Jump to content

The 2021 NFL thread


Nova Carmina
 Share

Recommended Posts

By the way, why should we start the game with a coin toss? lol

 

Because we really need the high drama of the RECEIVE/KICK OFF/DEFER choice by the coin toss winner. :lol:

 

It’s funny how I only learned about the THREE choices just a few years ago.

 

The coin flip winner can elect to Receive the kickoff, Defer their decision until the 3rd quarter, or Kick Off (which no one does). If you elect to Kick Off, your opponent will obviously elect to Receive to begin the 3rd quarter, so you will have to Kick off again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An epic showdown like that should not have been decided by a coin toss.

 

The game was not decided by a coin toss.

 

 

Obviously, but the coin toss plays a HUGE factor. I think both teams should get a possession, now more than ever :)

 

Have you seen the thread I made about NFL overtime games in 2021?

 

5 teams out of 22. FIVE teams that won the coin toss won the game on their 1st possession. 17 times out of 22, the kicking team stopped them on their 1st possession.

 

But just because an epic playoff game happens to go to OT, people want the rules changed.

 

The NFL is for grown men and highly-trained professionals. The defense is just as responsible for winning the game as the offense.

Go out on the field and STOP the Chiefs from scoring. If you don't, you lose.

Check your own thread. In the playoffs, when quality teams are competing, winners of the coin toss are 10 and 1, with seven of those ten being one-possession winners.

 

The numbers suggest you might as well just toss the coin and call it done, and avoid risk of injury.

 

And the next several OT games in the playoffs could have few or no 1st possession winners.

 

Teams should man up and stop the other team from scoring. If you can do it in the regular season, then you can do it in the post-season. If you’re a real Super Bowl contender, then prove it. You’re the best of the best. Go out there and stop the other team from scoring.

 

You don’t change the rules of the game in the playoffs just because it’s the playoffs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An epic showdown like that should not have been decided by a coin toss.

 

The game was not decided by a coin toss.

 

 

Obviously, but the coin toss plays a HUGE factor. I think both teams should get a possession, now more than ever :)

 

I would argue not being able to stop a post touchback team from scoring a TD in :13 is just as huge a factor.

Why didn't the Bills short kick the kickoff? That would have burned 4-5 seconds. I am guessing they thought 13 seconds was not enough time for anyone - even Mahomes - to score.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An epic showdown like that should not have been decided by a coin toss.

 

The game was not decided by a coin toss.

 

 

Obviously, but the coin toss plays a HUGE factor. I think both teams should get a possession, now more than ever :)

 

I would argue not being able to stop a post touchback team from scoring a TD in :13 is just as huge a factor.

Why didn't the Bills short kick the kickoff? That would have burned 4-5 seconds. I am guessing they thought 13 seconds was not enough time for anyone - even Mahomes - to score.

 

That and wanting to not cede field position Im guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI, Andy Reid who obviously won the game based on the current rules, came out yesterday in favor of a rule change for OT. He said he thinks both teams should play offense and defense. He made no suggestion as to how to proceed from there should both teams still be tied.

I would suggest if something like that is adopted, teams should always be required to go for 2 after any TD in OT as a starting point.

Edited by driventotheedge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great pigskin weekend and year! Buffalo was gassed on D. The coin toss might have decided the outcome.

Pretty certain it did.

 

 

 

Then - do you kick it into end zone or squib it...

 

3. The outcry for revising NFL overtime: Chiefs brought it forward four years ago and it got NO support. In an age where frame by frame exactitude is applied throughout a game, essentially ending a game like last night's with a coin toss seems bizarrely unsophisticated.

 

I think there will be a rule change after last night. An epic showdown like that should not have been decided by a coin toss. Both teams should get a possession.

 

Missed that second sentence. yes, Im cool with that.

 

Then duke it out.. one possesion each?

 

Yes I think so, at least in the playoffs. Since both defenses are gasses by the time they get to OT it only seems fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I can't at the moment remember the name of the soccer theorist who said that the perfect match must end 0-0 because only that scoreline shows no mistakes (except maybe the forwards who couldn't score?).

 

"Fairness" is a troublesome standard, but isn't there general agreement that "everybody gets a turn" an accepted standard? Maybe defense is a turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

This is why professional sports leagues and their rules of play must be kept at a higher level than those of college and high school leagues.

 

In college and high school leagues, the rules of play have been changed to give teams more opportunities to not lose. Give the weaker team another chance, another possession, keep the game going.... People argue for more "fairness" in the game, but in my opinion, the goal is actually to avoid losing, because losing the game makes you a LOSER. We should never even suggest that the team deserved to lose. That would hurt their feelings.

 

The concepts of We earned the victory and especially We deserved to lose are crucial to the pro leagues.

Professionally trained adult athletes have no problem with "We deserved to lose". They know that it's part of the game.

 

In the NFL and all other pro leagues, the level of play is supposed to be unmatched by any other league.

When you're the best of the best, you have no excuses for losing a game.

When you don't play well enough to win, you lose. Admit it, learn from it, and get ready for the next game.

Edited by Principled Man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

This is why professional sports leagues and their rules of play must be kept at a higher level than those of college and high school leagues.

 

In college and high school leagues, the rules of play have been changed to give teams more opportunities to not lose. Give the weaker team another chance, another possession, keep the game going.... People argue for more "fairness" in the game, but in my opinion, the goal is actually to avoid losing, because losing the game makes you a LOSER. We should never even suggest that the team deserved to lose. That would hurt their feelings.

 

The concepts of We earned the victory and especially We deserved to lose are crucial to the pro leagues.

Professionally trained adult athletes have no problem with "We deserved to lose". They know that it's part of the game.

 

In the NFL and all other pro leagues, the level of play is supposed to be unmatched by any other league.

When you're the best of the best, you have no excuses for losing a game. When you don't play well enough to win, you lose. Admit it, learn from it, and get ready for the next game.

 

As someone else pointed out when you have the best defense in the league and you give up that many yards in 13 seconds it's not going to work out well for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great pigskin weekend and year! Buffalo was gassed on D. The coin toss might have decided the outcome.

Pretty certain it did.

 

 

 

Then - do you kick it into end zone or squib it...

 

3. The outcry for revising NFL overtime: Chiefs brought it forward four years ago and it got NO support. In an age where frame by frame exactitude is applied throughout a game, essentially ending a game like last night's with a coin toss seems bizarrely unsophisticated.

 

I think there will be a rule change after last night. An epic showdown like that should not have been decided by a coin toss. Both teams should get a possession.

 

Missed that second sentence. yes, Im cool with that.

 

Then duke it out.. one possesion each?

 

Yes I think so, at least in the playoffs. Since both defenses are gasses by the time they get to OT it only seems fair.

That last point is important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

 

What I don't like is the apparent mentality that the offense = the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

Edited by goose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green Bay, WI: The Packers' negotiations with unrestricted free agents Allen Lazard and Marquez Valdes-Scantling have not begun very well.

 

The team balked at the two wide receivers' demand that the clause: "Aaron, stop throwing it to Adams all the time!" be put into the contract.

 

 

;)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose. I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose. I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

I think we agree that simpler is better. But if you're going to hold up the TD in overtime as more fair, I think both teams at least deserve a shot. But LABT's stats show that "raising" the bar to a TD hasn't lessened the advantage of the coin toss, so I would ask what's the point of it.

 

In general, I dislike the over-analysis that has crept into the game, frame-by-frame definition of ball possession or being down in particular. Simpler is better, imo, coupled with a healthy acceptance of the imperfections and injustice inherent to human competition.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose. I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

I think we agree that simpler is better. But if you're going to hold up the TD in overtime as more fair, I think both teams at least deserve a shot. But LABT's stats show that "raising" the bar to a TD hasn't lessened the advantage of the coin toss, so I would ask what's the point of it.

 

In general, I dislike the over-analysis that has crept into the game, frame-by-frame definition of ball possession or being down in particular. Simpler is better, imo, coupled with a healthy acceptance of the imperfections and injustice inherent to human competition.

 

Interesting stat I found that while the current system produces lopsided results in the playoffs, it's pretty neutral in the regular season:

 

Strangely enough, the numbers are significantly different when regular-season games are included. Of the 163 total overtime games since the rule change, teams that won the coin toss have won 86 times and tied 10 times.

 

https://www.si.com/n...ss-chiefs-bills

 

This is a concept that extends far beyond sports, but, in general, I think it's better NOT to change the rules right after you think they got in your way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose. I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

I think we agree that simpler is better. But if you're going to hold up the TD in overtime as more fair, I think both teams at least deserve a shot. But LABT's stats show that "raising" the bar to a TD hasn't lessened the advantage of the coin toss, so I would ask what's the point of it.

 

In general, I dislike the over-analysis that has crept into the game, frame-by-frame definition of ball possession or being down in particular. Simpler is better, imo, coupled with a healthy acceptance of the imperfections and injustice inherent to human competition.

 

Interesting stat I found that while the current system produces lopsided results in the playoffs, it's pretty neutral in the regular season:

 

Strangely enough, the numbers are significantly different when regular-season games are included. Of the 163 total overtime games since the rule change, teams that won the coin toss have won 86 times and tied 10 times.

 

https://www.si.com/n...ss-chiefs-bills

 

This is a concept that extends far beyond sports, but, in general, I think it's better NOT to change the rules right after you think they got in your way.

That getting the ball first isn't a big advantage for mediocre or bad teams isn't surprising. That it is a huge advantage for playoff-quality teams isn't surprising either. But I agree, there's a lot of other things you can do to make sure you don't get into overtime. That solves a lot of problems.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As screwed up as this regular season was, it's led to a stellar post-season. The off-season will be interesting as well.

 

 

So, if the Garappolo-led Niners get to the Super Bowl, do you keep him for next year or trade him at what should be an enhanced value?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against changing the rules. The game isn't won on a coin toss now. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the other team gets the ball. If a defense can't keep the other team out of the end zone on one possession, they deserve to lose the game.

 

People are raving about how great the Bills-Chiefs game was, and I agree the ending was "exciting," But, personally, I view that outcome the same way I would view an 11-9 baseball game or a 7-5 hockey game. The defenses played like garbage for the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

I agree with not changing the rules.

I'd prefer the old rule of whoever scores first wins to what it is now.

 

But that comes closer to turning on a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss takes the ball, and just has to get in field goal range, which now is usually north of 50 yards. At least now if you hold them to a field goal, you get the ball with a chance to win or extend the game.

So play defense and stop them.

 

Or take care of business in regulation. But the data show clearly that in a playoff situation scoring a touchdown in overtime is not a high bar.

 

You're working my side of the street. That's MY position. If you can't keep them out of the end zone just 1 time, you deserve to lose.I'm just saying that the current system is more indulgent of the kicking team than sudden death.

Who is you? The team that defends first, or the team that defends second? The FAIR thing to do is allow both teams to have a chance to score. The only reason they don't is for time and the fact some say safety. If both teams score TDs on their 1st possession they should have a FG shoot off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...