mrags Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Punters have a job for a reason...because offenses get stopped often...doesn't have to be an amazing defense, just one that can stop someone My point is that unless you have an absolutely sick defense like the 00' Ravens, you are at an advantage to get the ball first because the offense usually does the scoring. I cant think of any team that would chose to kick in OT because they have a better defense. They take the ball because the first team to score wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I absolutely can't stand college football OT. To me that's not real football. Yeah its such a gimmick to generate false excitement. Its seems like something they would do in a video game or the XFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 And if it's tied at the end of the 5th 'quarter'? I prefer the idea of having them set the game clock to 5:00, and play until time expires. Coin toss determines who kicks off/receives for the 1st OT period. If it's still tied at the end of 5:00, you play another 5:00 period, but at that point, you start alternating who kicks off/receives (like the 3rd quarter). This is similar to the NBA, and look how exciting some of these playoff games have been this year that have gone into multiple overtimes! And it is still "football", with the same importance given to offense, defense, and special teams. GO BILLS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I absolutely can't stand college football OT. To me that's not real football. I love the OT system in college. It's part of what makes the whole game! But I wouldn't want to see it in the NFL. I think they should just go to Sudden Death after the second possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Punters have a job for a reason...because offenses get stopped often...doesn't have to be an amazing defense, just one that can stop someone IMO, anything that takes away the desire to score a TD over a FG ruins the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach55 Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 The only problem I have with over time is the fact that a teams offense could never touch the ball. The only thing I would change is that if the team who wins the coin toss and or receives first scores on the opening possession than the team who kicked should get one possession to tie it up or win. Once both teams have taken an offensive snap than it goes into sudden death. The only real compliant I see with the NFL Europe equal possession system is that we could see a lot of ties and over times that take forever. For TV purposes the NFL does not want to see that happen. So I think a good compromise to the two would be the each gets at least one offensive possession. Than once each team has been given a shot to score its whoever scores first wins. Its more fair yet it won't take as long as the NFL Europe system. I don't like the concept of both teams being required to touch the ball. By allowing both teams to be required to touch the ball, you eliminate the sudden death concept. Football is the only true "team" sport, where there are players who play who never touch the ball and every player has a specific role and thus you are only as strong as your weakest player. Unlike other team sports where a strong player can carry a weak team around him. (A good pitcher, strong shooting guard, good goalie, etc). Your defense/special teams will need to perform to get the ball back, not rules. If both teams score on their first touch, do they both get the ball at least 2 times? The format doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I don't like the concept of both teams being required to touch the ball. By allowing both teams to be required to touch the ball, you eliminate the sudden death concept. Football is the only true "team" sport, where there are players who play who never touch the ball and every player has a specific role and thus you are only as strong as your weakest player. Unlike other team sports where a strong player can carry a weak team around him. (A good pitcher, strong shooting guard, good goalie, etc). Your defense/special teams will need to perform to get the ball back, not rules. If both teams score on their first touch, do they both get the ball at least 2 times? The format doesn't work. Well if two teams score first than it becomes sudden death the next team that scores wins. Lets say you kick a field goal and than the other team kicks a field goal than you come back and kick a field goal you win. At least in that system you were given the opportunity to win by scoring a touchdown. And yeah it still gives the winner of the coin toss an advantage but at least the advantage is lessened. As for your true team sport well if thats the case than why is almost half of each team never allowed to step on the field if a team kicks a field goal or scores a touchdown on their first possession? Shouldn't you let a team have both sides of the ball step up to win a game. I am not saying that it would be perfect but it would be better than what is currently in place and still give the owners a somewhat short overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 It's an elegant solution for a problem that never existed in the 1st place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Here's the system I would propose...it might seem crazy, but it's actually pretty strategically nuanced. It's still sudden death. First there's a coin flip. The winner decides if they want to kick or receive. But here's the difference...On offense, you aren't allowed to try for a field goal and you aren't allowed to punt. So if you win the toss and choose to receive, you run the risk of going 4 and out and giving the other team possession on your own 20 yard line. If you choose to kick, you might be giving the game away BUT if you trust your defense to make a few plays, you might be giving yourself the aforementioned field position. Again, first team to score a touchdown wins, and each possession is either the game winning TD or a turnover on downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Eliminate field goals in overtime, force a team to score a touchdown. It would be more exciting. Make it so that the team that receives in OT has to score a TD to win. After the first possession, a FG can win it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaSnow Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I prefer the idea of having them set the game clock to 5:00, and play until time expires. Coin toss determines who kicks off/receives for the 1st OT period. If it's still tied at the end of 5:00, you play another 5:00 period, but at that point, you start alternating who kicks off/receives (like the 3rd quarter). This is similar to the NBA, and look how exciting some of these playoff games have been this year that have gone into multiple overtimes! And it is still "football", with the same importance given to offense, defense, and special teams. GO BILLS! This idea makes a lot of sense. I can't figure out why more people aren't in favor of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Here's the system I would propose...it might seem crazy, but it's actually pretty strategically nuanced. It's still sudden death. First there's a coin flip. The winner decides if they want to kick or receive. But here's the difference...On offense, you aren't allowed to try for a field goal and you aren't allowed to punt. So if you win the toss and choose to receive, you run the risk of going 4 and out and giving the other team possession on your own 20 yard line. If you choose to kick, you might be giving the game away BUT if you trust your defense to make a few plays, you might be giving yourself the aforementioned field position. Again, first team to score a touchdown wins, and each possession is either the game winning TD or a turnover on downs. Seems like way too much of a gimmick to me. Its way to far removed from the way the game is played during regulation. Also you slant the game heavily towards the team that plays on defense in that they can't punt or go for a field goal. The ideal overtime situation is NFL Europe but the owners never want the games to go that long. I just don't want to see the football version of the shootout in that its not the accurate way to decide the winner. In hockey its OK because they don't play that way in the playoffs and you can't have games go forever during the regular season. In football you could have a more accurate overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 That's the only change that should be made. To all the people bitching that teams who win the coin toss seem to win too much, I have this to say. The other team should try playing defense...either on the kickoff by actually covering the kick (or even an onside kick) or by trying to actually stop the opposing offense. It's a team game and if your defense and special teams aren't contributing, you don't deserve to win Well, if 5 stinikin' yards if this crucial to the outcome of a game, then why the hell do the Bills continue to carry Lindell on the roster? The guy does not have a strong leg. I REALLY want to see the Bills bring in several kickers to challenge for Lindell's roster spot. He's a weak link on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 I absolutely can't stand college football OT. To me that's not real football. Ditto. I'm sure a FG kicking contest or having the QBs throw footballs through a tire would be 'exciting' too but it would be just as much of a sham as the terrible system they put in the college game. I'd rather they go back to the days of ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 i think they should play for at least 10 minutes until the clock expires. no sudden death. five minutes is too short. ten minutes pretty much insures both teams will get at least one possession each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 The broadcasters won't stand for that... neither will the NFLPA who will refuse it based on the additional chances its players could face career threatening injuries during this extra time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 The broadcasters won't stand for that... Unfortunately, nobody will stand for that (players, TV, owners, coaches league...) Too bad, as that might make teams think twice about settling for a tie in regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtrain351209 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 The simple solution, at least in my mind, is first team to score six points wins. This eliminates the argument that you only have to run a few plays to get in field goal range, as is the case in sudden death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts