Update: New NFL overtime rule…Both teams get ball in playoff games

[Giles]

How did they do their job? Did they stop Buffalo? They let Buffalo take the lead, TWICE in the 4th Q. This after blowing a 9 point lead. SO since you are all down on Buffalo not "doing their job", explain how KC did theirs?

They won simple as that. If Buffalo defense held them to a fg in ot (or just stopped them) would we be having this discussion? I can answer that for you...no we wouldn't and that's the point. Using your logic why pay or draft defensive players at all? Teams should put all their resources on the offense and just go for shootouts every game.

 

[tempests]

The NFL's overtime rules are antiquated. It is past time for a change. The way the Buffalo/KC game ended sucked.

If playing defense is such a requirement for winning in OT, ensuring both teams get a possession means both teams have to come up with a defensive stop to win. That's more fair and I see no reason to keep things the way they are.

 

[dieterbrock]

They won simple as that. If Buffalo defense held them to a fg in ot (or just stopped them) would we be having this discussion? I can answer that for you...no we wouldn't and that's the point. Using your logic why pay or draft defensive players at all? Teams should put all their resources on the offense and just go for shootouts every game.

So you are avoiding the question? And you have the audacity to call others lazy?
There is a simple answer. The difference between Buffalo and KC defenses having a chance to win, (or not lose) is predicated on the fact that KC didnt have to step on the field.
They failed miserably at the end of the game but didnt get exposed in OT.
Because of a coin flip....

 

[Giles]

So you are avoiding the question? And you have the audacity to call others lazy?
There is a simple answer. The difference between Buffalo and KC defenses having a chance to win, (or not lose) is predicated on the fact that KC didnt have to step on the field.
They failed miserably at the end of the game but didnt get exposed in OT.
Because of a coin flip....

Lmao says the guy bitching about the #1 defense not playing like it and blaming it on a coin flip. Talk about lazy.

 

[dieterbrock]

Lmao says the guy bitching about the #1 defense not playing like it and blaming it on a coin flip. Talk about lazy.

Wow, you really are a piece of work. You cant back up your opinions, and what you do post contradicts itself and now you're just going to make shit up?
Where am I bitching about the #1 defense not playing like it?
Good grief man, take a break, gather your thoughts
You actually said the KC defense did their job... Classic

 

[FrantikRam]

Well you are wrong, It is broken when both teams arent getting the same opportunity.
"Under these rules, coin toss winners ended up prevailing in 52.8 percent of overtime games, per NFL Research. That's far from decisive.
But in the playoffs, coin toss winners are 10-1, winning 90.9 percent of overtime contests. Seven of the 10 winners scored the sudden-death touchdown on the opening drive. New Orleans was the only team to lose, falling to the Rams in 2018, and that game had its own share of controversy in regulation."

Andy Reid empathizes with Bills after overtime loss: 'I wouldn't be opposed' to OT rules change

It was broken when they attempted to "fix" OT with the current rule. And it isnt working.

You said I was wrong and then quoted why I'm right.

You bolded a tiny sample size while ignoring the much larger data set which tells us that overall, the winner of the coin toss only wins 53% of the time. The more OT games we have in the playoffs, the more this will even out. See Bengals and Chiefs this season.

You want to change the rule because? I'm not sure. I thought it was because you think the coin toss decides the winner. But you were only talking about a game where neither team understood how to play defense?

Regardless of why you want to change the rule - it doesn't need changed. This is backed up by the FACT that the winner of the OT coin toss has only won 53% of the time. The only feasible argument is that extra 3% is an unfair advantage.

 

[Giles]

Wow, you really are a piece of work. You cant back up your opinions, and what you do post contradicts itself and now you're just going to make shit up?
Where am I bitching about the #1 defense not playing like it?
Good grief man, take a break, gather your thoughts
You actually said the KC defense did their job... Classic

If Buffalo defense did its job in ot their offense would have had a chance to win it. They didn't and that's why they lost and that's fact point blank period and nothing you say will change that. Blaming it on a coin flip is just bs.

 

[SAK11]

They won simple as that. If Buffalo defense held them to a fg in ot (or just stopped them) would we be having this discussion? I can answer that for you...no we wouldn't and that's the point. Using your logic why pay or draft defensive players at all? Teams should put all their resources on the offense and just go for shootouts every game.

Defense would still matter in this new overtime format. In fact, instead of potentially just one defense mattering, both defenses would get the chance to make a difference. And both offenses, too.

 

[dieterbrock]

You said I was wrong and then quoted why I'm right.

You bolded a tiny sample size while ignoring the much larger data set which tells us that overall, the winner of the coin toss only wins 53% of the time. The more OT games we have in the playoffs, the more this will even out. See Bengals and Chiefs this season.

You want to change the rule because? I'm not sure. I thought it was because you think the coin toss decides the winner. But you were only talking about a game where neither team understood how to play defense?

Regardless of why you want to change the rule - it doesn't need changed. This is backed up by the FACT that the winner of the OT coin toss has only won 53% of the time. The only feasible argument is that extra 3% is an unfair advantage.

You cant be serious
The rule is entirely broken when it is so one sided when it matters most. Losing a regular season game is not comparable to losing a playoff game. You have to be able to comprehend that right?
I'll repeat the statistic, But in the playoffs, coin toss winners are 10-1, winning 90.9 percent of overtime contests. Seven of the 10 winners scored the sudden-death touchdown on the opening drive
Its broken. Period

 

[dieterbrock]

If Buffalo defense did its job in ot their offense would have had a chance to win it. They didn't and that's why they lost and that's fact point blank period and nothing you say will change that. Blaming it on a coin flip is just bs.

Did KC defense do their job?

 

[Mackeyser]

This has to be the biggest lie in football. If Buffalo defense did its job then the offense would've had a chance to win the game in ot. They obviously didn't in regulation and ot hence why they lost. Shoot even holding them to a FG would've worked and they couldn't even do that. How some people can't see that is what's truly puzzling.

I understand what you're saying...

And...

the rules in the NFL give significant preference to the offense...

the refereeing in the NFL is not remotely consistent and typically the errors favor the offense...

especially in overtimes with two heavily offensive teams, the coin flip does make a difference...

But the data is the most striking. In the regular season, the coin flip gives a less than 2% advantage to the coin flip winner. In the playoffs, the coin flip winner wins over 80% of the time. So to go from a 2% differential to a 60% differential is striking and an imbalance that the league will want to address.

The argument you make could and has been made about every single rule change favoring the offense... and I know some fans would prefer to go back to the 70s style of football, but that's just never coming back.

The league wants competitive balance and when the data points to a gross imbalance, the league will address it. They have enough significant data to justify a change to the playoff overtime rules. The regular season overtime rules are fine and they are unlikely to change.

 

[FrantikRam]

I understand what you're saying...

And...

the rules in the NFL give significant preference to the offense...

the refereeing in the NFL is not remotely consistent and typically the errors favor the offense...

especially in overtimes with two heavily offensive teams, the coin flip does make a difference...

But the data is the most striking. In the regular season, the coin flip gives a less than 2% advantage to the coin flip winner. In the playoffs, the coin flip winner wins over 80% of the time. So to go from a 2% differential to a 60% differential is striking and an imbalance that the league will want to address.

The argument you make could and has been made about every single rule change favoring the offense... and I know some fans would prefer to go back to the 70s style of football, but that's just never coming back.

The league wants competitive balance and when the data points to a gross imbalance, the league will address it. They have enough significant data to justify a change to the playoff overtime rules. The regular season overtime rules are fine and they are unlikely to change.

The playoffs are just a small sample size that will even out

 

[Giles]

Did KC defense do their job?

They didn't have too because Buffalo do theirs. If Buffalo defense actually did something would we be having this discussion?

 

[Giles]

I understand what you're saying...

And...

the rules in the NFL give significant preference to the offense...

the refereeing in the NFL is not remotely consistent and typically the errors favor the offense...

especially in overtimes with two heavily offensive teams, the coin flip does make a difference...

But the data is the most striking. In the regular season, the coin flip gives a less than 2% advantage to the coin flip winner. In the playoffs, the coin flip winner wins over 80% of the time. So to go from a 2% differential to a 60% differential is striking and an imbalance that the league will want to address.

The argument you make could and has been made about every single rule change favoring the offense... and I know some fans would prefer to go back to the 70s style of football, but that's just never coming back.

The league wants competitive balance and when the data points to a gross imbalance, the league will address it. They have enough significant data to justify a change to the playoff overtime rules. The regular season overtime rules are fine and they are unlikely to change.

They don't have enough data, the rule change hasn't even been in place that long. I get where people are coming from but at the end of the day the defense has a job to do and in that game in particular neither teams defense decided to show up which is unacceptable especially for Buffalo with the #1 defense.

 

[dieterbrock]

They didn't have too because Buffalo do theirs. If Buffalo defense actually did something would we be having this discussion?

They didnt have to because they didnt have to
Which is exactly the point.
Both defenses had a chance to put the game away in regulation, and neither could.
Ergo, they go to overtime.
Where only 1 of the defenses has the opportunity to fail
KC defense didnt stop Buffalo just the same as Buffalo didnt stop KC.
Not an equal playing ground

 

[Giles]

They didnt have to because they didnt have to
Which is exactly the point.
Both defenses had a chance to put the game away in regulation, and neither could.
Ergo, they go to overtime.
Where only 1 of the defenses has the opportunity to fail
KC defense didnt stop Buffalo just the same as Buffalo didnt stop KC.
Not an equal playing ground

Obviously we're not in agreement. Agree to disagree.

 

[dieterbrock]

The playoffs are just a small sample size that will even out

It's not a small sample, in fact % wise its more valid than reg season
There have been 163 reg season OT games in the 10 years of the new format. 16 games x32 teams, 5,120 reg season games, only 163 resulted in OT. 3% of games.
In 12 years of format, 11 playoff games x 12 years, 132 possible games of which 11 have been OT. Over 8%
Its not a blip, its a trend.
I'd love to see the breakdown on the regular season games, how many of the games lost were games lost by teams with losing records? Its not the same competitive balance since the playoff OT games are comprised of teams that have winning records
Its indisputable at this point, was admittedly broken before the current format was installed, and is not working now

 

[Mackeyser]

They don't have enough data, the rule change hasn't even been in place that long. I get where people are coming from but at the end of the day the defense has a job to do and in that game in particular neither teams defense decided to show up which is unacceptable especially for Buffalo with the #1 defense.

Using the #1 defense as an argument isn't really the point you think it is as it's ALWAYS about matchups.

The 1985 Bears nor the 2000 Ravens went undefeated. Granted, neither had a good offense, but they did have historically good defenses and still lost games. It happens.

Also, With the lack of games in the post-season that go to overtime, it would take decades to arrive at truly significant data and the NFL has never waited that long to fix problems (well, not in the past 30 years, anyway... before, yeah, for some things)

10-1 is enough of a set to LOOK contextually at the data and insofar as they've looked, they've seen enough of a pattern emerging that they are going to address it.

The example I would use is the Broncos v Pittsburgh when Tebow was the QB. Dude played like garbage for the entire game and the Broncos D balled out, but Pittsburgh was kicking their butts and but for the Broncos D and one play by Tebow in the normal time period, it's a blowout. Broncos win the coin flip and Tebow hits a crosser... game over.

What a shit ending. I mean, if we want the best teams to advance and the Super Bowl winner to reflect insofar as matchups matter, the best team in the NFL, then changes are needed.

It's like the difference in a horror movie between a shitty jump scare and truly scary shit like Alien, The Exorcist, or the Ring or the Grudge (Japanese versions) that have truly frightening images and moments that can haunt you for decades after...

I've yet to hear a fan complain beyond wanting their team to win if they lose a back and forth in overtime unless there was an obvious blown call by the refs (or in rare cases, the OC/DC/playcaller)

I'm not really trying to convince anyone as I know many of us have strong opinions on this, but unlike some rule changes, I think this one will help the game overall and will not often be a thing we talk about.

 

[Steve808]

I'm not sure why people are so against the college format? They should just have no kicking extra points from the very first drive. This way the game would move quick like a shootout in hockey or Soccer.
I understand the teams don't want their players on the field for 10 or 15 minutes with kickoffs etc. so this would get it moving. I think the college format is exciting. JMO

I would like to see a modified version of the college format where you get the ball, say on your own 40 yard line so you have to gain some yards and possibly 2 first downs to get a decent FG attempt. And of course a defensive TD would end the game.

 

[ramphreak]

I like the current rules with one tweak. The decision made at the opening coin toss hold true for OT also. So if you defer to the second half you also defer in OT.