a few months ago get a bunch of **** for doing that against the Packers? Damned either way I guess. So what? It doesn’t change that it was the right decision at the time. Staley and the Chargers also got a ton of unfair criticism after the second Chiefs and Raiders game for their 4th down analytics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 Why is so much emphasis being placed on future malcontents in this thread? That's so weird. There should be fewer people that support a future move than supported this first move, especially when you consider what @Broncofan said earlier about the strategy that will be involved in trading TDs on the first two possession. People complain. I mean, this thread is littered by people who are seriously complaining about the future complaining of people who will be unsatisfied with this rule change. If that's the reason not to change the rule (future complaints), that's absurd. Is this new overtime better, worse or a net zero compared to the existing rule? That's all that matters. I mostly think its a net zero, but I will likely get some game down the line that gives me a more entertainment and enjoyment with the additional possessions, and for that alone I feel like it's a win. If it's worse, I'd like for someone to explain to me why it's worse outside of the "get off my lawn" energy that is being put out there, because that's mostly what I'm getting from people. The only real argument I've seen if the one about defense, but I don't get how the importance of defense is being lessened in this situation by making both teams having to play it. I guess there's a "you don't need to change what's not broke" stance that you can roll with, but that's also an impressive way not to improve anything either. So I guess that is just a philosophical difference you're probably never going to meet eye to eye on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefer Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 I feel like player safety is second to entertainment yet again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 5 minutes ago, Chiefer said: I feel like player safety is second to entertainment yet again Does the NFLPA have to sign off? (But yes, you are correct) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 37 minutes ago, Forge said: Why is so much emphasis being placed on future malcontents in this thread? That's so weird. There should be fewer people that support a future move than supported this first move, especially when you consider what @Broncofan said earlier about the strategy that will be involved in trading TDs on the first two possession. People complain. I mean, this thread is littered by people who are seriously complaining about the future complaining of people who will be unsatisfied with this rule change. If that's the reason not to change the rule (future complaints), that's absurd. Is this new overtime better, worse or a net zero compared to the existing rule? That's all that matters. I mostly think its a net zero, but I will likely get some game down the line that gives me a more entertainment and enjoyment with the additional possessions, and for that alone I feel like it's a win. If it's worse, I'd like for someone to explain to me why it's worse outside of the "get off my lawn" energy that is being put out there, because that's mostly what I'm getting from people. The only real argument I've seen if the one about defense, but I don't get how the importance of defense is being lessened in this situation by making both teams having to play it. I guess there's a "you don't need to change what's not broke" stance that you can roll with, but that's also an impressive way not to improve anything either. So I guess that is just a philosophical difference you're probably never going to meet eye to eye on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 Now announce the elimination of ties in the regular season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Xenos said: So what? It doesn’t change that it was the right decision at the time. Staley and the Chargers also got a ton of unfair criticism after the second Chiefs and Raiders game for their 4th down analytics. Depends who you ask. A lot of people won't see the forest from the trees in that regard, and only count the results. Hopefully one's employer can have foresight in that arena. Harbaugh in Baltimore just got extended at least. Hopefully for Staley he gets more breaks like that go his way moving forward. Edited March 30, 2022 by TecmoSuperJoe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 2 hours ago, Forge said: I guess there's a "you don't need to change what's not broke" stance that you can roll with, but that's also an impressive way not to improve anything either. So I guess that is just a philosophical difference you're probably never going to meet eye to eye on. This is where I'm at Forge. I don't see this as a clear improvement on the OT rules, so it shouldn't have warranted another change. Wouldn't take that stance with everything though. Just in this particular case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awsi Dooger Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 College overtime is a disgrace. I click away every time. The end of the games was so much more riveting before overtime, when you knew darn well the trailing team faved a pivotal decision. Some of the greatest games in college football history came down to a late 2 point conversion, like Miami/Nebraska 1983, Miami/Florida State 1987 and Miami/Notre Dame 1988. The eventual national champion was decided all 3 times, with the Canes' legacy partially based on coming out ahead in 2 out of 3. I've never understood the concept of fairness once the game reaches overtime. For example, it would be hilarious if curling suddenly rationalized that both teams needed the hammer at least once if the game goes into extra ends. Anyway, without studying anything it seems to me the kicking team is greatly advantaged by attempting an onside kick, if there is any weakness in the opponent's receiving formation or personnel. You don't have much to lose if you'll get the ball anyway. But if you succeed then it nullifies the opponent possession and you can win with a mere field goal. That would be particularly true of a team with an outmatched quarterback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 6 hours ago, Forge said: Why is so much emphasis being placed on future malcontents in this thread? That's so weird. There should be fewer people that support a future move than supported this first move, especially when you consider what @Broncofan said earlier about the strategy that will be involved in trading TDs on the first two possession. People complain. I mean, this thread is littered by people who are seriously complaining about the future complaining of people who will be unsatisfied with this rule change. If that's the reason not to change the rule (future complaints), that's absurd. Is this new overtime better, worse or a net zero compared to the existing rule? That's all that matters. I mostly think its a net zero, but I will likely get some game down the line that gives me a more entertainment and enjoyment with the additional possessions, and for that alone I feel like it's a win. If it's worse, I'd like for someone to explain to me why it's worse outside of the "get off my lawn" energy that is being put out there, because that's mostly what I'm getting from people. The only real argument I've seen if the one about defense, but I don't get how the importance of defense is being lessened in this situation by making both teams having to play it. I guess there's a "you don't need to change what's not broke" stance that you can roll with, but that's also an impressive way not to improve anything either. So I guess that is just a philosophical difference you're probably never going to meet eye to eye on. The thing is, after that Chiefs-Bills game, no one was clamoring to see the Chiefs defense take the field. No one was pounding the table to see Kansas City take the field against Josh Allen, they wanted to see an offensive rebuttal. This is a rule change for more offense, not for more defense. I definitely think this lessens the important of defense, certainly more so than it does the opposite. In traditional OT, if the defense effs up - it’s over. If the offense effs up? Still got a chance (barring a pick six). This gives your defense a one free screw up card. Look, I’m in the minority around here and push for college OT pretty frequently. I’m not going to sit here and pretend that there’s no excitement in a good back-and-forth. But what the NFL brings to the table is excitement that the game can end at any moment (in overtime). Yeah, that can still happen on a defensive TD or something to that effect, but I think it’s safe to say that this change takes away from the “sudden death” part that the NFL was unique in. For me, that’s a net negative in terms of excitement. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 19 hours ago, notthatbluestuff said: Cue mass outrage from the "so defense doesn't matter, huh?" crowd. You see, defense does matter. It matters so much that both teams need to demonstrate that their defense is up to the task of preventing a crucial score - one group shouldn't get off scot-free because they and their red-hot offense had the good fortune to win a coin toss. Yes, defense should matter but it is rather telling that for the past several years almost every rule change made has favored the offense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notthatbluestuff Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 6 hours ago, Yin-Yang said: but I think it’s safe to say that this change takes away from the “sudden death” part that the NFL was unique in. Unique? Check out playoff hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abstract_thought Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 (edited) Should have done the same for regular season OT. Edited March 30, 2022 by abstract_thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, abstract_thought said: Should have done the same for regular season OT. If they didn't add the extra game, I might agree. Since they did though, I don't think these guys need to take any more hits than they do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.