The National Football League

tbergs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjsteelerfan said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjsteelerfan said:

JK_Livin said:

So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.

We should do the same across all sports. In baseball, if the away team scores in the top half of the inning, game over. Should have pitched better. No more 3 on 3 overtime in hockey, straight shootout. And if the first player scores,  game over.  Goalie should have stopped the first shot. Same in soccer.  Basketball, first team to score off a jump ball wins. 

You've tried to make this point before. It's not the same thing.

It actually is the same thing. 

Actually no.

Baseball is a game played in frames (top and bottom halves of innings). There is no running time component to that sport... so no.
Playoffs in NHL is sudden death with five skaters vs five skaters... so no.
Soccer has always had a shootout format that they are comfortable with... so no.
Basketball points are easy to come by. A basket is much easier than a TD or FG (hence the 100+ points for either team every night)... so no.

No.

To counter this argument, Football has things called quarters they must complete before OT is necessary, so they are actually changing the rules for OT to say that they no longer care about what the time means for each quarter, but will now let luck of the coin, the refs and more luck on if the coin flip winner can score a TD instead of a FG. That would be the same as saying 9 innings is up so now we will still use innings, but the first team to score wins. Let them play out the OT quarter time. Fine if they want to change it to 10 minutes, but make the teams work for more than a coin flip and a 1 and done. The ratings would be huge for games like that so it would be a plus for the league and the teams involved, especially the hosting team and concessions profits. They should probably cap it at 2 OTs before some sort of sudden death type scenario though, or not. Could get pretty interesting past that. 

JK_Livin

I got it. Just have a FG kicking contest. 

pjhawks

pjsteelerfan said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjsteelerfan said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjsteelerfan said:

JK_Livin said:

So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.

We should do the same across all sports. In baseball, if the away team scores in the top half of the inning, game over. Should have pitched better. No more 3 on 3 overtime in hockey, straight shootout. And if the first player scores,  game over.  Goalie should have stopped the first shot. Same in soccer.  Basketball, first team to score off a jump ball wins. 

You've tried to make this point before. It's not the same thing.

It actually is the same thing. 

Actually no.

Baseball is a game played in frames (top and bottom halves of innings). There is no running time component to that sport... so no.
Playoffs in NHL is sudden death with five skaters vs five skaters... so no.
Soccer has always had a shootout format that they are comfortable with... so no.
Basketball points are easy to come by. A basket is much easier than a TD or FG (hence the 100+ points for either team every night)... so no.

No.

Baseball both teams get a chance to score. If away team scores in the top, home team gets a chance to score as well.
Hockey, both teams (99% of them time) get possession of the puck with equal chance to score.
Soccer, both teams get possession of the ball with equal chances to score.
Basketball, both teams get possession of the ball with equal chances to score. 

exactly. the way the NFL does it is the equivalent of baseball saying if the visiting team hits a home run the game is over, but any other run the other team gets an at-bat.  

JK_Livin

It happened in the SB 2 years ago and now y'all think it'll change? Not likely to change.

tbergs

And for what it's worth, people dissing Belichek as not factoring in to the team being successful must not have ever suffered under poor coaching in any sport they played. An individual player in any sport can be great and lead his or her team to a successful season, but more often than not, they need a great coach to achieve a championship. I saw someone mention Phil Jackson as an example of someone benefitting from having great players, but it goes both ways. Neither the Lakers nor Bulls would have won as many championships (and weren't) without Jackson at the helm. A great coach also can't make a championship team with only 1 good player. The system Belichek created in NE works just as well as the system Jackson created in Chicago and LA worked. Lebron is a great player, but how many championships would he have if he had played for a team coached by someone like Jackson? A hell of a lot more. How about Malone and Stockton? There are examples all over sports history of players and coaches hosed by lacking the right chemistry in the locker room coupled with a great leader. We usually only hear about the players being hosed, but there are a lot of great coaches who suffered under subpar talent or egotistical stars and never got a championship before being canned or retiring. 

tempo_n_groove

Was anybody curious about not kicking the extra point?  Anybody rooting for numbers must have been dying for that last point but it never came...

JK_Livin

tempo_n_groove said:

Was anybody curious about not kicking the extra point?  Anybody rooting for numbers must have been dying for that last point but it never came...

I think you only kick it if it's the end of regulation but that's supposed to change I believe.

Edit: Only if a td is scored on the final play of regulation.

tempo_n_groove

JK_Livin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Was anybody curious about not kicking the extra point?  Anybody rooting for numbers must have been dying for that last point but it never came...

I think you only kick it if it's the end of regulation but that's supposed to change I believe.

Edit: Only if a td is scored on the final play of regulation.

TY.

I know what to root for or look out for during the Bowl, lol!

HughFreakingDillon

there's no need for the extra point when you've already won the game. if the NFL starts pandering to gambling, then you'll have a problem. 

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

there's no need for the extra point when you've already won the game. if the NFL starts pandering to gambling, then you'll have a problem. 

Starts?

pjhawks

tbergs said:

And for what it's worth, people dissing Belichek as not factoring in to the team being successful must not have ever suffered under poor coaching in any sport they played. An individual player in any sport can be great and lead his or her team to a successful season, but more often than not, they need a great coach to achieve a championship. I saw someone mention Phil Jackson as an example of someone benefitting from having great players, but it goes both ways. Neither the Lakers nor Bulls would have won as many championships (and weren't) without Jackson at the helm. A great coach also can't make a championship team with only 1 good player. The system Belichek created in NE works just as well as the system Jackson created in Chicago and LA worked. Lebron is a great player, but how many championships would he have if he had played for a team coached by someone like Jackson? A hell of a lot more. How about Malone and Stockton? There are examples all over sports history of players and coaches hosed by lacking the right chemistry in the locker room coupled with a great leader. We usually only hear about the players being hosed, but there are a lot of great coaches who suffered under subpar talent or egotistical stars and never got a championship before being canned or retiring. 

Malone and Stockton could have had jesus himself coaching and they weren't ever beating Jordan. 

no one is saying Belichick is not a factor but Brady could have the same run with another coach. Belichick is not having this run without Brady.  his 6 years prior to Brady taking over as starter he was 14 games under .500.  Just a coincidence?

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

there's no need for the extra point when you've already won the game. if the NFL starts pandering to gambling, then you'll have a problem. 

Starts?

have they made rule changes in the past that are obviously to the benefit of gamblers?

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

there's no need for the extra point when you've already won the game. if the NFL starts pandering to gambling, then you'll have a problem. 

Starts?

have they made rule changes in the past that are obviously to the benefit of gamblers?

No, they just make or don’t make calls to benefit gamblers. And maybe? What was the rule change for not being allowed to boost yourself off of someone to block an extra point or field goal. If you say player safety, I’ve got a fully drained swamp in DC to sell you.

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

there's no need for the extra point when you've already won the game. if the NFL starts pandering to gambling, then you'll have a problem. 

Starts?

have they made rule changes in the past that are obviously to the benefit of gamblers?

No, they just make or don’t make calls to benefit gamblers. And maybe? What was the rule change for not being allowed to boost yourself off of someone to block an extra point or field goal. If you say player safety, I’ve got a fully drained swamp in DC to sell you.

I don't know why they made that rule change. but it made sense to me either way. it doesn't seem fair to be able to use another player to jump higher than you'd normally be able to under your own power. 

Wobbie

pjhawks said:

tbergs said:

And for what it's worth, people dissing Belichek as not factoring in to the team being successful must not have ever suffered under poor coaching in any sport they played. An individual player in any sport can be great and lead his or her team to a successful season, but more often than not, they need a great coach to achieve a championship. I saw someone mention Phil Jackson as an example of someone benefitting from having great players, but it goes both ways. Neither the Lakers nor Bulls would have won as many championships (and weren't) without Jackson at the helm. A great coach also can't make a championship team with only 1 good player. The system Belichek created in NE works just as well as the system Jackson created in Chicago and LA worked. Lebron is a great player, but how many championships would he have if he had played for a team coached by someone like Jackson? A hell of a lot more. How about Malone and Stockton? There are examples all over sports history of players and coaches hosed by lacking the right chemistry in the locker room coupled with a great leader. We usually only hear about the players being hosed, but there are a lot of great coaches who suffered under subpar talent or egotistical stars and never got a championship before being canned or retiring. 

Malone and Stockton could have had jesus himself coaching and they weren't ever beating Jordan. 

they had jerry fucking sloan and he's every bit phil's equal.

phil was and is overrated.

Halifax2TheMax

How about an overtime where both teams get the ball but the first team that scores, the other team has to score in the same amount of time. First team kicks a field goal in 4:03, the other team has 4:03 to kick a field goal to tie and continue or a TD wins it. Continue play until someone wins.

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

How about an overtime where both teams get the ball but the first team that scores, the other team has to score in the same amount of time. First team kicks a field goal in 4:03, the other team has 4:03 to kick a field goal to tie and continue or a TD wins it. Continue play until someone wins.

I like it.  I like it a lot.  

Poncier

JK_Livin said:

Maybe the Chiefs shouldn't have settled for the FG. Maybe they should've tried one more toss or 2 to the endzone. Don't put your fate in a coin when you do have an option.

I was surprised they kicked on 2nd down with 11 seconds left. Should have taken at least one more shot at the end zone...but then again, Andy Reid, so I shouldn't have been that surprised.

And why is nobody upset about how overtime played out in the NFC game? Saints won the toss, took the ball...and lost!

JK_Livin

Poncier said:

JK_Livin said:

Maybe the Chiefs shouldn't have settled for the FG. Maybe they should've tried one more toss or 2 to the endzone. Don't put your fate in a coin when you do have an option.

I was surprised they kicked on 2nd down with 11 seconds left. Should have taken at least one more shot at the end zone...but then again, Andy Reid, so I shouldn't have been that surprised.

And why is nobody upset about how overtime played out in the NFC game? Saints won the toss, took the ball...and lost!

It's too easy to ignore the OT of the NFC game.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Poncier said:

JK_Livin said:

Maybe the Chiefs shouldn't have settled for the FG. Maybe they should've tried one more toss or 2 to the endzone. Don't put your fate in a coin when you do have an option.

I was surprised they kicked on 2nd down with 11 seconds left. Should have taken at least one more shot at the end zone...but then again, Andy Reid, so I shouldn't have been that surprised.

And why is nobody upset about how overtime played out in the NFC game? Saints won the toss, took the ball...and lost!

With Kelce on their team no less.