NFL 2019 Thread

[monkeyman576]

I noticed they didn't show the last eagles 4th down play for some reason in the eagles Seahawks game

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

As a Panther fan, I enjoy watching the Saints lose. But I'll repeat myself: Both teams not getting the ball in OT is not fair. I loathe the NFL's OT rules. I despise them. Especially for the playoffs. You work all year, fight tooth and nail for 60 minutes, and it almost comes down to a 50-50 call at the end of regulation. And if you are the home team, you don't even have a say in that. You have to hope the opponent calls heads & it lands tails. I hate it.

They could also just not give up a 40 yard bomb. Defense is part of the game too.

If the NFL kept all the OT rules the same and forced the offense to start at the 10 instead of a kick-off then it favors the defense. Even now going second in college OT is just as big of an advantage from winning the toss.

[ForeverRoyalKC]

I had a hard time with OPI in the Vikings win. I didnt care who won so I have no bias. They were both getting handsy. There might have been extension of the arm by Rudolph, but it didnt seem to me he really got power into it. Maybe a bit of leverage, but that's it.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dkgo

They could also just not give up a 40 yard bomb. Defense is part of the game too.

If the NFL kept all the OT rules the same and forced the offense to start at the 10 instead of a kick-off then it favors the defense. Even now going second in college OT is just as big of an advantage from winning the toss.

I don't want the to adopt the college rules. Just play another quarter.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

The question is though, will they be able to retool enough for Brady to be successful next year? There's a lot of retooling necessary. Would Brady want to go through a year just a little bit better than this year?

Through the draft and free agency they could easily improve beyond just a little. Their only glaring weakness is at WR. They have no one except that rookie and an aging Edelman. Remember, they won a SB with Amendola, Edelman, and Hogan. So they don't need much.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

It's officially official - He's gone - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...-cowboys-coach

Thank God!

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I don't want the to adopt the college rules. Just play another quarter.

It's hard to do OT in the NFL without getting into gimmicks. They could play another quarter, but what if that ends up in a tie?

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

But there is skill in a defense stopping the other team from scoring.

Granted but shouldn't the other defense show proof of there skill of stopping a team scoring, I can't think of any sport were if it goes into an extra part of a game were both teams/players dont have the same chance of winning. Golf, football (soccer), hockey, basketball, baseball none are dependant on the toss of a coin.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Let's not focus on just Clowney. Let us also put the refs in the scope. We have seen way too often benign hits and simple tackles on the QB called as personal fouls. When I saw the hit Wentz took live, I immediately thought it was excessive. Then when NBC finally got around to focusing on it, I could see on the replay that it was clearly a textbook flag. But the zebras, who are supposed to be focusing on player safety, who are supposed to be protecting the QB from excessive rough play, completely missed it.

It is highly frustrating to see refs change results, momentum, and the flow of the game throughout the season due to over-cautiousness, then when the games matter most, miss the obvious.

Considering all of the phantom calls they make, I'm not sure how they missed that. Clowney speared him in the back of the head. You could see it at full speed.

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Granted but shouldn't the other defense show proof of there skill of stopping a team scoring, I can't think of any sport were if it goes into an extra part of a game were both teams/players dont have the same chance of winning. Golf, football (soccer), hockey, basketball, baseball none are dependant on the toss of a coin.

You can't because football is unique in that each team has two teams playing two different games. It's not a back and forth between the same players. So in OT you can't satisfy everyone and still maintain the integrity of the game. You'd have to resort to a gimmick like they do in college.

Since the rule change for OT in the NFL, is there a stat somewhere that shows how many times the winner of the coin toss won in OT?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

It's hard to do OT in the NFL without getting into gimmicks. They could play another quarter, but what if that ends up in a tie?

Then play another quarter. In hockey you play another period. In baseball you play another inning. In basketball you play another period.

And another thing about something said earlier.....I hate the "well they could have stopped them" argument. If we did the same in baseball, would we think, "well the pitcher didn't have to give up a run in the top of the inning"? Why is that OK in football? All other sports give the other team an equal chance to score.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Granted but shouldn't the other defense show proof of there skill of stopping a team scoring, 1) I can't think of any sport were if it goes into an extra part of a game were both teams/players dont have the same chance of winning. 2) Golf, football (soccer), hockey, basketball, baseball none are dependant on the toss of a coin.

1) Both teams have the exact same chance of getting the ball to start OT.

2) Of those sports though, baseball is the only one that has a structured flip between offense and defense and that's out of necessity based on the structure of the game. There is no requirement in football that both teams must have the ball other than at the beginning and middle of the game. A team could use up an entire half trying to score if it wanted to and that would be completely fair.

In the others, offense and defense are intermingled. One of the best ways to win in those situations is to prevent the other team from being on offense as much as it wants. Same idea with the defensive team in football. Don't want to lose? Shut down the other team's offense and get possession of the ball.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Then play another quarter. In hockey you play another period. In baseball you play another inning. In basketball you play another period.

And another thing about something said earlier.....I hate the "well they could have stopped them" argument. If we did the same in baseball, would we think, "well the pitcher didn't have to give up a run in the top of the inning"? Why is that OK in football? All other sports give the other team an equal chance to score.

If you play another quarter it's still an advantage to get the ball first because you have an extra possession.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...le-is-tweaked/

"In the NFL, 52.7 percent of teams winning the overtime coin toss (and receiving) win the game at some point in overtime, according to Ross Tucker of SiriusXM NFL Radio. In college football, the team that wins the coin toss (and defers) wins 54.9 percent of the time."

52.7 percent seems pretty damn close to fair. People actually think college football is more fair because "both teams get a chance" which just shows people are idiots and their feelings are a terrible judge of reality.

[dkgo]

The best idea even though it wouldn't happen is to let the teams bid on starting field position and whoever is willing to take the ball closest to their goalline gets to be on offense.

Would you be willing to start overtime on your own 1 with the current rules to win? Probably some stupid people would. The breaking point is probably around the 10 to 15 I would expect

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dkgo

The best idea even though it wouldn't happen is to let the teams bid on starting field position and whoever is willing to take the ball closest to their goalline gets to be on offense.

Would you be willing to start overtime on your own 1 with the current rules to win? Probably some stupid people would. The breaking point is probably around the 10 to 15 I would expect

I'm not for gimmicks. What you are proposing is little better than having the captains stand at midfield and go rock, paper, scissors. Baseball, NHL playoffs & basketball just play the game as it was played in regulation. Just add on extra time.

And I'm not seeking to eliminate any advantage. Just lessening the huge advantage of winning a coin toss that could potentially prevent a team from having the ball. I'm not demanding perfection. I just want fairness and a "purer" way of deciding a winner.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Then play another quarter. In hockey you play another period. In baseball you play another inning. In basketball you play another period.

And another thing about something said earlier.....I hate the "well they could have stopped them" argument. If we did the same in baseball, would we think, "well the pitcher didn't have to give up a run in the top of the inning"? Why is that OK in football? All other sports give the other team an equal chance to score.

That's pretty much the only way. A somewhat shortened quarter like they do in basketball. And just keep going I guess. But for me personally, I never had a problem with the way they did OT. Even before the changes. It just never mattered to me.

Originally Posted by cephasjames

There is no requirement in football that both teams must have the ball other than at the beginning and middle of the game. A team could use up an entire half trying to score if it wanted to and that would be completely fair.

There is no requirement that both teams have the ball in that situation either. The same team can have the ball to start both halves.

Just curious. What if the NBA did first score wins in overtime. Is that ok in your opinion?

[pilight]

NHL playoff overtimes are also sudden death

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

NHL playoff overtimes are also sudden death

And each team has a chance to handle the puck. Even if a team scored off the face off, the loser still had a chance to win the puck when it was dropped.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

And I'm not seeking to eliminate any advantage. Just lessening the huge advantage of winning a coin toss that could potentially prevent a team from having the ball. I'm not demanding perfection. I just want fairness and a "purer" way of deciding a winner.

Before the coin toss, the teams are equally favored to get the ball. After the coin toss, the team winning the coin toss only has a 5% better chance of winning than the team not winning the coin toss. That's not a "huge advantage." It isn't a sure-fire thing, or even close to one, that the coin-toss-winning team is going to win.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

There is no requirement that both teams have the ball in that situation either. The same team can have the ball to start both halves.

That's true. I forgot about that.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I'm not for gimmicks. What you are proposing is little better than having the captains stand at midfield and go rock, paper, scissors. Baseball, NHL playoffs & basketball just play the game as it was played in regulation. Just add on extra time.

And I'm not seeking to eliminate any advantage. Just lessening the huge advantage of winning a coin toss that could potentially prevent a team from having the ball. I'm not demanding perfection. I just want fairness and a "purer" way of deciding a winner.

OK but those sports are all fundamentally different than football. You can't use the same solution. "Just add extra time" makes the coin toss more important and simply doesn't work well given the possession structure of football since the team with the ball has so much control over the clock.

[ezpkns34]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

And each team has a chance to handle the puck. Even if a team scored off the face off, the loser still had a chance to win the puck when it was dropped.

So the ideal solution for you would seem to be putting the ball at midfield and have a scrum to see which team secures the ball and they begin OT

[damientheomen3]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...nt/2823446001/

Mike McCarthy is a Cowboy.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Just curious. What if the NBA did first score wins in overtime. Is that ok in your opinion?

Is this directed at me? Or generally?

I would be, yes. 1) Because there's a jump ball so both teams have a chance to score first. 2) Because getting the ball first doesn't guarantee a win.

The physical structure of the playing area and the ease at which teams score in basketball would make this a silly way to do it though. It's easy to score points in basketball. It's not easy in football.