papazoid Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 eliminate sudden death.....overtime in the playoffs should be for a specific period of time, sufficient for at least each team to have one possession....say like 10 minutes. i could care less what they do in the regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsguy Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Someone should have explained to Ralph the rule change will have nothing to do with him. The Bills would have to MAKE the playoffs first for it to have any effect. Â Â Excellent post. Â BTW, why do the Bills and Cincinnati seem to vote against everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggins Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 eliminate sudden death.....overtime in the playoffs should be for a specific period of time, sufficient for at least each team to have one possession....say like 10 minutes. i could care less what they do in the regular season. This is the correct opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I don't like the new rules and here's why. Say the team that receives the kickoff drives down and does kick a FG. Now the other team gets the ball and guess what, they go for it on every 4th down. Even if the defense stops them on 3 downs inside the 20, they would go for it on 4th. Never happens in a real game. changes the whole dynamic of the game for OT. Don't like it. .... Â I think it makes things very interesting. Do you kick the FG or go for it for the TD? I dont think it changes the dynamic of the game at all. A whole lot less than 2 point conversions. Â Watching a 16+ game season end on a coin toss and a fluky pass interference call without getting a possession is maddening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Excellent post. BTW, why do the Bills and Cincinnati seem to vote against everything?  It's easier to say, "I told you so" later.  Frankly, RW is a traditionalist. He's one of the forefathers of the league; he probably doesn't like much change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Then that team goes 3 and out and has to punt from their endzone. How is that fair? Â There's no perfect solution. At least in my proposal, they have a chance to move the ball and get a first down. If you want to move it up to the 15 or the 20, fine, but I think the general approach is simple and as fair as OT can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I think it makes things very interesting. Do you kick the FG or go for it for the TD? I dont think it changes the dynamic of the game at all. A whole lot less than 2 point conversions. Â Watching a 16+ game season end on a coin toss and a fluky pass interference call without getting a possession is maddening Throwing an interception across your body in enemy territory late in the 4th quarter is maddening. Having your RB fumble several times in a playoff game is maddening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Throwing an interception across your body in enemy territory late in the 4th quarter is maddening. Having your RB fumble several times in a playoff game is maddening. Â so if they won the coin flip and scored... then the OT rules would not have done justice? Â Didnt San Diego or Indy lose a game the same way in OT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dokken Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I'm all for the change in theory, but how does it make sense to apply different rules to the playoffs than to the regular season? What the NFL passed today makes a game in late January qualitatively different from a game in late October. The new OT rules ought to be applied to every game equally or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Someone should have explained to Ralph the rule change will have nothing to do with him. The Bills would have to MAKE the playoffs first for it to have any effect. Hahaha. First thing I thought of, too. Maybe the Bills should have abstained?  Add: upon further review, it wasn't even Ralph's call -- according to Tim, GAILEY made the decision. http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/...te-on-ot-change  Bills general manager Buddy Nix told reporters Monday he was in favor of the change, but after discussing it with Gailey, the organization reached a consensus. "I'm speaking for him and I shouldn't be, but he didn't like the rules changing when you go into the playoffs," Nix said. "They should be the same, but now your strategies are different.  "It's not that big a deal, but since it passed, we'll go by the rules."  Nix allowed Gailey to determine the vote because the coach has to abide by the rules, not the scouts or business administrators.  "If it's a decision that involves the game and playing, then I think the coach should make it," Nix said. "To me, he's the guy that's got to deal with it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I'm all for the change in theory, but how does it make sense to apply different rules to the playoffs than to the regular season? What the NFL passed today makes a game in late January qualitatively different from a game in late October. The new OT rules ought to be applied to every game equally or not at all. OT rules were already different between regular season and playoffs, though. Obviously, no ties in the playoffs ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Question: what about onside kicks? If you get a chance to match a FG drive (but not a TD drive), what is to stop teams from onside kicking it every time to start OT now? If they get it, great. If they don't, they STILL have a chance to match so long as the other team doesn't score a TD.  I've got to imagine you wouldn't want to do that, cause the chance of the other team scoring a TD goes way up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBaroo Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I think they should change the rules - not to the college rules - nfl overtime is better because the whole field is in play. I actually like the changes but it should be the rules all year (but still allow ties in regular season) that way it still screws up McNabb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 so if they won the coin flip and scored... then the OT rules would not have done justice? Didnt San Diego or Indy lose a game the same way in OT? I wouldn't have a problem with it. I like the old rules and wish they hadn't chaged it. I also don't like the 2 point conversion and wish it had never happened. But those are the breaks.  My point was that both teams had ample time to secure a win IN REGULATION. It's gotta end sometime. It's long enough as it is.  It wasn't broke, therefore it didn't' need to be fixed.  You watch, within the next 4 or 5 years some team will win a game some other way people don't like and they'll have to add something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SawchukBills Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Different format = different strategy... I'm just glad they didn't adopt the college format..I think that's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I love it and just wish that it applied to regular season.......Reddog's first post made a point that I had not thought of, and now I guess the decision would be kick off if you win the coin toss, since there will be a slight advantage there. But, I think it's less of an advantage than the strategy change that happened during overtime, when I team only had to play for or defend a field goal, instead of going for a touchdown, which is what you do the rest of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellDressed Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 SI_PeterKing  Buff, Minn, Balt, Cin were the four no votes. http://myloc.me/59Gzl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Why not just outlaw kicking field goals in OT then...I don't know...sounds like they are messing with something that doesn't really have to be messed with...who cares really...go to college OT if it's that big an issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 instead of going for a touchdown, which is what you do the rest of the game. Really? I wonder if anyone told DJ that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I think even Dick would rather have a touchdown than a field goal. Yale taught 7 > 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts