2021 NFL Season Thread: LA Rams are the Champions

[The Lonious Monk]

Seen a debate on ESPN over the NFL OT rules. I've never liked the idea of both teams not having perform on both sides of the ball. That said, it's not that hard to come up with something more fair and easier than current OT. They could really just do something like a shoot-out.

Put the offense of Team A and defense of Team B on the 10 yd line of one side of the field and the offense of Team B and the defense of Team A on the 10 yd line of the other side of field. Let one team run an offensive play and try to get a TD, and then let the other team run an offensive play and try to get a TD. That's one round. The game is over when one team is able to score in a round and the other one doesn't.

That would be completely fair. It takes the coin flip out of it, and it doesn't favor any type of team in particular. On top of that, I doubt it would take more than two or three rounds at most to come to some type of resolution.

 

[AP2.5]

Seen a debate on ESPN over the NFL OT rules. I've never liked the idea of both teams not having perform on both sides of the ball. That said, it's not that hard to come up with something more fair and easier than current OT. They could really just do something like a shoot-out.

Put the offense of Team A and defense of Team B on the 10 yd line of one side of the field and the offense of Team B and the defense of Team A on the 10 yd line of the other side of field. Let one team run an offensive play and try to get a TD, and then let the other team run an offensive play and try to get a TD. That's one round. The game is over when one team is able to score in a round and the other one doesn't.

That would be completely fair. It takes the coin flip out of it, and it doesn't favor any type of team in particular. On top of that, I doubt it would take more than two or three rounds at most to come to some type of resolution.

It still amazes me how stubborn they've been about OT rules.

Like I can kinda see the rules being different for regular season vs playoffs but still, get rid of damn ties.

 

[BountyHunterRo]

I have no issues with the current OT rules

 

[Bow to Royalty]

Seen a debate on ESPN over the NFL OT rules. I've never liked the idea of both teams not having perform on both sides of the ball. That said, it's not that hard to come up with something more fair and easier than current OT. They could really just do something like a shoot-out.

Put the offense of Team A and defense of Team B on the 10 yd line of one side of the field and the offense of Team B and the defense of Team A on the 10 yd line of the other side of field. Let one team run an offensive play and try to get a TD, and then let the other team run an offensive play and try to get a TD. That's one round. The game is over when one team is able to score in a round and the other one doesn't.

That would be completely fair. It takes the coin flip out of it, and it doesn't favor any type of team in particular. On top of that, I doubt it would take more than two or three rounds at most to come to some type of resolution.

That's not a bad alternative, but honestly I'm fine with how the rules are now. People are doing too much to take defense out of football.

If a team doesn't get the ball first, and wants a shot to score... let their defense get a stop at some point.

We gotta let defenses do their job, and stop just feeding into the idea that Team A vs Team B is really QB A vs QB B.

 

[AP2.5]

I have no issues with the current OT rules

Why?

 

[Bow to Royalty]

It still amazes me how stubborn they've been about OT rules.

Like I can kinda see the rules being different for regular season vs playoffs but still, get rid of damn ties.

There's no real reason to change them except people whine about them.

 

[AP2.5]

That's not a bad alternative, but honestly I'm fine with how the rules are now. People are doing too much to take defense out of football.

If a team doesn't get the ball first, and wants a shot to score... let their defense get a stop at some point.

We gotta let defenses do their job, and stop just feeding into the idea that Team A vs Team B is really QB A vs QB B.

Using this logic, wouldn't the defense of the team that scored first have to try and stop the team that didn't win the coin toss?

 

[AP2.5]

There's no real reason to change them except people whine about them.

I disagree

 

[BountyHunterRo]

Why?

Because every time a “great game” is played in which it involves OT, people love to cry about how it’s not “fair.” All the bills had to do was hold a lead and they couldn’t. They knew the rules ahead of time. Although college footballs OT rules are better, I don’t mind the current NFL format. People just love to complain

 

[Bow to Royalty]

Using this logic, wouldn't the defense of the team that scored first have to try and stop the team that didn't win the coin toss?

Nope. I don't think every player needs to touch the field. Just like the punt/punt return team and FG/FG block team may not get to take the field in OT and everyone is cool with it.

 

[AP2.5]

Because every time a “great game” is played in which it involves OT, people love to cry about how it’s not “fair.” All the bills had to do was hold a lead and they couldn’t. They knew the rules ahead of time. Although college footballs OT rules are better, I don’t mind the current NFL format. People just love to complain

This is a very simplistic way of viewing it but I understand your position

 

[The Lonious Monk]

That's not a bad alternative, but honestly I'm fine with how the rules are now. People are doing too much to take defense out of football.

If a team doesn't get the ball first, and wants a shot to score... let their defense get a stop at some point.

We gotta let defenses do their job, and stop just feeding into the idea that Team A vs Team B is really QB A vs QB B.

That would make sense if the OT rules were do or die. In other words, Team A gets the ball -> If Team A scores, Team A wins -> If Team A is stopped, Team B wins.

However, with the way OT is now, one Team only has to score. The other team has to both stop the first team from scoring a TD and put up more points in response. In other words, one team can win by play one phase of the game. The other team has to play both phases and can lose without even getting the opportunity to try and score. That's inherently unfair. A shootout would remove that unfairness and pretty much any chance of a tie game.

 

[AP2.5]

That would make sense if the OT rules were do or die. In other words, Team A gets the ball -> If Team A scores, Team A wins -> If Team A is stopped, Team B wins.

However, with the way OT is now, one Team only has to score. The other team has to both stop the first team from scoring a TD and put up more points in response. In other words, one team can win by play one phase of the game. The other team has to play both phases and can lose without even getting the opportunity to try and score. That's inherently unfair. A shootout would remove that unfairness and pretty much any chance of a tie game.

 

[Bow to Royalty]

That would make sense if the OT rules were do or die. In other words, Team A gets the ball -> If Team A scores, Team A wins -> If Team A is stopped, Team B wins.

However, with the way OT is now, one Team only has to score. The other team has to both stop the first team from scoring a TD and put up more points in response. In other words, one team can win by play one phase of the game. The other team has to play both phases and can lose without even getting the opportunity to try and score. That's inherently unfair. A shootout would remove that unfairness and pretty much any chance of a tie game.

Even the process you described would allow for a team to win while only playing 1 phase of the game. Let's say in your scenario, on play 1 Team A throws a pick 6. Is the game not over? Even if it's not, you'd just make Team B take a knee to follow procedure. Or would a pick 6 be treated just as a failure to score like an incomplete pass?

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Even the process you described would allow for a team to win while only playing 1 phase of the game. Let's say in your scenario, on play 1 Team A throws a pick 6. Is the game not over? Even if it's not, you'd just make Team B take a knee to follow procedure. Or would a pick 6 be treated just as a failure to score like an incomplete pass?

Yes to the bold. Offense has to score, and Defense has to stop the score. The first team that is successful in both phases wins the game.

 

[Bow to Royalty]

The bold. Offense has to score, and Defense has to stop the score. The first team that is successful in both phases wins the game.

That's a terrible system then IMO. If my defense gets a pick 6, and yours forces an incomplete pass, I'm not OK with treating them as equals. One team would be ahead on the scoreboard while we continue to treat it as a tie.

This system still heavily caters to the idea of the game being QB vs QB. One defense can be forcing turnovers and scoring, but get nothing for it. Can't win until their QB wins the game for them.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

That's a terrible system then IMO. If my defense gets a pick 6, and yours forces an incomplete pass, I'm not OK with treating them as equals. One team would be ahead on the scoreboard while we continue to treat it as a tie.

This system still heavily caters to the idea of the game being QB vs QB. One defense can be forcing turnovers and scoring, but get nothing for it. Can't win until their QB wins the game for them.

That's not true at all. Your QB can't win the game for you because for a team to win OT both phases have to successfully do their job. You're looking at it like a traditional drive. We're not talking about a drive here. A pick 6 isn't even an option here. We're talking about each team basically going for a 2 pt conversion. A team can't win the game solely by getting the 2 points. The winning team has to both get the 2 points and deny the 2 points in the same round. So the QB doesn't win the game for the team any more than a linebacker that gets a sack or a corner that denies the pass. Winning has to be a complete team effort.

Also that QB vs QB stuff is just BS that you seem to be buying into. QBs don't play each other. They play defenses.

 

[Bow to Royalty]

That's not true at all. Your QB can't win the game for you because for a team to win OT both phases have to successfully do their job. You're looking at it like a traditional drive. We're not talking about a drive here. A pick 6 isn't even an option here. We're talking about each team basically going for a 2 pt conversion. A team can't win the game solely by getting the 2 points. The winning team has to both get the 2 points and deny the 2 points in the same round. So the QB doesn't win the game for the team any more than a linebacker that gets a sack or a corner that denies the pass. Winning has to be a complete team effort.

Also that QB vs QB stuff is just BS that you seem to be buying into. QBs don't play each other. They play defenses.

Last things first...QB vs QB isn't something I made up. It's how football is very very commonly talked about. It acts like it's just the QB's out there winning the game. This system feeds into that.

So Team A's offense has the ball on Team B's 10 yard line. Let's be honest... you'll mostly see passes here (or a QB run it in) since most run plays aren't designed to pick up 10 yards in a condensed field, and every play you run counts. That's just glorifying the QB. Also, you remove Team B's defense's ability to score... just because? Why is a pick 6 not an option?

People just don't give defense the respect they deserve man.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Last things first...QB vs QB isn't something I made up. It's how football is very very commonly talked about. It acts like it's just the QB's out there winning the game. This system feeds into that.

So Team A's offense has the ball on Team B's 10 yard line. Let's be honest... you'll mostly see passes here (or a QB run it in) since most run plays aren't designed to pick up 10 yards in a condensed field, and every play you run counts. That's just glorifying the QB. Also, you remove Team B's defense's ability to score... just because? Why is a pick 6 not an option?

People just don't give defense the respect they deserve man.

I didn't say you made it up. I said you're buying into it. Anybody that understands football knows that QB vs QB shit is just for promotion. It has nothing to do with the actual game.

I don't understand how you figure that I'm disrespecting the defense here. In this scenario, their job is to simply stop the score. They have to do that job, and if they do that job, they play as much a part in the win as the offense. And I just threw the 10 yd line out there. They can put it on whatever line they think will make for a more exciting scenario. If the 5 yd line will open up more offensive options without hampering the defense, then put it there.

 

[Bow to Royalty]

I didn't say you made it up. I said you're buying into it. Anybody that understands football knows that QB vs QB shit is just for promotion. It has nothing to do with the actual game.

I don't understand how you figure that I'm disrespecting the defense here. In this scenario, their job is to simply stop the score. They have to do that job, and if they do that job, they play as much a part in the win as the offense. And I just threw the 10 yd line out there. They can put it on whatever line they think will make for a more exciting scenario. If the 5 yd line will open up more offensive options without hampering the defense, then put it there.

You're disrespecting the defense by limiting how much they can contribute. You're taking away their ability to score, and limiting their ability to win the game. Basically saying scoring is a privilege that only goes to the offense.

Let's say in Possession 1 Team A's offense throws an incomplete pass. Then when Team B is on offense, Team A scores a pick 6...Team A should win. I don't understand why you don't see minimizing that defensive accomplishment as disrespectful to the defense.

This idea also removes special teams from the game completely. I don't see why eliminating special teams from OT altogether, and handcuffing the defense is seen as a big improvement in the current system.