Overtime changes ideas

[Quientus]

Sorry, but a FG shootout involving just special teams is not involving the 'whole team' - that is not semantics. Where have I ever said that kickers aren't part of the whole team? Just because I don't want just one part of the team to determine the outcome doesn't mean I don't count kickers as part of the team - and saying that the idea went completely over my head is ridiculous. The entire game has been played with all parts of the team participating, now you want to include only the special teams? With your idea, at that point the whole team now consists of only the kicking special teams. My idea still includes the whole team (including kickers), while your idea excludes the offense and defense which play a bigger role during the game than what the kickers do.

You are correct, this was about ideas and I just happen to disagree with your idea and have explained why I disagree. I have never said that to be fair both teams need to get an equal number of possessions. My idea was each team gets at least 1 possession regardless of whether the fist team scores a td or not. After that, if the game is still tied then go to sudden death. Let the 'whole team' determine the outcome, not just the kickers.

You do realize, even in your own scenario, it STILL Will NOT be The "whole" team who decides The outcome, but 1/3 of a team ???

/boggle

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

You do realize, even in your own scenario, it STILL Will NOT be The "whole" team who decides The outcome, but 1/3 of a team ???

/boggle

I realize the final score can only be performed by the offense, defense or special teams, but they all have the ability to participate during the entire overtime and contribute to the score. Even if the special teams ends up kicking a field goal, it would be because the offense or defense got them in a position to kick the field goal. Now who is the one talking semantics?

 

[Quientus]

Dayum ... You guys just dont like kickers

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Dayum ... You guys just dont like kickers

And you like kickers too much.

Besides, watching a field goal shootout would be boring IMO.

 

[Quientus]

And you like kickers too much.

Actually I dont ... Except for 2 ...

One being Morten Andersen (I'm Danish )

The other being Ryan Longwell

Apart from those I really dont have a preferrence

 

[TJV]

I think it favours the team winning the toss.
Team winning the toss - (1) Score
Team losing the toss - (1) defend and gain possession (2) Score
Both teams need to get a drive each. Rinse and repeat till one team gets a score and other doesn't.

It does favor the team winning the toss, that's why I like the idea of the visiting team having the option. The home team has an earned advantage for 60 minutes. If it can't win the game in that time, I think it's fair to give the visiting team the option at the start of OT. And I'd like that idea even at Lambeau. But I'm OK under the current rules since all the team kicking off has to do is prevent a TD. As RRyder posted, I really don't think that's too much to ask of a defense.

 

[Packerlifer]

I wonder why we never hear a call for rule changes from the side that won? Coming from the losing side or perspective lacks credibility. The Packers would have won Saturday night if they scored it like golf; low score wins. Is that where we eventually end up in these discussions?

Whatever the rules of the game are take care of your business in regulation or make the plays you need to in the OT. If you don't you lose anyway.

 

[longtimefan]

Whatever the rules of the game are take care of your business in regulation or make the plays you need to in the OT. If you don't you lose anyway.

In regulation, both sides get a chance to take care of their business...

 

[Cheese Meister]

I remember watching a college game that went into multiple overtimes. I don't think we would want that on pro football. It would cut into precious programming.

 

[RRyder]

In regulation, both sides get a chance to take care of their business...

And it's the same in OT allready also. If the defense fails to take care of business why should that teams offense get a chance to match? Did defensive players stop getting paid?

 

[longtimefan]

And it's the same in OT allready also. If the defense fails to take care of business why should that teams offense get a chance to match? Did defensive players stop getting paid?

Regulation off and Def get a chance.

 

[RRyder]

Regulation off and Def get a chance.

Well they allready change the rules from regulation to OT so unless you want them to play a full quarter than that has little bearing.

If the D can't stop them from going the length of the field with the game on the line than no the offense doesn't deserve a chance.

Once again asking a Defense to make a play isn't to much to ask. They get paid too. Get a sack, tip a ball, force a pick, hold them to a 3 & out or even just simply not letting them into the endzone. These are all things a D is expected to do.

Hell I didn't have a problem with the old OT rules..... The team kicking off gives up a long KO return and they end up in FG range right off the bat..... Well I guess your STs probably shouldn't have effed up then. Good on their STs for making a play when it counted.

Really what you and others are arguing for is to deem a peticular unit, in this case the offense, more valuable than the other two. I'm ok with regulating STs in OT but saying it shouldn't matter if the Defense can't make one freaking stop so that the offense should still get a chance is putting the D in the same boat as the STs as it really wouldn't matter how the D plays as long as the offense scores.

Once again this is the NFL not college. Defensive players still get paid. Make a play.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Well they allready change the rules from regulation to OT so unless you want them to play a full quarter than that has little bearing.

If you just gave both sides at least 1 offensive possession then they wouldn't have to play a full quarter.

Let's say neither team's defense can stop the other team's offense. If it goes to overtime, the team winning the coin toss has a huge advantage since they will probably score a td and the other team's offense never gets a chance. I see no problem giving both teams at least 1 offensive possession and then go to sudden death if needed after that.

 

[RRyder]

If you just gave both sides at least 1 offensive possession then they wouldn't have to play a full quarter.

Let's say neither team's defense can stop the other team's offense. If it goes to overtime, the team winning the coin toss has a huge advantage since they will probably score a td and the other team's offense never gets a chance. I see no problem giving both teams at least 1 offensive possession and then go to sudden death if needed after that.

Well now in that scenerio your still running into the same problem that people are complaining about now. One team would have possession one more time over the other. Seriously if it's to much to ask for the D to make a play than cut their salaries in half cause apparently they aren't worth nearly as much as the offense

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So what if they change it to both offenses get the ball. So they both kick field goals and now the team that won the flip initially gets the ball back again and kicks another one. Now they got 2 possessions and the other team only one, all because of a coin flip

That's why I'm advocating for both teams to get the same amount of possessions until the game isn't tied anymore.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And it's the same in OT allready also. If the defense fails to take care of business why should that teams offense get a chance to match? Did defensive players stop getting paid?

Well, offensive players get paid as well but if they don't do their job to start overtime (not scoring any points) the team doesn't end up losing because of it.

 

[Forderick]

There is no "luck of the flip". Stop them from scoring a TD and you have the chance to win it now. The defence failed because they didn't do their job. We don't need to change rules because the packers lost and didn't get a chance to have the ball in OT. They were pretty fortunate to have gone to OT .

The way this season ended 2 years now, changes need to be made and it isn't with the overtime rules.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What are the arguments against playing a 5th quarter that is 10, 12 or even 15 minutes long? Non-playoff games, game is considered a tie if still tied at end of 5th. Play-off games, play a 6th with maybe 2 less minutes.

Playing this long has happened in the past, so saying that it would be too "tiring" isn't a legit argument IMO. Letting the Networks say "it would cut into our scheduling"....so the NFL is going to hone their rules of fairness to please the Networks?

5th quarter, started with a coin toss, but treated like the 2nd or 4th quarter with a 2 minute warning and change of sides and rekick if it goes to a 6th quarter. To me this takes away all of the issues that seem to arise out of the current OT rules and makes the eventual winner earn it under a game like situation.

 

[Mondio]

I think in a hard fought playoff round like we had on Saturday, the team that wins is at a distinct disadvantage going into the next weekends game. Another quarter of playoff football will takes it's toll. As far as i'm concerned, you've played the game and no winner could have been declared. I'm not interested in seeing another game type scenario, i want to see a winner go and grab it. So whatever rules they have in place, know them, play by them and go get it done.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think in a hard fought playoff round like we had on Saturday, the team that wins is at a distinct disadvantage going into the next weekends game. Another quarter of playoff football will takes it's toll. As far as i'm concerned, you've played the game and no winner could have been declared. I'm not interested in seeing another game type scenario, i want to see a winner go and grab it. So whatever rules they have in place, know them, play by them and go get it done.

Why have an overtime then? Just flip a coin and be done with it? I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but if after 4 hard fought quarters, if the only thing that matters is declaring a winner, not who out plays the other team to the end, then end the play and let it come down to a 50/50 coin flip. But if it matters that the declared winner is the better team (that day) then finish the game in the fairest possible way, which I don't think the current OT system does.

But to say another quarter could takes its toll isn't a valid argument to me, since that can and has happened. I would much rather be that dead tired team that won and play next week, then be the team whose offense did not even see the field and now has fresher legs for?

 

[RRyder]

Well, offensive players get paid as well but if they don't do their job to start overtime (not scoring any points) the team doesn't end up losing because of it.

Solid point. I'd argue if they fail at there job though and go 3 & out they give up great field position and the other team is almost in FG range then.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Solid point. I'd argue if they fail at there job though and go 3 & out they give up great field position and the other team is almost in FG range then.

While that is most likely true it doesn´t guarantee the team losing as opposed to the defense giving up a TD.

 

[Mondio]

Why have an overtime then? Just flip a coin and be done with it? I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but if after 4 hard fought quarters, if the only thing that matters is declaring a winner, not who out plays the other team to the end, then end the play and let it come down to a 50/50 coin flip. But if it matters that the declared winner is the better team (that day) then finish the game in the fairest possible way, which I don't think the current OT system does.

But to say another quarter could takes its toll isn't a valid argument to me, since that can and has happened. I would much rather be that dead tired team that won and play next week, then be the team whose offense did not even see the field and now has fresher legs for?

flip the coin, I don't care. We missed the playoffs in a 3 way tie in high school on a coin flip. That was before they seemed to take anyone with a win in the playoffs. Get the rules and play by them. There is no "fair" way in OT. one team can have more possessions, if you do a shortened period, the 1st team with the ball has an advantage, especially if a running team, do a longer period, then fatigue and injury and the next week does become a factor. These guys aren't 18, it takes all week to get ready for the next one. if you do X it favors a running team, if Y it favors the deeper team, if Z the team with the best QB, if a combination of AB&C then it leaves open the possibility that a team just gets lucky on a fluke play and wins. There is no perfect way, so I'm fine with, establish the rules, know them, and play by them. I think having to stop a TD and then get the ball back is a perfectly fine way to do it.

 

[longtimefan]

Well now in that scenerio your still running into the same problem that people are complaining about now. One team would have possession one more time over the other. Seriously if it's to much to ask for the D to make a play than cut their salaries in half cause apparently they aren't worth nearly as much as the offense

Both offenses get the ball once....But who ever gets the most points after both has ball once, then they win.

if tied then they keep going like a regular game...

Baseball allows both sides to get a chance..And it is a FAR STRETCH---

Tied game in baseball...Go to top of 10th...visiting team hits 2 home runs in top of 10th....Game over..The pitcher shouldnt have given up those home runs.

But it isnt, they allow the other side a chance...

 

[Poppa San]

Baseball allows both sides to get a chance..And it is a FAR STRETCH---

Baseball??
Isn't that the sport where the offense never touches the ball?