Thread: NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Think about it.......If they implement this change, it pretty much knullifies two aspects of the game.....

Defense - Basically says you can't stop anyone.
ST's - Who cares if your Kicker is better than thiers or that your coverage team can pin them deep.

Just goes to show that the NFL is changing, almost to the point that its all about the offense.....

All very sad if you ask me. :dry:

I don't think so.

The problem with the current overtime rules is that the aspect of the game changes so dramatically in overtime. In regulation, the team plays for a TD every drive, and settles for a FG if they can't score. In overtime, the team plays for a FG. It shortens the field, making defense almost impossible. That is why the team who wins the coin toss also wins the game more often than not.

This will HELP the defense. Now if a defense can keep a team out of the endzone, the team has a fighting chance to win. Pinning a team deep on ST adds to the game in overtime just like it would in regulation.

This, IMHO, makes OT in a football game much more relevent to the way the game is actually played.

What scares me the most.......

Z agrees with me.....

I'm on record as saying I don't think anything needs to change.

=Z=

.....and you don't.

Anyway, if a defense is good enough to keep a team out of the endzone, it should be good enough to get the ball back long before they get down that far.

Additionally, if your kicker (and coverage team) can pin them deep, that helps the defense more as it forces the team to move all the way down the field and that doesn't bring into play the necessity to have a "Clutch" FG kicker on your team that would then in turn kick the winning FG after your offense moved the ball within distance.

Nope, I hear what your saying, but in the end, it still appears that the league is focusing on the Offense and scoring TD's more than they are anything else.

Again, taking 2 of the 3 aspects out of the equations is simply sad to me.

Quick question, what if the game is tied 0-0 or 6-6 because of two team knocking heads with two dominant defenses? What makes anyone think that they could/should score a TD in OT when in truth, all we would really see is our teams on the field longer, risking more injury, for something that could be settled right away with FG?

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Think about it.......If they implement this change, it pretty much knullifies two aspects of the game.....

Defense - Basically says you can't stop anyone.
ST's - Who cares if your Kicker is better than thiers or that your coverage team can pin them deep.

Just goes to show that the NFL is changing, almost to the point that its all about the offense.....

All very sad if you ask me. :dry:

I don't think so.

The problem with the current overtime rules is that the aspect of the game changes so dramatically in overtime. In regulation, the team plays for a TD every drive, and settles for a FG if they can't score. In overtime, the team plays for a FG. It shortens the field, making defense almost impossible. That is why the team who wins the coin toss also wins the game more often than not.

This will HELP the defense. Now if a defense can keep a team out of the endzone, the team has a fighting chance to win. Pinning a team deep on ST adds to the game in overtime just like it would in regulation.

This, IMHO, makes OT in a football game much more relevent to the way the game is actually played.

What scares me the most.......

Z agrees with me.....

I'm on record as saying I don't think anything needs to change.

=Z=

.....and you don't.

Anyway, if a defense is good enough to keep a team out of the endzone, it should be good enough to get the ball back long before they get down that far.

Additionally, if your kicker (and coverage team) can pin them deep, that helps the defense more as it forces the team to move all the way down the field and that doesn't bring into play the necessity to have a "Clutch" FG kicker on your team that would then in turn kick the winning FG after your offense moved the ball within distance.

Nope, I hear what your saying, but in the end, it still appears that the league is focusing on the Offense and scoring TD's more than they are anything else.

Again, taking 2 of the 3 aspects out of the equations is simply sad to me.

Quick question, what if the game is tied 0-0 or 6-6 because of two team knocking heads with two dominant defenses? What makes anyone think that they could/should score a TD in OT when in truth, all we would really see is our teams on the field longer, risking more injury, for something that could be settled right away with FG?

Well, our defense was good enough to stop the Saints, but a questionable PI call and a reviewed 1st down caused the Saints to get within field goal reach. They should win the game because of that? Even with the 6 turnovers, we pretty much dominated them that game.

I'm still undecided as to whether or not I'm for this... leaning towards "Don't Change it," but at least the league is listening to the opposing view.

The fact that this would be for the playoffs only makes me like it a bit more.

C Mac D wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Think about it.......If they implement this change, it pretty much knullifies two aspects of the game.....

Defense - Basically says you can't stop anyone.
ST's - Who cares if your Kicker is better than thiers or that your coverage team can pin them deep.

Just goes to show that the NFL is changing, almost to the point that its all about the offense.....

All very sad if you ask me. :dry:

I don't think so.

The problem with the current overtime rules is that the aspect of the game changes so dramatically in overtime. In regulation, the team plays for a TD every drive, and settles for a FG if they can't score. In overtime, the team plays for a FG. It shortens the field, making defense almost impossible. That is why the team who wins the coin toss also wins the game more often than not.

This will HELP the defense. Now if a defense can keep a team out of the endzone, the team has a fighting chance to win. Pinning a team deep on ST adds to the game in overtime just like it would in regulation.

This, IMHO, makes OT in a football game much more relevent to the way the game is actually played.

What scares me the most.......

Z agrees with me.....

I'm on record as saying I don't think anything needs to change.

=Z=

.....and you don't.

Anyway, if a defense is good enough to keep a team out of the endzone, it should be good enough to get the ball back long before they get down that far.

Additionally, if your kicker (and coverage team) can pin them deep, that helps the defense more as it forces the team to move all the way down the field and that doesn't bring into play the necessity to have a "Clutch" FG kicker on your team that would then in turn kick the winning FG after your offense moved the ball within distance.

Nope, I hear what your saying, but in the end, it still appears that the league is focusing on the Offense and scoring TD's more than they are anything else.

Again, taking 2 of the 3 aspects out of the equations is simply sad to me.

Quick question, what if the game is tied 0-0 or 6-6 because of two team knocking heads with two dominant defenses? What makes anyone think that they could/should score a TD in OT when in truth, all we would really see is our teams on the field longer, risking more injury, for something that could be settled right away with FG?

Well, our defense was good enough to stop the Saints, but a questionable PI call and a reviewed 1st down caused the Saints to get within field goal reach. They should win the game because of that? Even with the 6 turnovers, we pretty much dominated them that game.

I'm still undecided as to whether or not I'm for this... leaning towards "Don't Change it," but at least the league is listening to the opposing view.

The fact that this would be for the playoffs only makes me like it a bit more.

Good stuff. One comment though, the fact that this would be in the playoffs only causes me to wonder about it.

Why only the playoffs if it is so good for the game?

Marrdro wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Think about it.......If they implement this change, it pretty much knullifies two aspects of the game.....

Defense - Basically says you can't stop anyone.
ST's - Who cares if your Kicker is better than thiers or that your coverage team can pin them deep.

Just goes to show that the NFL is changing, almost to the point that its all about the offense.....

All very sad if you ask me. :dry:

I don't think so.

The problem with the current overtime rules is that the aspect of the game changes so dramatically in overtime. In regulation, the team plays for a TD every drive, and settles for a FG if they can't score. In overtime, the team plays for a FG. It shortens the field, making defense almost impossible. That is why the team who wins the coin toss also wins the game more often than not.

This will HELP the defense. Now if a defense can keep a team out of the endzone, the team has a fighting chance to win. Pinning a team deep on ST adds to the game in overtime just like it would in regulation.

This, IMHO, makes OT in a football game much more relevent to the way the game is actually played.

What scares me the most.......

Z agrees with me.....

I'm on record as saying I don't think anything needs to change.

=Z=

.....and you don't.

Anyway, if a defense is good enough to keep a team out of the endzone, it should be good enough to get the ball back long before they get down that far.

Additionally, if your kicker (and coverage team) can pin them deep, that helps the defense more as it forces the team to move all the way down the field and that doesn't bring into play the necessity to have a "Clutch" FG kicker on your team that would then in turn kick the winning FG after your offense moved the ball within distance.

Nope, I hear what your saying, but in the end, it still appears that the league is focusing on the Offense and scoring TD's more than they are anything else.

Again, taking 2 of the 3 aspects out of the equations is simply sad to me.

Quick question, what if the game is tied 0-0 or 6-6 because of two team knocking heads with two dominant defenses? What makes anyone think that they could/should score a TD in OT when in truth, all we would really see is our teams on the field longer, risking more injury, for something that could be settled right away with FG?

Well, our defense was good enough to stop the Saints, but a questionable PI call and a reviewed 1st down caused the Saints to get within field goal reach. They should win the game because of that? Even with the 6 turnovers, we pretty much dominated them that game.

I'm still undecided as to whether or not I'm for this... leaning towards "Don't Change it," but at least the league is listening to the opposing view.

The fact that this would be for the playoffs only makes me like it a bit more.

Good stuff. One comment though, the fact that this would be in the playoffs only causes me to wonder about it.

Why only the playoffs if it is so good for the game?

Because we might have won the Super Bowl.

Good reasons? I got none.

There are some good reasons to change it but if they do not IMO it is not a big deal. I would hope if they change it that it is not just for play-off games.

C Mac D wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Think about it.......If they implement this change, it pretty much knullifies two aspects of the game.....

Defense - Basically says you can't stop anyone.
ST's - Who cares if your Kicker is better than thiers or that your coverage team can pin them deep.

Just goes to show that the NFL is changing, almost to the point that its all about the offense.....

All very sad if you ask me. :dry:

I don't think so.

The problem with the current overtime rules is that the aspect of the game changes so dramatically in overtime. In regulation, the team plays for a TD every drive, and settles for a FG if they can't score. In overtime, the team plays for a FG. It shortens the field, making defense almost impossible. That is why the team who wins the coin toss also wins the game more often than not.

This will HELP the defense. Now if a defense can keep a team out of the endzone, the team has a fighting chance to win. Pinning a team deep on ST adds to the game in overtime just like it would in regulation.

This, IMHO, makes OT in a football game much more relevent to the way the game is actually played.

What scares me the most.......

Z agrees with me.....

I'm on record as saying I don't think anything needs to change.

=Z=

.....and you don't.

Anyway, if a defense is good enough to keep a team out of the endzone, it should be good enough to get the ball back long before they get down that far.

Additionally, if your kicker (and coverage team) can pin them deep, that helps the defense more as it forces the team to move all the way down the field and that doesn't bring into play the necessity to have a "Clutch" FG kicker on your team that would then in turn kick the winning FG after your offense moved the ball within distance.

Nope, I hear what your saying, but in the end, it still appears that the league is focusing on the Offense and scoring TD's more than they are anything else.

Again, taking 2 of the 3 aspects out of the equations is simply sad to me.

Quick question, what if the game is tied 0-0 or 6-6 because of two team knocking heads with two dominant defenses? What makes anyone think that they could/should score a TD in OT when in truth, all we would really see is our teams on the field longer, risking more injury, for something that could be settled right away with FG?

Well, our defense was good enough to stop the Saints, but a questionable PI call and a reviewed 1st down caused the Saints to get within field goal reach. They should win the game because of that? Even with the 6 turnovers, we pretty much dominated them that game.

I'm still undecided as to whether or not I'm for this... leaning towards "Don't Change it," but at least the league is listening to the opposing view.

The fact that this would be for the playoffs only makes me like it a bit more.

Good stuff. One comment though, the fact that this would be in the playoffs only causes me to wonder about it.

Why only the playoffs if it is so good for the game?

Because we might have won the Super Bowl.

Good reasons? I got none.

Gotcha.....

Truth of the matter is, the only reason I can see changing this is to see TD's scored, nothing more, nothing less.

Which solidifies my point, at least for me, that this does nothing but negate two of the three phases of the game, just so the fans can see a TD.

C Mac D wrote:

The fact that this would be for the playoffs only makes me like it a bit more.

Probably makes me like it a bit less. How do you explain to the team who misses the playoffs with a 10-6 record (for example) to a team with an 11-5 record if that one w/l differential is a game they lost to the 11-5 team in OT and they never got the ball?

With a 16-game season, every game is important.

=Z=

Zeus wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

The fact that this would be for the playoffs only makes me like it a bit more.

Probably makes me like it a bit less. How do you explain to the team who misses the playoffs with a 10-6 record (for example) to a team with an 11-5 record if that one w/l differential is a game they lost to the 11-5 team in OT and they never got the ball?

With a 16-game season, every game is important.

=Z=

I would tell the 10-6 team to win more games and make the playoffs. Then I'd finish breast feeding them and put them down for a nap.

C Mac D wrote:

Zeus wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

The fact that this would be for the playoffs only makes me like it a bit more.

Probably makes me like it a bit less. How do you explain to the team who misses the playoffs with a 10-6 record (for example) to a team with an 11-5 record if that one w/l differential is a game they lost to the 11-5 team in OT and they never got the ball?

With a 16-game season, every game is important.

I would tell the 10-6 team to win more games and make the playoffs. Then I'd finish breast feeding them and put them down for a nap.

Just because you've got huge man-boobs it does not mean they give milk.

=Z=

Marrdro wrote:

Again, taking 2 of the 3 aspects out of the equations is simply sad to me.

I do see where you are coming from, but IMHO, the CURRENT overtime rules take both offense and defense out of the equation. Right now, overtime comes down to a) how good of a kickoff return you get, and b) how good of a leg your FG kicker has.

I hate that special teams, and pretty much special teams alone, dictate who wins in overtime.

In the proposed system, the ways to win highlight more than just offense. Sure, if you get the ball first and march down to score a TD, it is just offense. But then you would win under the current system too. In the proposed system, if you get the ball first and just get a FG (special teams), and then your defense holds the opposing team (defense), then you win because of your special teams and defense. If the opposing team gets the ball first, and you hold them to nothing or a FG (defense), you can win with a FG (special teams) or a TD (offense).

The proposed system makes it a game, not a special teams competition. Since you don't want to take aspects out of the game, I am confused why you aren't behind this idea.

Marrdro wrote:

Quick question, what if the game is tied 0-0 or 6-6 because of two team knocking heads with two dominant defenses? What makes anyone think that they could/should score a TD in OT when in truth, all we would really see is our teams on the field longer, risking more injury, for something that could be settled right away with FG?

That isn't correct all, and I am starting to wonder if you have read the articles...

This isn't the first team to score a TD that wins. It is the team that either a) Scores a TD first, or b) is ahead after both teams have a possession.

Scenario 1: Team A wins the toss and gets the ball. Team A scores a TD. Team A wins.
Scenario 2: Team A wins the toss and gets the ball. Team A scores a FG. Team B now has a possession. Team B doesn't score. Team A wins.
Scenario 3: Team A wins the toss and gets the ball. Team A doesn't score anything. The next team to score a FG wins the game.

It isn't the "first to 6" rule, although it shares some aspects. Basically, if the team that doesn't get the ball first can hold the other team to a FG or nothing, it moves into a sudden death type of game. The average game will only be extended by a single possession.