There's no such thing as relative greatness. It's little more than an invention by those seeking to compare players from sports that have nothing to do with one another.
NFL 2016/17
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
- Status
Yeah makes sense, can't say Brady>Lee Cattermole because hey, different sports!
Because we remember what they used to be? I grew up with OT being - whoever scores 1st - any score wins. At least now, if you score a FG - the other team has an opportunity to match or beat that.
Oh, I get you now.
Nonsensical to compare NFL greats with NBA greats - people bitch about comparing different eras...and now we're doing sports? Particularly a team game like football, where one player no matter how great is limited in how much influence he has and is far too dependent on others. Peyton Manning couldn't play D for those Colts teams - and they more often than not, lost when it counted.
If the Pats had been unable to convert that 2nd 2 pointer - they would have lost because of a stupid PAT...Brady would have fallen to 4-3 in Super Bowls (despite the epic comeback to that point).
Jordan not only scored 30 points a game, but he also was one of the best defensive guards of all time (Steph Curry for example is a straight up liability in crunch time because he can't play D).
I could go with Brady being not just the GOAT in terms of QB, but possibly best NFL players of all time...
If the Pats had been unable to convert that 2nd 2 pointer - they would have lost because of a stupid PAT...Brady would have fallen to 4-3 in Super Bowls (despite the epic comeback to that point).
Jordan not only scored 30 points a game, but he also was one of the best defensive guards of all time (Steph Curry for example is a straight up liability in crunch time because he can't play D).
I could go with Brady being not just the GOAT in terms of QB, but possibly best NFL players of all time...
I am not convinced the OT rules in NFL are wrong but I am also not convinced they are correct. I do not like the college OT rules and do not think they should be implemented into the NFL.
Based on statistics - it is fine that some want to look at the probability of winning in OT after winning the coin toss. However, there are significant rules in place for NFL OT that make winning more difficult.
First, there is a kick-off so just like last night, a touchback requires a team to driver 75 yards and score a touchdown - a nice run back obviously makes the field shorter but good kick coverage could cause a longer field. I like the fact that in the NFL you can't win on a FG and if that is all you get, then the other team gets the ball.
There were 24 total possessions in the game last night and a total of 8 (7 on offense and 1 on defense) touchdowns scored, so exactly 29.1% of offensive drives ended in touchdowns in the game last night. The average for the NFL 20% of drives will end in a touchdown. These statistics really favor the defense to not let a drive end in a touchdown.
The only way a team can win on the first possession in OT is to score a TD - the odds of that are no where near 50%.
Based on statistics - it is fine that some want to look at the probability of winning in OT after winning the coin toss. However, there are significant rules in place for NFL OT that make winning more difficult.
First, there is a kick-off so just like last night, a touchback requires a team to driver 75 yards and score a touchdown - a nice run back obviously makes the field shorter but good kick coverage could cause a longer field. I like the fact that in the NFL you can't win on a FG and if that is all you get, then the other team gets the ball.
There were 24 total possessions in the game last night and a total of 8 (7 on offense and 1 on defense) touchdowns scored, so exactly 29.1% of offensive drives ended in touchdowns in the game last night. The average for the NFL 20% of drives will end in a touchdown. These statistics really favor the defense to not let a drive end in a touchdown.
The only way a team can win on the first possession in OT is to score a TD - the odds of that are no where near 50%.
Just to throw in the discussion on how fair the OT rule is.
For the team that receives first, they have to score a TD to win. If they are 3 and out, they have to punt or kick a field goal.
A field goal doesn't automatically win you the game, so it gives the receiving team a chance to then play. At this point, they know what they have to do.
Lets say the patriots score a field goal on their possession. They give the ball back to the Falcons. If they end up on third down and need 9 yards, they have the luxury of knowing they cannot punt the ball and just have to make the yards. They have that extra down to get where they need to be, unlike the pats who if it was their first possession, would need to punt it to be safe.
Also, if the Patriots had to punt, then the Falcons only need a FG to win. This means they have to earn less yards for a potential victory
I think thats the rule anyway. There is pros and cons to both sides of the argument really.
EDIT: I had work today and as we were getting beat quite bad I decided to go to sleep when the Falcons scored in the 3rd
For the team that receives first, they have to score a TD to win. If they are 3 and out, they have to punt or kick a field goal.
A field goal doesn't automatically win you the game, so it gives the receiving team a chance to then play. At this point, they know what they have to do.
Lets say the patriots score a field goal on their possession. They give the ball back to the Falcons. If they end up on third down and need 9 yards, they have the luxury of knowing they cannot punt the ball and just have to make the yards. They have that extra down to get where they need to be, unlike the pats who if it was their first possession, would need to punt it to be safe.
Also, if the Patriots had to punt, then the Falcons only need a FG to win. This means they have to earn less yards for a potential victory
I think thats the rule anyway. There is pros and cons to both sides of the argument really.
EDIT: I had work today and as we were getting beat quite bad I decided to go to sleep when the Falcons scored in the 3rd
Love Amendola. So happy he had a big game after going down the depth chart this season.
Actually you can win the OT with a FG providing you are either A) the team that has the ball second and the team that had it first did not score. B) Once each team has had one OT possession. B obviously provides no advantage, but A yeah there is an advantage for the team that gets the ball 2nd.
I remember what they were too. I defo think its better now than it was, but its not crazy to say that it could / should still be tweaked.
Im just thinking imagine the team that wins the coin toss sets to receive, the ball is kicked out, and the Special teams return it for a TD. You could still say ST is part of the game, but would be some way to lose a Superbowl
I do agree there are pros and cons for the way it currently is, but I still dont see the main negative of both teams getting a possession regardless.
And to add another spanner in the thought process. To those who can't understand how the Falcons didn't get a chance ... they did. Their defence is part of their roster. It was up to them to stop the Patriots and they didn't.
But there is thought.
If you are going second, if the opposition team get a FG or a TD, you KNOW you can't punt. You are in 4 down situation already. That is a distinct advantage.
Change takes time. We had the old rules until 2010 - and these new rules didn't even apply to regular season games until 2012ish...
In 2015 - they discussed giving each team a possession - but the owners voted it down.
Perhaps there is still some tweaking to be done on the OT rules, I can see and understand that. I just don't think it's grossly unfair as it is to be fair, and I'd be saying that even if the Falcons got the ball and won. I genuinely believe it's fairer the way it is than having 2 guaranteed possessions.
Check out the stats on the college game and OT rules, outcomes etc see if you find similar to the ones I looked at.
The stats I found on the college game suggest winning the coin toss and going defense first gives you the same advantage that winning the coin toss does in the NFL. So I am not really sure the one possession each model is as fair as people think since you can get an advantage just by winning the coin toss.
TBH if Falcons and won the toss, and gone and scored the TD I would have been annoyed that Brady never got a chance in OT.
Saying that, as a Packers fan, the two times we lost the coin toss and our D took the pitch, I knew we were fcked
FAO Americans
Is there much talk in America of this being unfair? And needing to amend the rules
We get talk about this in the immediate aftermath of a game - so there is some talk. But, in a few weeks no one will give a shit...so, no.
The raised the field goal bars after kickers managed to shoot right over the sticks several times.
American sports are generally quick to react to something being "wrong" with their rules so I wouldn't rule out that it won't get changed. I can't see how unfair or time comusing it would be if Atlanta had gotten one run as well. Just make it so if a team scores from their first attack then the opponent gets one chance. If both fail it's sudden death.
You can't be comparing increasing the height of the poles to changing the OT rules. The old OT rules were in place for decades and decades and even then, when it got changed, it wasn't unanimous.
The majority of owners don't feel there is something 'wrong'. The commish actively lobbied against giving both teams at least 1 possession last season. Seriously, the biggest debate today is
- How much was this choke/how much was great comeback?
- Brady has to be the GOAT now, right?
- Should the 49ers fire Kyle Shanahan right now
Live in Bills country where the hate for the Pats is strong. Nothing in the office so far, it is all about how exciting it was, amazing, Falcons fell apart, stuff like that. Checking the major sports websites so far mostly talk about the game, the comeback, choke, Brady = GOAT or not, this player did this, this player did that, etc. Comment sections seem dominated by "OMG the NFL is rigged, no way Pats could comeback." stuff. But I have not checked all or even most websites.
If anything I expect some pundits might bring it up in a few days, then we will see what gains traction or not.
Slight choke with the way they get themselves out of FG range with the sack and the hold, but in the end the Pats had to take it away from them and win it. So for me, more comback than choke, a lot more- How much was this choke/how much was great comeback?
- Brady has to be the GOAT now, right?
- Should the 49ers fire Kyle Shanahan right now
Dunno. As someone only been into NFL for 10 years or so, it's hard for me to say who is the greatest, his numbers stack up and surely point that way, what for me stands out about him is how clutch he is, leading those drives, and then needing the 2pt plays on top. I don't know if it makes him the greatest, but can't imagine there's been a QB you'd want more than Brady with the ball in his hand a chance to lead a drive to win
Hahaha, i said as much last night when pointing out the 49ers should be asking questions about his playcalling, but he'll still get the job there am sure
Not as much as when this all kicked off. This may surprise Pats fans who seem to feel this debate and everything else revolves around them, it was Favre (a decade or so ago?) that got this going when he was dumped out of the playoffs by a FG in overtime. It became a very hot topic.
I'd say it's still one of the more likely major rule changes that could happen aside from further adjustments to the kicking game. The NFL is still trying to find a way to eliminate the kick off I think.
The issue is whether it is really fair or not? Or really what defines fair in this situation.
Going by the college stats, the equal # of possessions in OT still creates an advantage for the team winning the coin toss (provided they are smart enough to go on defense first).
The sudden death actually begins after the first teams possession, since that is when it becomes a matter of one team being able to win or lose automatically.
That's a terrible reason to think it's fair. "It's better than it used to be" doesn't cut it. If we have to hurry the ending a bit use the NCAA system. Winning the coin toss is a massive advantage.
Became a hot topic right before the rules changed when Peyton Manning lost a couple of times without touching the ball and a few sports writers spent every chance they got talking about the injustice of Peyton Manning not having the ball in OT. Peter King was the worst of them.
I love that Bill hasn't spoken to Peter King in a decade
Winning the coin toss under the college rules gives you the same chance of winning that winning the toss under the NFL rules gives you. Both are slightly over 50%.
And to be clear I liked reading his column.I love that Bill hasn't spoken to Peter King in a decade
He goes with the company line far too often - almost never ever says a bad thing about the NFL, but I like him too. Used to read his column(s) when he was at SI.com and have continued with the not so new project.
Yay!
a bit of perspective -
Only in 4 games did the team down 25+ points comeback - the other ONE THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN TIMES they lost.
7th time in NFL HISTORY.
I don't like the rule, Ryan didn't even get a chance to defend their chances because of a fecking coin toss.
That said, I just watched the whole game (fell asleep midway through the first quarter ffs) and what a game. Edelman is the true definition of a big game player, what a catch.
James White should've won the MVP though.
That said, I just watched the whole game (fell asleep midway through the first quarter ffs) and what a game. Edelman is the true definition of a big game player, what a catch.
James White should've won the MVP though.
I really don't understand why NFL head coaches hate the running game. In the first half, New England should have run the ball more and force Atlanta to respect the running game in order to open some space in the secondary and in the second half Atlanta should have run more because they are good at it and they needed to eat the clock.
In the playoff I have been upset with Bellichick, McCarthy, Garrett and Shanahan. And I shouldn't because they are all brilliant minds and coaches.
In the playoff I have been upset with Bellichick, McCarthy, Garrett and Shanahan. And I shouldn't because they are all brilliant minds and coaches.
No different then people getting upset with Jose, SAF, Pep, etc because of the line up they pick or the subs they make.
The game and it's rule are designed to favor the pass, hence there is a lot of passing. Atlanta passed almost 200 times more than they ran the ball this season including the post season. I think New England played the run better in the 2nd half, certainly better than they did in the first. They also hung onto the ball, thus the huge difference in plays and time of possession even in the first half. At one point between half time and the Patriots controlling the ball Atlanta's offense sat sidelined for over an hour.
The way the Pats controlled the clock to keep the high powered Falcons offense off the field, aided by some good defense and mistakes by the Falcons of course, was a bit like the Bills-Giants Super Bowl where the Giants had more offensive plays, a huge time of possession lead (though accomplished more from the running game and some timely passes) and stopped what many thought was an unstoppable offense. Some very big differences in the two games also, so it is not exactly like for like. When faced with a high powered offense, the more you keep the off the field the better.
That was the real problem.
I'd fecking hate it if someone pm'd me somewhere I could rewatch it, went to bed and missed the second half.
- Status