2021-2022 NFL Thread

[PhaelixWW]

The Bills were up with 13 seconds to go. They had those 13 seconds to stop the Chiefs to just win outright AND they had that drive in OT and all they needed there was to stop the Chiefs from getting a TD.

Bills had plenty of chances to not let it get to this and they failed all their checks.

And yet that doesn't mean that their defense was worse than the Chiefs'.

If you give both teams a chance in OT it just means that defense doesn't matter.

Except... no, it doesn't. Because if both teams defense sucks, then both teams score, and it's still tied. The first team to actually make a stop wins.

So defense still matters.

[Northern Goblin]

The Bills were up with 13 seconds to go. They had those 13 seconds to stop the Chiefs to just win outright AND they had that drive in OT and all they needed there was to stop the Chiefs from getting a TD.

Conversly the Chiefs were up with a minute to go and all they had to do was stop Allen and they failed.

Why should one team's defence have to handle the pressure that the other team's doesn't?

Bills had plenty of chances to not let it get to this and they failed all their checks.

So did the Chiefs and yet they failed to stop the Bills, why should the onus be on a team who lost a coin flip of all things?

If you give both teams a chance in OT it just means that defense doesn't matter. At that point what matters even more than it does right now is scoring TD's not FGs. That would make the current arms race even more lopsided. Cause it doesn;t matter if you let the other team score, just as long as you keep answering them with a TD of your own.

Massively disagree. Because the game will end when one defence steps up and stops a team from being able to answer the exchange of blows. It's like watching two old heavy weight boxers throw punches until one can't do it anymore.

And when they can't, it's because the defence stopped them.

And besides, what happens then? Both teams score a TD in OT. Gratz, the team that won the coin toss gets the ball again and goes on to score a TD and now the game is over, decided by that same damn coin toss. Just in the process of making things "fair" you now further delegitimized Defense, cause investing in it is nto worth it when you need to score TDs to stay in the game.

No, if both teams score on their drive, you reset and go again until either the second team fails to answer the first team or does better.

If you can't, then guess what, you deserved to lose cause one of the sides of your team wasn't good enough.

Neither team has a defence as good as their offence, because their offences are beyond anything any defence (especially after an hour of football) can handle. That coinflip straight up decided who would get to win.

Again, the league has constantly changed rules to protect QBs, favour offences and encourage high scoring games. If you want defences to matter, change the rules. Make both defences matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Addenum: Keep the part where a safety automatically ends the game, because that's the only damn thing that makes any sense.

[xskarma]

The first team to actually make a stop wins.

No, I just wrote it out in the post you quoted parts of. If both teams keep scoring it still comes down to the coin toss. It's not a question of stopping the other team in this situation either. IT;s a question to make damn sure you can score a TD and be lucky enough to win the coin toss. Just like right now.

Except in the process you take another step in the long road that has deincentivized teams to pay much attention to defense.

Yes, it's sexy to see teams score and score a lot. But in the process you ruin the balance between offense and defense in the game.

It's like relationships. If you are going just for the sexy partners and ignore their character, then eventually you end up miserable. Same will happen with football if we keep ignoring the defensive side of the ball. Step by step you lose a part of it by making offense count for more and more.

So no. Stop making offense the end all and be all just cause it's sexy and make defense continue to matter. In overtime, but elsewhere too.

[MCMLXXXII]

Josh Allen was so good today, I feel gutted for him. Would have preferred divisional finals without Brady and Mahomes. Guess I can't have two.

Also: fuck those ridiculous OT rules.

[Northern Goblin]

No, I just wrote it out in the post you quoted parts of. If both teams keep scoring it still comes down to the coin toss. It's not a question of stopping the other team in this situation either. IT;s a question to make damn sure you can score a TD and be lucky enough to win the coin toss. Just like right now.

I think you're misunderstanding what people want in the OT rules.

If both teams score on their first possession, and then the first team scores on their second, the game isn't over. The second team *still* has right of reply.

Ultimately (unless the game ends in a safety) one team should never have more offensive drives than the other in overtime.

[PhaelixWW]

Why should one team's defence have to handle the pressure that the other team's doesn't?

Yeah, this right here is the main point. Both offenses should matter. Both defenses should matter. It shouldn't come down in overtime to only one team's offense and one team's defense.

Because defenses are harder to maintain after 60 minutes than offense.

[cordrann]

The Bills were up with 13 seconds to go. They had those 13 seconds to stop the Chiefs to just win outright AND they had that drive in OT and all they needed there was to stop the Chiefs from getting a TD.

Bills had plenty of chances to not let it get to this and they failed all their checks.


And don't get me wrong, the Chiefs would have cried about the OT rules again just like they did in 2018 when this happened to them with the Patriots marching down the field and scoring a walk off TD. This is not just something against the Bills, the Chiefs would have gotten this same reply.

You don't like it? Put a stop to it.


If you give both teams a chance in OT it just means that defense doesn't matter. At that point what matters even more than it does right now is scoring TD's not FGs. That would make the current arms race even more lopsided. Cause it doesn;t matter if you let the other team score, just as long as you keep answering them with a TD of your own.

And besides, what happens then? Both teams score a TD in OT. Gratz, the team that won the coin toss gets the ball again and goes on to score a TD and now the game is over, decided by that same damn coin toss. Just in the process of making things "fair" you now further delegitimized Defense, cause investing in it is nto worth it when you need to score TDs to stay in the game.

So no. Make defense matter and put a stop to it, either in regulation or in OT. If you can't, then guess what, you deserved to lose cause one of the sides of your team wasn't good enough.

I would agree with your point if not for the way the game has developed over the last ~20 years. The NFL has done a tremendous amount to knee-cap defenses and what they are allowed to do, and unless that changes the overtime rules need to change. If they are going to continually change the rules to favor offenses they need to let both offenses play in OT.

All that said, I think this loss falls on McDermott making incredibly poor choices at the end of the game. The kickoff should have been a squib to eat time, the defense shouldn't have been playing that soft, and those timeouts I think hurt them more than helped them.

[draynay]

I've mostly been against changing OT but I think NFL rule changes have skewed things so heavily in the favor of offense that parallel possessions may be needed.

[PhaelixWW]

I've mostly been against changing OT but I think NFL rule changes have skewed things so heavily in the favor of offense that parallel possessions may be needed.

It feels like the natural progression. If you make the game safer for the players, that will tend to hamper the defense and thus help the offense. And in that case, both sides should get their chance in OT.

[xskarma]

I think you're misunderstanding what people want in the OT rules.

If both teams score on their first possession, and then the first team scores on their second, the game isn't over. The second team *still* has right of reply.

Ultimately (unless the game ends in a safety) one team should never have more offensive drives than the other in overtime.

WTF. That's the most bananas idea I have heard yet. And doesn;t change a damn thing. It STILL incentivizes teams to ignore defense in team building and expenditure and to put even mroe towards the offense, cause as long as you keep scoring the game doesn;t end.


And that's another thing. When does a game even end then? You just keep playing till players fall over dead? No. That's no way to play any kind of athletic game. There needs to be a clear beginning and end point to games, includign OTs, even in the Playoffs.


There's certainly ways to make things less of a coin toss dependent situation than they are now (see Spot and Choose, a different way to do things then coin toss), but THIS is nutso and I hope they are never dumb enough to consider it.

[MCMLXXXII]

Just add 15 minutes to the game clock. Plenty of other sports around the world have been doing that for ages.

[Northern Goblin]

WTF. That's the most bananas idea I have heard yet. And doesn;t change a damn thing. It STILL incentivizes teams to ignore defense in team building and expenditure and to put even mroe towards the offense, cause as long as you keep scoring the game doesn;t end.

But it does if your team gets a stop, it's a drive vs drive contest. Eventually you're going to want the other team to not put up 7.

[PhaelixWW]

When does a game even end then? You just keep playing till players fall over dead?

Find another handicap if they're still tied after one possession. Start them at the 1 yard line. Give them only 3 downs. Make it 20 yards for a first down instead of 10. Give them one minute and no timeouts.

Something to make the offense tougher until one of the teams holds and the other doesn't. Hell, give the defense their choice of offense handicaps for the other team at that point.

But to potentially ignore one team's defense and one team's offense based on a coin-flip at the start of OT is not balanced.

[xskarma]

Just add 15 minutes to the game clock. Plenty of other sports around the world have been doing that for ages.

I'd rather they do this then have teams go drive for drive. Just put time on the clock again and go at it like normal.

I'd even more like if they just went with something like Spot and Choose to take the cointoss out of it and make things "fair" and at least keep the excitement and expeditious nature of OT.

Going Drive for Drive is very close to what College does and that system is awful and when teams are similarly built can take fucking forever.

[Deus Mortis]

The games this weekend were great. Probably the best overall weekend of games I have watched in a long time.

[Northern Goblin]

I'd rather they do this then have teams go drive for drive. Just put time on the clock again and go at it like normal.

I'd even more like if they just went with something like Spot and Choose to take the cointoss out of it and make things "fair" and at least keep the excitement and expeditious nature of OT.

Going Drive for Drive is very close to what College does and that system is awful and when teams are similarly built can take fucking forever.

I mean the alternative suggestion is that godawful 2 point conversion shootout that people have suggested, where you get one play each and every time each team both succeeds they push you back 5 yards and go again.

[PhaelixWW]

I mean the alternative suggestion is that godawful 2 point conversion shootout that people have suggested, where you get one play each and every time each team both succeeds they push you back 5 yards and go again.

I mean, maybe if both teams are still tied after a whole other OT period, like a shootout in soccer. But that would be horrible for initial OT.

[xskarma]

I mean the alternative suggestion is that godawful 2 point conversion shootout that people have suggested, where you get one play each and every time each team both succeeds they push you back 5 yards and go again.

Nah. Y'all have a problem with the coin toss deciding things, so take the coin toss largely out of the equation: https://sports.yahoo.com/spot-and-ch...71225104.html?

That's what the Ravens proposed this last offseason. 2 variants, 1 sudden death, 1 just a "normal" game with limited time on the clock. Either works for me. Anything better than alternating drives.

[Northern Goblin]

Nah. Y'all have a problem with the coin toss deciding things, so take the coin toss largely out of the equation: https://sports.yahoo.com/spot-and-ch...71225104.html?

That's what the Ravens proposed this last offseason. 2 variants, 1 sudden death, 1 just a "normal" game with limited time on the clock. Either works for me. Anything better than alternating drives.

Problem with a limited clock is you can still be a tied game at the end, as we've seen countless times in association football.

Then you need a shootout for your shootout.

[xskarma]

Problem with a limited clock is you can still be a tied game at the end, as we've seen countless times in association football.

Then you need a shootout for your shootout.

So? then you do the sudden death variant. This proposal largely takes the coin toss out of it, giving both teams the option to influence the game. If you know the other team has a hot offense and wants to start with the ball, then fine, put the ball inside the 10 yard line and back them up. Maximum protection.

And if you have a hot offense and the other team makes you start within the 10 yard line? wellllll maybe you feel their offense is not as hot and you choose to have them start with the ball from that position instead of you.

Both teams influence what happens and it's no longer a one-sided "you win and get the ball and the other team has no choice but to play defense."