NFL 2016/17
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
- Status
Just let me say again. SUDDEN DEATH rocks! Adds excitement to almost every single play in OT, knowing it could very well be the last. At any moment lightening could strike. One side will be delirious with joy, the other crushed by the defeat. Absolutely love it!
The caveat in the rule about FG's is fine, makes teams have to play all out to win it right from the start of OT.
The caveat in the rule about FG's is fine, makes teams have to play all out to win it right from the start of OT.
So many months without football now 
Will be interesting what happens with Romo & others in free-agency. I think Shanahan will try to make a move for Cousins. Denver will surely go for a QB too. Pats also have a decision about what to do with Jimmy G.
I hope we bring back Bennett. Gronk needs to prove his fitness, it wouldn't shock me if he was traded because Bill does the 'wtf moves' but I really hope (and expect) Gronk stays.
Will be interesting what happens with Romo & others in free-agency. I think Shanahan will try to make a move for Cousins. Denver will surely go for a QB too. Pats also have a decision about what to do with Jimmy G.
I hope we bring back Bennett. Gronk needs to prove his fitness, it wouldn't shock me if he was traded because Bill does the 'wtf moves' but I really hope (and expect) Gronk stays.
Don't forget the Draft. Players who scouts and coaches have watched hours of film on will find their draft fortunes rising and falling drastically due to 20 minute work outs. There's some fun mock draft websites out there, including one that does the first 3 rounds not just the first round, Walters I think it is called.So many months without football now
Will be interesting what happens with Romo & others in free-agency. I think Shanahan will try to make a move for Cousins. Denver will surely go for a QB too. Pats also have a decision about what to do with Jimmy G.
I hope we bring back Bennett. Gronk needs to prove his fitness, it wouldn't shock me if he was traded because Bill does the 'wtf moves' but I really hope (and expect) Gronk stays.
Amazing how the coverage of the draft has changed over the years. Gotten a bit crazy, don't watch a lot of it anymore, too many other things go on.
I blame the loss solely on Shannahan and then the rest of the coaching staff or at least the DC and HC. 1st and 10 on the Pats 22, you need pts and need to kill the clock with one of the best backs in the game...And you pass. The HC and DC should if stepped in and said something. The D was dead tired and weren't going to stop the Pats. Anyone would of ran the ball three straight times and took the FG to put the game away. This game will haunt Shannahan for the rest of his life......Minboggling stupid, arrogant play calling.
Anyone besides me remember this game that used to be held annually?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_College_All-Star_Game
Remember the 1976 game the most, called in the 3rd quarter due to rain, rivers of water were running down the steps of the stadium it was raining so hard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_College_All-Star_Game
Remember the 1976 game the most, called in the 3rd quarter due to rain, rivers of water were running down the steps of the stadium it was raining so hard.
I don't understand what's confusing you.
25% of the time, according to you, a team doesn't get a chance to win the game. Yet that's fair because 75% of the time both teams do.
Surely it would be best if both teams were afforded an equal chance every time?
I think playoffs/super bowl, you give each team a possession.... Regular season you can keep it as is...Ultimately I'd like to see college rules but players won't let that happen.
Article showing how ESPN's in game odd's on winning went from 99.8% in favor of the Falcons to favoring the Pats even when they were still down 28-20 with 1 minute to go, and went hugely over to the Pats before OT even started. Interesting that even after the Falcons failed to score before giving the Pats the ball back for the game tying drive, ESPN's in game odds still had the Pats chances in single digits, even after the Edelman catch it was in single digits.
Also it provides and interesting take on Quinn's challenge of the Edelman catch. It was right before the two minute warning by challenging and stopping the clock he gave NE an extra play before the two minute warning.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/pag...cle-how-patriots-came-back-dead-super-bowl-li
Also it provides and interesting take on Quinn's challenge of the Edelman catch. It was right before the two minute warning by challenging and stopping the clock he gave NE an extra play before the two minute warning.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/pag...cle-how-patriots-came-back-dead-super-bowl-li
25% of the time, according to you, a team doesn't get a chance to win the game. Yet that's fair because 75% of the time both teams do.
Surely it would be best if both teams were afforded an equal chance every time?
They are afforded an equal chance, they play an whole regular length game plus overtime. It's hardly the major advantage some twat on internet who does not even watch or understand the game makes it out to be. Go wum about a sport you actually follow.
The same reason so many people detest our beloved United - because they are winners.
College OT rules are shit.
This OT debate is getting old real fast now lol.
I think it could be improved but it seems we are looking at it in isolation a bit.
If the Patriots didn't score then all Falcons would need is a FG to win. If Patriots only got a FG, Atlanta gets a chance to drive.
The bar is set higher for the first teams drive than the second teams on that basis, which evens itself out a bit.
Also, a possession each also has its flaws. The second team would basically have 4 downs on each chain - a luxury the first team wouldn't have. Also they would know if they need a TD or FG. What happens if neither team scores too? Is next score wins then still unfair because the first team had two chances but the second team one?
Point I'm making is I agree present OT rules are not perfect but they aren't as bad as they seems nor is a possession each necessarily as fair.
I think it could be improved but it seems we are looking at it in isolation a bit.
If the Patriots didn't score then all Falcons would need is a FG to win. If Patriots only got a FG, Atlanta gets a chance to drive.
The bar is set higher for the first teams drive than the second teams on that basis, which evens itself out a bit.
Also, a possession each also has its flaws. The second team would basically have 4 downs on each chain - a luxury the first team wouldn't have. Also they would know if they need a TD or FG. What happens if neither team scores too? Is next score wins then still unfair because the first team had two chances but the second team one?
Point I'm making is I agree present OT rules are not perfect but they aren't as bad as they seems nor is a possession each necessarily as fair.
I used to think it was unfair back when you could win with a field goal but considering you need a touchdown to win on the first possession it's not the end of the world anymore.
I'm not really sure what else to suggest to make it fairer.
I'm not really sure what else to suggest to make it fairer.
Just reading around the old internet and it seems that in the NFL the going rate of winning for the team that wins the pre-game coin toss is around 52 to 53% very similar to your chance of winning the game if you win the OT coin toss. Weird.
Home field advantage in the regular season is not what it used to be either though it gets better in the playoffs.
Home field advantage in the regular season is not what it used to be either though it gets better in the playoffs.
I'm not wumming in the slightest. I'm commenting on something I observed last night which seems to be quite unfair. Call me a twat all you like, but I'm not the only one who sees this as a pretty strange system for finishing a game in what is one of the biggest leagues in the world.
So they're afforded an equal chance to win the game in normal time. Obviously I agree with you. But you have acknowledged that one out of every four times a game goes to over time, one team is not afforded a chance to win the game. No matter what you say, that's not a level playing field.
Horrible challenge.
Both teams have a chance to score a touchdown perhaps?
And they tend to get away with shit...Pushing the rules...But they still win.
How so?
Sure you could to be fair, I wouldn't be averse to that.
Although considering that the second team currently only have to kick it to win then it becomes much easier for them to win if they do stop that first touchdown. I really don't think it's too unbalanced.
As noted above there's an issue with that because the second team would always be able to go for it on 4th down with no risk.
I personally don't enjoy the whole start in scoring position thing, but that is just a personal opinion. They really are not shit, just not what I like.
There is always some advantage for one team or the other, you see that in the in game odds that have become so popular. Even winning the pre-game coin toss gives you a slight advantage based on the flip of a coin and either yours or your opponents ability to guess the correct result, though it is still only slightly better than a 50% chance. Home field advantage during the regular season is a decent advantage (around 57% last I looked) better in the play offs (think around 70%).
There is no way to completely balance it out. Current rules work great, Falcons actually had a good chance to intercept at least one pass and failed.
OMG! I went to sleep after NE scored their first TD This is the first I'm reading about Falcons choking.
This is the first I'm reading about Falcons choking.Yeah I'm with you on the current rules. As far as I'm concerned the bonus of being able to only need to drive to FG kicking position if you do stop the first drive balances it out nicely.
If you want to win the championship then your defence should be stepping up when it counts.
The better comparison from the NBA for Brady would be Tim Duncan.
Reading the interview with the one Falcons defender involved in Edelman's catch and he made a huge error.
If fairness he was diving when he hit the ball, but he admitted he was trying to tip it into the air.
While you do see interceptions after one defender has tipped the ball, as a general rule if you can't catch it, you try to knock it down specifically to avoid the ball being caught by the receiver. Especially later in the game, if you are not catching it, knock it DOWN not up.
If fairness he was diving when he hit the ball, but he admitted he was trying to tip it into the air.
That's not what reality means.
Jesus Christ. Go back and read that post. It's not my analysis. It's Espn's numbers. I even linked to it in that very post! You've made about 7 foolish posts on this one point because you failed to read the post properly.
True.
That was obviously a key play but there was also the Bennett catch where the ball floated in the air & looked for all money to be an interception but he ended up catching it & a first down. Small margins make all the difference.
Also, since the Pats won it will sort of be forgotten, but that catch from Julio Jones was beastly. The CB should've made the play but take nothing away from Julio.
Imagine if Brady had Jones as a receiver
Imagine if Brady had Jones as a receiver
JustAWum clearly.
Also, I think the Falcons dude has to be intercepting the ball in OT, just before game winning TD score.
Also, I think the Falcons dude has to be intercepting the ball in OT, just before game winning TD score.
The ot rules are flawed, the same way the triple punishment rule in football is flawed or the fact that you foul out in basketball after 6 fouls no matter if its in regular time, first ot, second ot...
Calling that out isn't being a sore loser it's a legitimate point. But no surprise that the law and order police Raoul is throwing out statements like "Rules are rules and if everyone knows them its fine".
Oh and that guy claiming Brady>Jordan must be on drugs or is still drunk from the match.
Calling that out isn't being a sore loser it's a legitimate point. But no surprise that the law and order police Raoul is throwing out statements like "Rules are rules and if everyone knows them its fine".
Oh and that guy claiming Brady>Jordan must be on drugs or is still drunk from the match.
NFL v NBA comparisons are generally silly across the board. Two completely different sports requiring different skill sets, one is episodical, the other continuous etc.
It's comparing the relative greatness in the context of each their sport disciplines not a comparison of the skillset. In that sense it's easy to say Jordan>Brady.
How anyone can look at the current OT and say they're fair is beyond me.
They aren't designed to be a paragon of fairnesss. The objective is to prod one of the two teams to win the game so it doesn't end in a tie. There is a degree of chance in the coin toss but that's no less fair than the degree of chance that happens when a pass is tipped and the other team catches it for an int , or a receiver from the offense happens to be in the area to catch it.
Did some googling on college football OT and the three sources I looked at show that statistically going on defense first in OT gives you a 54% chance of winning the game. So whoever wins the coin toss can give themselves that same statistical advantage that you get in the NFL by winning the coin toss. Actually a better advantage by a few percentage points.
Not sure the college system is really that much more or less fair than the NFL.
Do most college coaches choose defense first in the first OT? Or offense?
The stats also suggested that most college OT games are decided in the first OT, is that true?
The one I read on reddit suggested that 68% of the games do not get past the first OT.
Plus going seconds on offense you know what is required to win or at least continue the game. Seems an advantage.
So IF the stats are correct in the NFL you have a slightly better than 50% chance of winning the game if you win the OT coin toss, but only 25% of the OT games are decided without both teams getting a possession
In college you have a slightly better than 50% change of winning if you win the coin toss and elect to go on defense first. Plus 68% of the games are ended after one OT period.
In both systems there is a built in advantage to winning the coin toss, in fact it might be a bit better in college.
If the game goes into multiple OT's in each OT the team going on defense first maintains that slightly better than 50% advantage in each round.
This seems to support the idea that even assuring each side a possession does not balance out the odds of winning.
Not sure the college system is really that much more or less fair than the NFL.
Do most college coaches choose defense first in the first OT? Or offense?
The stats also suggested that most college OT games are decided in the first OT, is that true?
The one I read on reddit suggested that 68% of the games do not get past the first OT.
Plus going seconds on offense you know what is required to win or at least continue the game. Seems an advantage.
So IF the stats are correct in the NFL you have a slightly better than 50% chance of winning the game if you win the OT coin toss, but only 25% of the OT games are decided without both teams getting a possession
In college you have a slightly better than 50% change of winning if you win the coin toss and elect to go on defense first. Plus 68% of the games are ended after one OT period.
In both systems there is a built in advantage to winning the coin toss, in fact it might be a bit better in college.
If the game goes into multiple OT's in each OT the team going on defense first maintains that slightly better than 50% advantage in each round.
This seems to support the idea that even assuring each side a possession does not balance out the odds of winning.
Last edited:
- Status