Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Modified OT Rule?

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    At first, I was thinking about how much I hate this idea. Then, I thought about it and it makes sense to use the idea about needing 6 to win. And then I also recalled how we lost to Buffalo in OT on a FG so I'm definitely in favor of changing the rules. :)

    I could go either way, not really that interested in it. I'd rather see changes to other rules than this one. It's like when the Pats missed the playoffs with 11 wins and the Chargers got in with 8 because they won their division... people were actually making noise about changing the rules so that the Pats would go to the playoffs. Hilarious. This rule change proposal is a knee jerk reaction, much like the Brady rule. Yeah, I went there. Pun city baby.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    18,349
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's a TEAM game, an offense and a defense should have the same chance to win or lose the game. I don't know if this scenario would help that or not, but it sounds better then the current system at least.

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    N.Attleboro, MA
    Posts
    3,814
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have always been in favor of keeping the current system, but that was when the defense had a reasonable chance of stopping the offense. You guys make fun of the so called Brady Rule, but in reality its the Pulian/Peyton (sean) rules that were made AFTER 2004 that completely changed the game into the pass happy frenzy we see today.

    The balance of power is completely with the offense now. Competitively that's OK in the context of a regular game, because BOTH sides get a chance to start off WITH the ball once a half. HOWEVER giving the ball to an offense first in a sudden death situation in TODAY's game is giving TOO much of an advantage to the team that wins the toss

    Now this overtime format has been a controversial one since its inception. I can remember that back in the 90's they found that the team that won the toss won the game around 53% of the time (IIRC). An advantage to the offense but still close enough to 50-50 to keep it fair. I'd be surprised if you didn't find that if you took a look at the last 4 years of OT's you'd find that the team that won the toss was winning at better than a 65% percentage rate. Now THAT's just too much of an advantage and a change like this is appropriate.

    I love the idea that under the proposal you can win it with a TD the first possession. It adds a ton of strategy to the game, and for the fans, a great opportunity for second guessing play calling. Not only would it be fairer, it would more entertaining for the fans. What could be better
    Last edited by patsfanken; 03-01-2010 at 08:33 PM.

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    7,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BigBensAngel7;3510071]all i am saying is that if it was trent edwards that didnt get a chance to touch the ball there would not be a media outcry like there is with favre or peyton.

    for those high power offense teams maybe they should learn to play better defense. you should have a balance team, one that can play both offense and defense..

    i am willing to give the new rules a try[/QUOTE]

    But we're not talking about Trent Edwards because he isn't a difference maker that got left on the sideline. Those QBs I mentioned are the best players on their team. It's stupid for a game to be decided without the best players having a say.

    Really? They should play better defense? Well no sh!t. But in the real world, it doesn't always work out that way.

  5. #25
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here's a completely different option : Why have OT at all?

    Obviously it would be needed in the play-offs but why is it necessary in the regular season?

    It lets coaches duck out of making a decision, as they will always go for a tie and then, if they lose in OT, they're considered unlucky. Imagine the scenario being 3 points down on 4th down, in the last minute and inside the opponents 10. A coach would have to decide whether to take the FG and settle for a tie or go for the win and gamble on getting a TD.

    It would also allevaite a lot of the highly complex end of season tie breakers involving strength of schedule and the like. A 9-6-1 team would obviously qualify above a 9-7 one, for example.

    Thoughts?

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    home of the hot guy in my avatar.. oh baby!
    Posts
    4,455
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=TheMikeIsHot;3510514]But we're not talking about Trent Edwards because he isn't a difference maker that got left on the sideline. Those QBs I mentioned are the best players on their team. It's stupid for a game to be decided without the best players having a say.

    Really? They should play better defense? Well no sh!t. But in the real world, it doesn't always work out that way.[/QUOTE]
    as i said before, this wouldnt be an issue if it were alex smith of the 9ers and edwards of the bills in an overtime game. the rules are what they are and everyone knows what they are. if you lose the coin toss then you better play your tail off on defense if you want your beloved peyton to get a chance. fantasy football has ruined the actual game of football now.

  7. #27
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SI NY
    Posts
    1,049
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Flea Flicker;3510677]Here's a completely different option : Why have OT at all?

    Obviously it would be needed in the play-offs but why is it necessary in the regular season?

    It lets coaches duck out of making a decision, as they will always go for a tie and then, if they lose in OT, they're considered unlucky. Imagine the scenario being 3 points down on 4th down, in the last minute and inside the opponents 10. A coach would have to decide whether to take the FG and settle for a tie or go for the win and gamble on getting a TD.

    It would also allevaite a lot of the highly complex end of season tie breakers involving strength of schedule and the like. A 9-6-1 team would obviously qualify above a 9-7 one, for example.

    Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
    Ugh..Ties?

    There is nothing worse than a tie. I would rather lose than tie anyday.
    First you have the whole standings mess with 3 columns. It's just ugly.

    2. If you go to a game and it ends in a tie, to me that is much worse than a loss because it is just confusing. When you lose, you feel sh*tty. When you win you feel good. When you tie? It just feels like a waste of time.



    Make it first team to score 4 points.

    Kicking is just a stupid part of football anyway. The only time it should be used is for change of possession. You have these unbelievable athletes at every position battling each other mano-a-mano, and then to actually put points on the board you use a nerdy dude to kick the ball 100 feet between two posts. It makes no sense. If I had my way, the Red Zone would just be called 4-down territory.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bayville & Sec334
    Posts
    2,099
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;3509361]No rules change necessary.

    Favre shouldn't have thrown that pick at the end of the 4th.

    They'd have been headed to the Superbowl. Problem solved.

    Instead of looking at this, the league should be reviewing some of the PI calls/holding calls from that game :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


    Or the 9(?) other turnovers.
    That was the worst game I ever saw.

  9. #29
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    18,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jefethegreat;3509582]The problem with overtime rules is not the format of a football game. While college changes the game in overtime, the pros do not and that is really a good thing. The problem with the pro system is that whoever gets the ball in overtime is based purely on blind luck. Possession is decided by a coin flip. I think if you want to fix the overtime in the NFL get ride of the coin flip and determine possession based on momentum and talent rather than luck. The ball should be placed on the 30 yard line, the spot of the kickoff, and each team elects a player to start at the other 30 yard line at one of the two hash marks. The ref would blow the whistle and the first player to get the ball gets the ball in overtime. This way if you lose in overtime its your own fault because you at least had a chance to win. I hope people give some thought to this kind of reform rather than this 'we both need to be on offense' mantra that I hear everyday.[/QUOTE]

    I was thinking a thumb wrestle at the 50 yard line would work as well. Teams would have one more consideration when filling out their rosters....guys with inordinately long thumbs would have a leg up on making the team.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    7,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BigBensAngel7;3510684]as i said before, this wouldnt be an issue if it were alex smith of the 9ers and edwards of the bills in an overtime game. the rules are what they are and everyone knows what they are. if you lose the coin toss then you better play your tail off on defense if you want your beloved peyton to get a chance. fantasy football has ruined the actual game of football now.[/QUOTE]

    Fantasy football has nothing to do with this. Why are you even bringing it up?

    Alex Smith and Trent Edwards are not who fans are paying $120 a ticket to see. They want to see Philip Rivers and Drew Brees and Peyton Manning. When something as random as a coin toss is determining the outcome of a game and not the best player in the stadium, that's a problem.

    This isn't the first year that the competition committee is being asked to change the OT format. Thankfully, it's finally the year that they've finally figured out that the current system is a joke and the bad publicity eventually caught up to them.

    "Play Defense!!!!" is not a very good argument for the current system. Neither is "those are the rules." Enough with games being decided by a coin toss.

  11. #31
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bailey, CO
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like
    The rule changes would apply to the playoffs only. Stupid idea. Leave it alone.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    2,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    First to six is a great idea. I'm tired of watching close games that are decided by a damn coin flip and then a stupid penalty like pass interference penalty the ends up putting a team in FG range for the easy win.

  13. #33
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    If didn't win the game in the first 60 minutes it is not the coins fault you lost.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is stupid and would just go towards ruining the game.

    It isn't broke, don't fix it. This isn't College Football (thank god or else we'd be in the stadium for 5 hours every week) and if you want to win the game, NEWSFLASH: YOU CAN STOP THE OTHER TEAM. I heard a rumor that it has happened before.

  15. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,875
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanInSec230;3532859]It is stupid and would just go towards ruining the game.

    It isn't broke, don't fix it. This isn't College Football (thank god or else we'd be in the stadium for 5 hours every week) and if you want to win the game, NEWSFLASH: YOU CAN STOP THE OTHER TEAM. I heard a rumor that it has happened before.[/QUOTE]

    +1

    They've monkeyed around with the rules of the game too much as it is. Today's NFL is all about the offense. Coin flips suck (especially clandestine one's for Jet's fans...sorry, could resist the irony) but why change it? It still is about a 50/50 chance the winner of the flip wins the game.

    If they WERE to change it, the current idea sux. Better ideas are an 8 minute overtime period, or when the first team scores, the opposing team gets one more possession. But I'd still rather see the current sudden death.

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    The ONLY logical option is to make the first team to score 6 points win the game.

  17. #37
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    JMO: The only change I'd like to see is an extended 8 or 10 minute quarter. Then sudden death after for playoffs if still tied. I don't want to see anything like the college system in the NFL. Play defense, don't turn the ball over, & remember that the team that takes advantage of breaks (part of football) generally wins.

  18. #38
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Postseason;3532850]If didn't win the game in the first 60 minutes it is not the coins fault you lost.[/QUOTE]

    Thank you. Win the game in regulation and you won't have to worry about the "unfair results of a coin toss"
    Last edited by WJGC; 03-21-2010 at 01:43 PM.

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    3,825
    Post Thanks / Like
    I opened this tread thinkin we could now post [B]O[/B]ff [B]T[/B]opic on the strip?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us