2022-2023 NFL Thread

[Darththeo]

That’s all highly dependent on the teams playing.

Yes, but in all cases, the teams are still far more likely to win if they go first. This does not change that. There isn't a team that gets a TD on more than 50% of their drives, hell, only a few teams even SCORE on 50% or more of their drives.

Honestly, to me, this just feels like pandering to the fans and players. So they "feel" their team had a chance to win and it wasn't just decided by a coin toss.

[Faltemer]

Deferring is the *only* tactical choice. Under the old rules, the risk of deferring was the team who received first scoring a TD and ending the game. That's now gone.

Now whoever goes second has all the info of what *needs* to be done, whether they just need a FG, a TD, or, if they're ballsy, a TD with a 2 point conversion.

That's the more interesting conversation to me. If one team scores a TD on the first possession, they go for an XP (statistically, it makes no sense for them to go for 2). If the other team then scores a TD they then have to decide whether to go for the "safe" XP, tie the game, and go to sudden death (which immediately gives the advantage to team 1 again), or go for 2 to win/lose on a 50/50, which is roughly the conversion rate on 2 pt tries.

They will almost certainly always go for 2 points if the HC is even remotely smart. Why give the other team a guaranteed chance to win, when you have one right now?Every team will defer instead of taking the ball first. I still think this will improve the odds of winning if you don't win the coin toss, but will still be unfair.

[Darththeo]

10/12 games in playoffs OT were won via coin flip. The change was proposed by both Philly and Indy. This isn't some fan pandering thing, it's them trying to make playoff OT more fair. Whether it'll have the desired effect remains to be seen.

7 of the 10 wins were single possession games.
5 of the 12 games both teams got the ball.

The argument "10 of 12 were decided by a coin flip" would still hold true with the new system. The only difference is 7 more games would have had two possessions, where the team winning the flip is still favored.

This literally does not make it more fair. Because of the 7 games where the first team scored a TD, the other team must score a TD to continue ... anything less is a loss, and then it goes into sudden death where the team that went first is favored. There is zero outcomes where team 2 can win on their drive following a touchdown unless the other team fails to get an extra point.

It is an illusion that for some reason people bought into. If you win the coin toss, you are extremely favored to win under the new system. And it is not statistically different from the old system. Even giving the most favorable odds, you at best change two of the outcomes. It is still an overwhelming benefit to win the toss. This is just turning an auto win into at worst an 85% chance at winning. So I ask you is 8/4 or 9/3 really evidence of "fairer" systems than 10/2?

The only way to reduce the coin toss is to remove sudden death part of OT and always play a full new quarter. If you want fairer OT, the only way to do it is remove Sudden Death completely or have something like "If you are up 9 or more points when you possess the ball in OT, you win."

[eschatological]

There is zero outcomes where team 2 can win on their drive following a touchdown unless the other team fails to get an extra point.

Inaccurate. If you answer a TD with a TD, you can go for 2 and win, outright. Game over. No sudden death. I imagine that's what most teams would do.

It's also unlikely the first team would EVER go for two, because missing it means a TD with an XP (a near 100% certainty on the kick) wins.

[draynay]

Malcolm Jenkins announced his retirement, it seemed obvious when he restructured his contract to league minimum that this was coming. He accomplished a lot, on field and off, in two cities.

It's also unlikely the first team would EVER go for two, because missing it means a TD with an XP (a near 100% certainty on the kick) wins.

They'd have to have no confidence in their kicker or defense.

[Darththeo]

Inaccurate. If you answer a TD with a TD, you can go for 2 and win, outright. Game over. No sudden death. I imagine that's what most teams would do.

It's also unlikely the first team would EVER go for two, because missing it means a TD with an XP (a near 100% certainty on the kick) wins.

And I imagine no team will go for 2 in that case at all. Even though statistically, going for 2 nets more average points than the near auto one point (0.988 vs 0.941), teams rarely go for 2 under any circumstances. Teams that do it will likely to it for the thrill that they win.

The best drive to TD percentage was 40% last year. So if the best TD scoring offense goes second after a TD, there is about a 60% chance the game ends without them scoring, even if we are favorable and say it is 50/50 they score. If they go for 2, there is about a 50/50 chance they make it. So, 75% odds of losing for the best TD scoring offenses. But, not all teams can be the best, so the actual odds will swing another way. The worse TD to drive offense to make the playoff was making it at less than 1 in 5 drives, meaning 80% chance they don't score. And in the 20% odds they do, it 50/50.

I am sorry, I don't see a system that at best gives Team 2 a 25% chance of winning and at worst around 10% as a "Fairer" system. And this is going with Playoff teams, if this rule went to the regular season, it gets even worse. If a team was like the Jaguars, 88% chance they don't score a TD, so you are talking 6% chance of winning.

That's why I say it is illusionary that it is a fairer system. I understand people see it as "fairer" but just because people see it being fairer does not in reality make it a fairer system. So rather than it be 10-2 for coin flip winner, we would most likely have 9-3 and if lucky 8-4. People just don't understand how powerful the coin flip is, that simply giving both team the ball does not erase that advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

They'd have to have no confidence in their kicker or defense.

This. Especially in high wind games.

[xskarma]

Darththeo: I've seen reputed names on analytics twitter make this same argument and people are still REALLY in their feels about this. We just have to wait like 5 years for there to be ample sampe size for what you say and people realize they have been duped by narrative, yet again.

I'm sure we will revisit this subject again when teams lose in OT. It's just never ending.

[Tech614]

We'll see how it plays out but the team that gets the ball first is still going to win the majority of OT games. Maybe not as many as before but still the majority.

1) If team 1 scores, team 2 being able to immediately answer is already rare when talking NFL defenses, and playoff defenses specifically.

2) If team 2 does answer and score then they are put in a crappy situation of needing to try a 2 point to win or lose, or kick the ball to a team that then only needs a fg to win.

Overall it just feels like we're going to make players play more minutes to get damn near the exact same results. Team with the ball first still has a massive advantage over the whole OT period, nothing changed.

[Kyanion]

Darththeo: I've seen reputed names on analytics twitter make this same argument and people are still REALLY in their feels about this. We just have to wait like 5 years for there to be ample sampe size for what you say and people realize they have been duped by narrative, yet again.

I'm sure we will revisit this subject again when teams lose in OT. It's just never ending.

All I know is that I'd much rather the Bills/Chiefs game end with both teams having a possession in OT. That game was epic and it had a sour ending because 'Team X' wins coin flip and since it was a back and forth offensive slugfest, we all lost out as fans.

If people think they know what teams will do with this new OT format then they haven't met some of the coaches in the league that do some of the stupidest shit as far as analytics and win percentages go.

- - - Updated - - -

We'll see how it plays out but the team that gets the ball first is still going to win the majority of OT games. Maybe not as many as before but still the majority.

1) If team 1 scores, team 2 being able to immediately answer is already rare when talking NFL defenses, and playoff defenses specifically.

2) If team 2 does answer and score then they are put in a crappy situation of needing to try a 2 point to win or lose, or kick the ball to a team that then only needs a fg to win.

Overall it just feels like we're going to make players play more minutes to get damn near the exact same results. Team with the ball first still has a massive advantage over the whole OT period, nothing changed.

It probably does not change a LOT but it does take away that shit feeling at the end of last years playoff OT games. At least the Bills would have had a chance to do something instead of knowing the game was fucking over when the Chiefs won a coin toss. And I think that is the real attempt here to at least give the other team a CHANCE to respond.

If you were a team in a playoff game would you rather know the game was over if you lost a coin flip or had a chance to at least possess the ball in OT to decide your playoff life. I think I'd rather at least see the teams on the field instead of knowing Chiefs won the toss = game over in an epic offensive 4th quarter.

[Tech614]

It probably does not change a LOT but it does take away that shit feeling at the end of last years playoff OT games. At least the Bills would have had a chance to do something instead of knowing the game was fucking over when the Chiefs won a coin toss. And I think that is the real attempt here to at least give the other team a CHANCE to respond.

If you were a team in a playoff game would you rather know the game was over if you lost a coin flip or had a chance to at least possess the ball in OT to decide your playoff life. I think I'd rather at least see the teams on the field instead of knowing Chiefs won the toss = game over in an epic offensive 4th quarter.

I feel worse for other teams then the fucking bills. Using them as an example gets no sympathy from me. If Bills fans should feel shit about anything it's the fact they let Mahomes score on them in 13 seconds, nothing to do with the OT. Their defense lost the game, not the coin flip.

It's just if you want to make rule changes to not make the coin flip so powerful... this one ain't it mate.

[Kyanion]

I feel worse for other teams then the fucking bills. Using them as an example gets no sympathy from me. If Bills fans should feel shit about anything it's the fact they let Mahomes score on them in 13 seconds, nothing to do with the OT. Their defense lost the game, not the coin flip.

It's just if you want to make rule changes to not make the coin flip so powerful... this one ain't it mate.

I don't care if it is the Bills or any other team, I'm using them as an example. Go back and pick other playoff teams that lost to a coin flip and OT and insert their name then.

And sorry, they lost due to a coin flip. I don't give a flying fuck how the game got to OT, it got there and the coin flip decided the winner because both defenses couldn't stop shit.

This change is better than what it was before, with a coin flip deciding the winner in many cases. It ain't perfect and it likely never will be, but I'll take this over what was there last year.

[Tech614]

I don't care if it is the Bills or any other team, I'm using them as an example. Go back and pick other playoff teams that lost to a coin flip and OT and insert their name then.

And sorry, they lost due to a coin flip. I don't give a flying fuck how the game got to OT, it got there and the coin flip decided the winner because both defenses couldn't stop shit.

This change is better than what it was before, with a coin flip deciding the winner in many cases. It ain't perfect and it likely never will be, but I'll take this over what was there last year.

Remind me which part is easier.

Preventing a team from scoring in 13 seconds.

Preventing a team from scoring on the first drive of OT.

Oh yea, they didn't lose to the coin flip. Hold that. You have the lead with 13 seconds left if you lose that game your defense lost you that game, not a fucking coin flip GTFO. Using the bills as an example of why this rule change is worth while is going to do nothing but farm points with irrational bills fans.

[Kyanion]

Remind me which part is easier.

Preventing a team from scoring in 13 seconds.

Preventing a team from scoring on the first drive of OT.

Oh yea, they didn't lose to the coin flip. Hold that. You have the lead with 13 seconds left if you lose that game your defense lost you that game, not a fucking coin flip GTFO. Using the bills as an example of why this rule change is worth while is going to do nothing but farm points with irrational bills fans.

Again you are so fixated on the Bills that it is clouding everything. Hell my team lost a fucking game by failing to tackle on the last play of a game and the game being called the 'Minneapolis Miracle'. Shit fucking happens in football. Stop focusing on one specific overtime game and use all the overtime playoff games. Focus on the other what is it, 11 playoff games since the rule change in 2010.

[Faltemer]

We'll see how it plays out but the team that gets the ball first is still going to win the majority of OT games. Maybe not as many as before but still the majority.

1) If team 1 scores, team 2 being able to immediately answer is already rare when talking NFL defenses, and playoff defenses specifically.

2) If team 2 does answer and score then they are put in a crappy situation of needing to try a 2 point to win or lose, or kick the ball to a team that then only needs a fg to win.

Overall it just feels like we're going to make players play more minutes to get damn near the exact same results. Team with the ball first still has a massive advantage over the whole OT period, nothing changed.

People are really undervaluing what team 2 having 4 downs to match the score means. Any data on scoring percentages and things like that are going to be completely off since those are from a majority of drives where after a team failed to convert on 3rd down they punted.

[Darththeo]

People are really undervaluing what team 2 having 4 downs to match the score means. Any data on scoring percentages and things like that are going to be completely off since those are from a majority of drives where after a team failed to convert on 3rd down they punted.

While this is true, keep in mind it doesn't impact that much. 4th down conversions happen about 50% of the time when tried(last season had a higher percentage for the league, but that is just because some teams were around 70% success). But, that number is offset by the fact most attempts are short yardage too and keep in mind a fake punt that converts a 4th down also counts, and that won't happen.

It is still an overwhelming advantage to the team that wins the coin toss. If they get a TD, the other teams chances are winning is not high at all.

[Faltemer]

While this is true, keep in mind it doesn't impact that much. 4th down conversions happen about 50% of the time when tried(last season had a higher percentage for the league, but that is just because some teams were around 70% success). But, that number is offset by the fact most attempts are short yardage too and keep in mind a fake punt that converts a 4th down also counts, and that won't happen.

It is still an overwhelming advantage to the team that wins the coin toss. If they get a TD, the other teams chances are winning is not high at all.

Why is the first team scoring automatic to you? The second team matching will occur at a significantly higher rate then the first team scoring will. This includes field goals as well. Smart teams are going to be defering every team, your numbers back this up. The chance to score any points is less then 50% according to you. So if the second team matches the first with a TD, they get a 50/50 to win, which is better then the % the first team scores on the next drive.

Also as far as 4th down conversion rate goes, in the vast vast majority of those situations the team didn't know it had 4 downs until it became a clear go for it situation. When you know going into the drive you have 4 downs every time, the conversion rate of getting a first down will be different. Since both you and the defense knows you are going for it every time.

[Darththeo]

Darththeo: I've seen reputed names on analytics twitter make this same argument and people are still REALLY in their feels about this. We just have to wait like 5 years for there to be ample sampe size for what you say and people realize they have been duped by narrative, yet again.

I'm sure we will revisit this subject again when teams lose in OT. It's just never ending.

I understand why people feel it is fairer, but we have to see. And we may not even see an overtime game next season where this comes into play. It may take a year or two to even see any data points.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is the first team scoring automatic to you? The second team matching will occur at a significantly higher rate then the first team scoring will. This includes field goals as well. Smart teams are going to be defering every team, your numbers back this up. The chance to score any points is less then 50% according to you. So if the second team matches the first with a TD, they get a 50/50 to win, which is better then the % the first team scores on the next drive.

Because the rule change only impacts touchdowns scored on the first drive. Therefore any drive that does not end in a touchdown is already covered by the former rule. So I am only discussing games that would be impacted by the rule change.

If team 1 doesn't score a TD, the old rule and new rule operate identically.

[Faltemer]

Because the rule change only impacts touchdowns scored on the first drive. Therefore any drive that does not end in a touchdown is already covered by the former rule. So I am only discussing games that would be impacted by the rule change.

If team 1 doesn't score a TD, the old rule and new rule operate identically.

That is true. But I do think this will change mindsets, so the team going first doesn't need to score a TD as much, so how this will affect that is unclear.

[Darththeo]

That is true. But I do think this will change mindsets, so the team going first doesn't need to score a TD as much, so how this will affect that is unclear.

That's kind of already true. People are just focused on the auto win, rather than what is the advantage. Scoring at all on your first possession puts pressure on the opponent because they HAVE to score to win or stay in it.

While there could be some reasons to choose to go second, those aren't really going to happen as often. Though, I could see Belichick or Harbaugh doing it.

[Faltemer]

While there could be some reasons to choose to go second, those aren't really going to happen as often. Though, I could see Belichick or Harbaugh doing it.

I am still completely on the other side. I would always choose to defer here. Are you choosing to go first because you think on average you will end up with more drives, and thus more chances to score? Because that is really the only advantage going first has that I can see.

Whereas second in their first drive again has the option to match using 4 downs. Also if they both score a TD on drive 1, they can go for 2 which at a 50/50 is better then the chance for team 1 to score on the next drive. Frankly I also feel if team 1 scores a field goal first, team 2 really has a greenlight to be pretty aggressive going for a TD to just win outright.