2022 NFL Divisional Weekend

[nybf]

What percent of drives end in TDs for even the best offenses? 20%?

11 playoff OT games since the rule change. 7 have ended in first possession offensive TDs.

[uscbucsfan]

The thing about Mahomes heart rate is pretty cool. I'd imagine it's the same with Brady or any of the greats...It's just wild that down with 13 second left he's as calm as he can be.

edit: For those who didn't see, Mahomes had a heart rate monitor during the Chiefs v Bills game. His rate was consistently the highest when he wasn't playing and dramatically lower while on the field, especially in pressure situations.

This came up in the Brady thread, but to add to this...I saw that Mahomes/Chiefs are 3-1 when they have less than 5% chance to win in the playoffs, the rest of the NFL is 1-38 in that same span.

That's a pretty crazy stat.

[nybf]

Win probability is a really tough stat to get behind.

[Cheb]

If I had my druthers, I would institute the old college overtime process in the NFL. Alternating possessions, maybe push back the starting point to the 35 or whatever. Each team's offense and defense has a chance to win the game, and they keep going until somebody makes a game winning play.

[uscbucsfan]

If I had my druthers, I would institute the old college overtime process in the NFL. Alternating possessions, maybe push back the starting point to the 35 or whatever. Each team's offense and defense has a chance to win the game, and they keep going until somebody makes a game winning play.

I like this as well, but I believe the players union and owners almost unanimously voted against it a few years ago.

I think it was either how we have it or an extra quarter.

Not sure why.

[Doctor]

You all do realize that the entire point of OT rules is to END a game that has RUN OVER time right?

If you just create scenarios that can keep extending the game in perpetuity, you aren't really making overtime rules. If both teams keep matching each other's possession outcome, your game doesn't end. You'll need an overtime for your overtime.

[uscbucsfan]

You all do realize that the entire point of OT rules is to END a game that has RUN OVER time right?

If you just create scenarios that can keep extending the game in perpetuity, you aren't really making overtime rules. If both teams keep matching each other's possession outcome, your game doesn't end. You'll need an overtime for your overtime.

Which fans love...but I can see why players don't.

[Cheb]

You all do realize that the entire point of OT rules is to END a game that has RUN OVER time right?

If you just create scenarios that can keep extending the game in perpetuity, you aren't really making overtime rules. If both teams keep matching each other's possession outcome, your game doesn't end. You'll need an overtime for your overtime.

Don't be obtuse. Overtimes would not go in perpetuity, nor did they. Eventually, someone makes a mistake or an excellent play and the game would end.

The goal here is not to either lengthen or shorten the game. If that is your goal, then I think you've got it twisted.

The goal is to end the game is a fair and satisfactory manner, where both teams have a fair shot of winning the game. The solution is a simple one. Not difficult to do. If your team is truly the better one and you dominate OT, you can win it in a series with a pick six or a scoop and score, but more likely in two series with a defensive stop and an offensive score.

It would be equitable. No punts or kickoffs. Straight football. May the best team win.

[MJW]

You all do realize that the entire point of OT rules is to END a game that has RUN OVER time right?

If you just create scenarios that can keep extending the game in perpetuity, you aren't really making overtime rules. If both teams keep matching each other's possession outcome, your game doesn't end. You'll need an overtime for your overtime.

Don't be obtuse. Overtimes would not go in perpetuity, nor did they. Eventually, someone makes a mistake or an excellent play and the game would end.

The goal here is not to either lengthen or shorten the game. If that is your goal, then I think you've got it twisted.

The goal is to end the game is a fair and satisfactory manner, where both teams have a fair shot of winning the game. The solution is a simple one. Not difficult to do. If your team is truly the better one and you dominate OT, you can win it in a series with a pick six or a scoop and score, but more likely in two series with a defensive stop and an offensive score.

It would be equitable. No punts or kickoffs. Straight football. May the best team win.

There should be no scenario where one team gets an offensive possession and the other does not. It's ridiculous this is even a point of debate. We'd understand it perfectly if the NBA worked this way (score on your offensive possession and the game is over), or hockey (make your shootout shots, and the game is over) and certainly baseball (you're up first, you score, the game is over.)

I can completely understand why the union blanches at the idea of more (uncompensated) football. But this is not the way it should work.

[Doctor]

You all do realize that the entire point of OT rules is to END a game that has RUN OVER time right?

If you just create scenarios that can keep extending the game in perpetuity, you aren't really making overtime rules. If both teams keep matching each other's possession outcome, your game doesn't end. You'll need an overtime for your overtime.

Don't be obtuse. Overtimes would not go in perpetuity, nor did they. Eventually, someone makes a mistake or an excellent play and the game would end.

The goal here is not to either lengthen or shorten the game. If that is your goal, then I think you've got it twisted.

The goal is to end the game is a fair and satisfactory manner, where both teams have a fair shot of winning the game. The solution is a simple one. Not difficult to do. If your team is truly the better one and you dominate OT, you can win it in a series with a pick six or a scoop and score, but more likely in two series with a defensive stop and an offensive score.

It would be equitable. No punts or kickoffs. Straight football. May the best team win.

So it's okay to remove ST from the equation but not the other teams QB? Why because they are more glamourous? Seems arbitrary. May as well peel back the trenches too and just have QBs throwing 50/50 balls to 1-on-1 match ups and see who comes down with it.

Absolutely the point of OT is to end a game that's run over. No one wants another 26 inning baseball game. You have 60 minutes to show you are the better team. If at the end of those 60 minutes you have not shown so, then you are saying "hey, we've shown we're evenly matched, may as well flip a coin".... which is why it literally can come down to a coin flip.

If you don't want it to come down to a random coinflip, do more to win in regulation. If you're confident your team is the better team- the WHOLE team, not just the offense, then play for OT. Or if you're okay with chance deciding your season, play for OT. But if you're not either of those, then that's on you to avoid OT.

With that said, I wouldn't mind a change to OT. I really wouldn't. Fuck it, lets shift to a college system. Sure.
But miss me with this boo hoo narrative of "Josh Allen doing all he could only to be beaten by the rules" as if he didn't touch the ball on the previous fail drives, or worse still as if his play is the only play that matters on a 53 man roster.

[Doctor]

Don't be obtuse. Overtimes would not go in perpetuity, nor did they. Eventually, someone makes a mistake or an excellent play and the game would end.

The goal here is not to either lengthen or shorten the game. If that is your goal, then I think you've got it twisted.

The goal is to end the game is a fair and satisfactory manner, where both teams have a fair shot of winning the game. The solution is a simple one. Not difficult to do. If your team is truly the better one and you dominate OT, you can win it in a series with a pick six or a scoop and score, but more likely in two series with a defensive stop and an offensive score.

It would be equitable. No punts or kickoffs. Straight football. May the best team win.

There should be no scenario where one team gets an offensive possession and the other does not.

There wasn't. The Bills offense got several possessions that day.

[MJW]

There should be no scenario where one team gets an offensive possession and the other does not.

There wasn't. The Bills offense got several possessions that day.

Was Bootz unable to fulfill his duties and you're assuming the role of Bootz in his stead?

[Doctor]

There's no crying in baseball

[nybf]

There wasn't. The Bills offense got several possessions that day.

Was Bootz unable to fulfill his duties and you're assuming the role of Bootz in his stead?

Yeah, if Lefty, Jensen, and Godwin all came back it would probably make it that much hard for Brady to decide to hang them up and walk away, but I really doubt they are heavily weighted factors at all.

Glad to see someone picking up the "argue both sides at the same time" slack around here.

[BLT]

Yo, when did Bootz get Doctor's login? Or were they the same guy the whole time.

[kaimaru]

There's no crying in baseball

Someone missed the memo on that.

[kaimaru]

Yo, when did Bootz get Doctor's login? Or were they the same guy the whole time.

Seriously, he is trying to parse the wording to find holes in comments.

[kaimaru]

There should be no scenario where one team gets an offensive possession and the other does not.

There wasn't. The Bills offense got several possessions that day.

You know he meant in overtime. Don't be obtuse.

The TV networks would love a longer overtime for playoff games. You think they don't have high priced commercials on demand they can play for overtime? You don't think they would want to televise a longer game instead of playing a rerun of Steve Harvey's Court?

The only reason we aren't going to a full period or the college format is that the players' union doesn't want it, and the NFL isn't going to risk losing game 17 and an extra playoff game over that in the CBA. They have their priorities.